[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
PRESIDENT BIDEN'S FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET REQUEST: AGENCY POLICIES AND 
                      PERSPECTIVES (PARTS 1 AND 2)

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

                                (117-21)

                            REMOTE HEARINGS

                               BEFORE THE

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                    WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
                           AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                    THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 2021 (Part 1)
                   WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 2021 (Part 2)

                               __________

                       Printed for the use of the
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure



                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



     Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
     transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
                             transportation





                                 ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

49-385 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2022












             COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                    PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,               SAM GRAVES, Missouri
  District of Columbia               DON YOUNG, Alaska
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, 
RICK LARSEN, Washington                  Arkansas
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California      BOB GIBBS, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey              THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
JOHN GARAMENDI, California           SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,      RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
    Georgia                          JOHN KATKO, New York
ANDRE CARSON, Indiana                BRIAN BABIN, Texas
DINA TITUS, Nevada                   GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York       DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
JARED HUFFMAN, California            MIKE BOST, Illinois
JULIA BROWNLEY, California           RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas
FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida         DOUG LaMALFA, California
DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey     BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California        BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
MARK DeSAULNIER, California          MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts      BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California        JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland             Puerto Rico
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey           TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
GREG STANTON, Arizona                PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas               TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas, Vice Chair   DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois   JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York            MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire          TROY E. NEHLS, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             NANCY MACE, South Carolina
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts          NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts      BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia           CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii              MICHELLE STEEL, California
MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana


            Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment

                 GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Chair

JARED HUFFMAN, California            DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JOHN GARAMENDI, California           JOHN KATKO, New York
ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California        BRIAN BABIN, Texas
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey           GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York            MIKE BOST, Illinois
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire          RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas
CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia,          DOUG LaMALFA, California
  Vice Chair                         BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida         BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California        JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,
GREG STANTON, Arizona                  Puerto Rico
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,               NANCY MACE, South Carolina
  District of Columbia               SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio)
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex 
    Officio)







                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Thursday, June 24, 2021, Part 1..................     1

Summary of Subject Matter........................................     2

                 STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of California, and Chair, Subcommittee on Water Resources 
  and Environment, opening statement.............................    12
    Prepared statement...........................................    14
Hon. David Rouzer, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  North Carolina, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water 
  Resources and Environment, opening statement...................    15
    Prepared statement...........................................    16
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and 
  Infrastructure, opening statement..............................    17
    Prepared statement...........................................    19
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
  Infrastructure, prepared statement.............................   101

                               WITNESSES

Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
  Civil Works, Department of the Army, oral statement............    21
    Prepared statement...........................................    23
Lieutenant General Scott A. Spellmon, Chief of Engineers and 
  Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, oral 
  statement......................................................    25
    Prepared statement...........................................    27
Jeffrey J. Lyash, President and Chief Executive Officer, 
  Tennessee Valley Authority, oral statement.....................    29
    Prepared statement...........................................    30
Daniel Avila, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Sector of the 
  International Boundary and Water Commission, oral statement....    38
    Prepared statement...........................................    39

                       SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Article entitled, ``Atmospheric Progression of Microcystin-LR 
  from Cyanobacterial Aerosol,'' Submitted for the Record by Hon. 
  Brian J. Mast..................................................    56
Local Resolutions from Huntington Beach, Seal Beach, and Newport 
  Beach, California; Support Letters; and Photos from the July 
  2020 Newport Beach Flood, Submitted for the Record by Hon. 
  Michelle Steel.................................................    75

                                APPENDIX

Questions to both Lieutenant General Scott A. Spellmon, Chief of 
  Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
  and Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army 
  for Civil Works, Department of the Army, from:
    Hon. David Rouzer............................................   103
    Hon. Greg Stanton............................................   110
    Hon. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon................................   110
    Hon. Michael Guest...........................................   112
    Hon. Garret Graves...........................................   113
Questions to Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting Assistant Secretary of the 
  Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army, from:
    Hon. John Garamendi..........................................   116
    Hon. Michelle Steel..........................................   117
    Hon. Michael Guest...........................................   118
Questions to Lieutenant General Scott A. Spellmon, Chief of 
  Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
  from:
    Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, on behalf of Hon. Conor Lamb.......   118
    Hon. John Garamendi..........................................   119
    Hon. Michael Guest...........................................   119
Questions to Jeffrey J. Lyash, President and Chief Executive 
  Officer, Tennessee Valley Authority, from:
    Hon. David Rouzer............................................   120
    Hon. Michael Guest...........................................   121
Questions to Daniel Avila, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Sector of 
  the International Boundary and Water Commission, from:
    Hon. Grace F. Napolitano.....................................   122
    Hon. David Rouzer............................................   123

                              ----------                              

Hearing held on Wednesday, July 14, 2021, Part 2.................   125

Summary of Subject Matter........................................   126

                 STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of California, and Chair, Subcommittee on Water Resources 
  and Environment, opening statement.............................   136
    Prepared statement...........................................   137
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and 
  Infrastructure, prepared statement.............................   138
Hon. David Rouzer, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  North Carolina, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water 
  Resources and Environment, opening statement...................   139
    Prepared statement...........................................   141
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
  Infrastructure, prepared statement.............................   199

                               WITNESSES

Hon. Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. 
  Environmental Protection Agency, oral statement................   147
    Prepared statement...........................................   148
Nicole R. LeBoeuf, Acting Assistant Administrator, National Ocean 
  Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, oral 
  statement......................................................   150
    Prepared statement...........................................   152
Terry J. Cosby, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 
  U.S. Department of Agriculture, oral statement.................   160
    Prepared statement...........................................   162
Patrick N. Breysse, Ph.D., CIH, Director, National Center for 
  Environmental Health and Agency for Toxic Substances and 
  Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, oral statement...   165
    Prepared statement...........................................   167
Craig H. Middlebrook, Deputy Administrator, Great Lakes St. 
  Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, U.S. Department of 
  Transportation, oral statement.................................   171
    Prepared statement...........................................   173

                       SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Letter of June 25, 2021, to Hon. Michael Regan, Administrator, 
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Jaime Pinkham, Acting 
  Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Department of 
  the Army, Submitted for the Record by Hon. David Rouzer........   142

                                APPENDIX

Questions to Hon. Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator, Office of 
  Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, from:
    Hon. David Rouzer............................................   201
    Hon. Salud O. Carbajal.......................................   208
    Hon. Greg Stanton............................................   208
Questions to Terry J. Cosby, Chief, Natural Resources 
  Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, from:
    Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................   209
    Hon. Greg Stanton............................................   209






PRESIDENT BIDEN'S FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET REQUEST: AGENCY POLICIES AND 
                         PERSPECTIVES (PART 1)

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
   Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:06 a.m. in 
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon. 
Grace F. Napolitano (Chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present in person: Mr. Huffman, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. 
Carbajal, Mr. Rouzer, Mr. Webster, Dr. Babin, Mr. Graves of 
Louisiana, Mr. Bost, Mr. Weber, Mr. Westerman, Mr. Mast, and 
Mr. Nehls.
    Members present remotely: Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. 
Johnson of Texas, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. Malinowski, Mr. Delgado, 
Ms. Bourdeaux, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Norton, 
Mr. Cohen, Mr. Brown, Mr. Katko, Mr. LaMalfa, Miss Gonzalez-
Colon, and Mrs. Steel.



         [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                             June 21, 2021
    SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

    TO:       Members, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
    FROM:   Staff, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
    RE:       Subcommittee Hearing on ``President Biden's Fiscal Year 
2022 Budget Request: Agency Policies and Perspectives (Parts I and 
II)''
_______________________________________________________________________

                                PURPOSE
    On Thursday, June 24, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. EDT, the Subcommittee on 
Water Resources and Environment will hold a hearing in the Rayburn 
House Office Building, Room 2167, and via Zoom, to receive testimony 
related to ``President Biden's Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Request: Agency 
Policies and Perspectives (Part I)''. The Subcommittee will hold a 
second hearing on July 14, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. EDT, in the Rayburn 
House Office Building, Room 2167, and via Zoom, to continue to receive 
testimony from the remaining federal agencies under the jurisdiction of 
the Subcommittee related to the President's fiscal year (FY) 2022 
budget request.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``President Biden's Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Request: Agency 
Policies and Perspectives (Part II)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The purpose of these hearings is to provide members with an 
opportunity to review the FY 2022 budget request and the 
administration's program priorities for the authorities under the 
jurisdiction of the Subcommittee.
    At the first hearing, the Subcommittee will hear testimony from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Tennessee Valley Authority 
(TVA), and the U.S. Sector of the International Boundary and Water 
Commission (IBWC) within the Department of State. At the second 
hearing, the Subcommittee will hear testimony from the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway 
Development Corporation (GLS), the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
(USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the Agency for 
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) at the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

    The administration's FY 2022 budget request for the EPA 
totals $11.241 billion, including $5.130 billion for State and 
Tribal Assistance Grants, $3.427 billion for Environmental 
Programs and Management, and $1.533 billion for the Hazardous 
Substance Superfund program. The FY 2022 budget request is 
$1.968 billion more than the FY 2021 enacted budget for the 
EPA.

                                      Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \2\
                                                  (in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Diff. of FY 2022
                                                                                  FY 2022    Pres. Budget and FY
                Program                    FY 2021       FY 2022 Authorized     President's      2021 Enacted
                                           Enacted                                 Budget   --------------------
                                                                                                 $          %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science and Technology.................      $729.3  No Authorization.........       $830.0     $100.6     13.8%
Environmental Programs and Management..     2,761.6  No Authorization.........      3,427.5      665.9     24.1%
State and Tribal Assistance Grants.....     4,313.9  No Authorization.........      5,130.0      816.1  18.9%631
                                                                                                               2
  Clean Water SRF \1\..................     1,638.8  No Authorization.........      1,870.7      231.9     14.1%
  Drinking Water SRF \1\...............     1,126.1  No Authorization.........      1,357.9      231.8  20.6%660
                                                                                                               4
Water Infrastructure Finance and               65.0  No Authorization.........         80.1       15.1     23.3%
 Innovation Program (WIFIA) Account.
Hazardous Substance Superfund..........     1,205.8  No Authorization.........      1,533.8      328.0     27.2%
EPA Office of Inspector General........        43.5  No Authorization.........         54.3       10.8     24.9%
Other \2\..............................       154.1  No Authorization.........        185.5       31.5     20.4%
                                        ------------                           ---------------------------------
  Total................................    $9,273.1                               $11,241.3   $1,968.2     21.2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) program includes several grant programs other than the SRFs.
\2\ This number is the sum of the following EPA line items:
   Building and Facilities (B&F)--$33.8 million (FY21 enacted) to $62.8 million (FY22 request);
   Inland Oil Spill Program--$20.1 million (FY21 enacted) to $22.4 million (FY22 request);
   Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST)--$92.2 million (FY21 enacted) to $92.4 million (FY22
  request); and
   E-Manifest--$8.0 million (FY21 enacted) & (FY22 request).

CLEAN\\ WATER
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-05/
documents/fy-2022-epa-bib.pdf; see also https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2021-05/documents/fy-2022-congressional-justification-
all-tabs.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has 
jurisdiction over programs aimed at protecting the nation's 
water quality. The EPA, through its own programs and in 
partnership with states and tribes, seeks to improve water 
quality in rivers, lakes, and coastal waters through investment 
in wastewater infrastructure, water quality standards, 
permitting programs, water quality monitoring, wetlands 
protection, and research, among other activities. The EPA's 
Office of Water operates the EPA's water quality protection 
programs.
    Clean Water State Revolving Fund: The FY 2022 budget 
request proposes $1.870 billion in federal capitalization 
grants for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Clean Water 
SRF), which is $231.9 million more than the FY 2021 enacted 
level. The Clean Water SRF is the primary federal program for 
funding wastewater infrastructure projects and activities 
throughout the nation. Clean Water SRF funds are used for 
capitalization grants for state clean water infrastructure 
programs, which, in turn, fund locally developed wastewater 
infrastructure projects and activities.
    In previous Congresses and the current Congress, the 
subcommittee held numerous hearings on financing water 
infrastructure projects. These hearings examined the growing 
funding gap that now exists between wastewater infrastructure 
needs and current levels of spending, the challenges facing 
low-income and rural communities in affording wastewater 
infrastructure investment, and the resiliency needs of our 
nation's water infrastructure. In June 2021, the Committee 
ordered H.R. 1915, the Water Quality Protection and Job 
Creation Act of 2021, as amended, favorably reported to the 
House of Representatives by a bipartisan vote of 42-25; this 
legislation would reauthorize the Clean Water SRF and other 
wastewater infrastructure grant programs for an additional five 
years.
    Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program 
(WIFIA): Authorized by the Water Resources Reform and 
Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA, P.L. 113-121), the WIFIA 
program provides low-interest federal loans or loan guarantees 
to eligible entities for a wide range of nationally and 
regionally significant water and wastewater projects. The most 
recent authorization level (FY 2021) for the WIFIA program was 
$50 million; however, the WIFIA program is not authorized for 
FY 2022. The President's budget request for FY 2022 is $80.1 
million for the WIFIA program, while the FY 2021 appropriated 
level was $65 million.
    Environmental Programs and Management (EPM): This account 
provides funds for internal programmatic activities. The 
President's budget request would increase funding for the EPM 
account by $665.9 million (24.1 percent) from the FY 2021 
appropriated level of $2.761 billion to $3.4 billion.
    Geographic (Regional) Programs: The EPA's regional programs 
provide an opportunity to target regionally specific 
environmental problems and to work closely with state and local 
partners. The FY 2022 budget request increases funding for the 
EPA's Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) to $340 million 
(+$10 million), the Chesapeake Bay Program to $90.5 million 
(+$3 million), Gulf of Mexico to $22.4 million (+$2.4 million), 
Lake Champlain to $20 million ($+5 million), San Francisco Bay 
to $12 million (+$3 million), Long Island Sound to $40 million 
($9.6 million), Puget Sound to $35 million- (+$1.25 million), 
and Lake Pontchartrain programs to $1.73 million (+$295,000).
    Additionally, the administration proposes a $141,000 
funding increase for the National Estuaries Program from the FY 
2021 enacted level of $31.82 million (section 320 of the Clean 
Water Act) to $31.9 million.
    [NOTE: On June 15, 2021, the House of Representatives 
passed under suspension three Clean Water regional program 
bills from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
including legislation to authorize federal appropriations for 
the Puget Sound (H.R. 1144), the San Francisco Bay (H.R. 610), 
and the Lake Pontchartrain Basin (H.R. 1921) programs. The EPA 
regional programs are funded from the EPA's EPM account.]
    State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG): This account 
provides categorical grants to states and tribes as part of the 
cooperative partnership between federal government, states, and 
tribes. The President's budget request would increase funding 
for the State and Tribal Assistance Grants account from the FY 
2021 appropriated level of $4.313 billion by $816.1 million 
(18.9 percent) to $5.1 billion. [NOTE: On June 15, 2021, the 
House of Representatives passed under suspension H.R. 2008 to 
reauthorize federal appropriations for EPA's non-point source 
pollution grant program (section 319), which is funded from the 
STAG account.]
    The President's FY 2022 budget request would provide $234.6 
million in grants to states to establish and maintain state 
water pollution control programs under section 106 of the Clean 
Water Act. This is a $4.6 million increase from the FY 2021 
appropriated level of $230 million. Section 106 funding is used 
by individual states to carry out state clean water programs, 
including Clean Water Act permitting, monitoring, and 
enforcement.

SUPERFUND AND BROWNFIELDS

    Superfund Program: The Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, P.L. 96-510) 
established the Superfund program in 1980. The EPA's Office of 
Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) runs the Superfund 
program. Superfund is the federal program established to clean 
up the nation's uncontrolled and/or abandoned hazardous waste 
sites. The law makes designated responsible parties pay for the 
hazardous waste cleanups wherever possible and provides for a 
hazardous substances trust fund, commonly referred to as the 
Superfund, to pay for remedial cleanups in cases where 
responsible parties cannot be found or otherwise be held 
accountable. Superfund is also available for responding to 
emergency situations involving the release of hazardous 
substances. The EPA addresses the highest priority sites by 
listing them on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). 
The administration's FY 2022 budget request provides $1,533.8 
billion for the Superfund program, a $328 million increase from 
the FY 2021 appropriated level of $1.205 billion.
    Brownfields: Brownfields consist of properties for which 
the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be complicated by 
the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, 
pollutant, or contaminant. These sites can consist, for 
example, of former industrial properties, gas stations, or dry 
cleaners. The EPA established the Brownfields Initiative in 
1995 to better enable the federal government, states, and 
communities to work together to address, cleanup, and reuse 
brownfields sites. The Small Business Liability Relief and 
Brownfields Revitalization Act (P. L. 107-118) authorized 
funding for the EPA to award brownfields assessment, cleanup, 
and revolving loan fund grants, as well as provided limited 
Superfund liability protections for certain innocent landowners 
and bona fide prospective purchasers. The EPA's OLEM manages 
the Brownfields program.
    The President's FY 2022 budget request would provide 
$201.374 million for the EPA's brownfields program, including 
$130.982 million in site assessment and cleanup grants (STAG 
account); $46.195 million for authorized state brownfields 
programs (STAG account); and $24.197 million for the EPA's 
management of the Brownfields program (EPM account). Of all the 
brownfields-related activity included in the President's 
budget, the account that funds actual, on-the-ground, 
brownfields site assessment and remediation activities proposes 
funding at $130.9 million, which would be a $40.0 million 
increase from the FY 2021 level. In the 115th Congress, the 
Brownfields Utilization, Investment, and Local Development Act 
(P. L. 115-141) included an authorization of $200 million for 
FY 2022 for this specific purpose.

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (CORPS)

    The Corps studies, constructs, operates, and maintains 
water resources development projects for the nation, usually 
through cost-shared partnerships with non-federal sponsors. 
Authorized mission activities include navigation, flood 
control, shoreline protection, hydropower, dam safety, water 
supply, recreation, environmental restoration and protection, 
and disaster response and recovery.

                                      Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \3\
                                                  (in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Diff. of FY 2022
                                                                                  FY 2022    Pres. Budget and FY
                Program                    FY 2021       FY 2022 Authorized     President's      2021 Enacted
                                           Enacted                                 Budget   --------------------
                                                                                                 $          %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigations.........................      $153.0  No Authorization.........       $105.8     -$47.2    -30.8%
Construction...........................     2,692.6  No Authorization.........      1,792.4     -900.3    -33.4%
Operation and Maintenance..............     3,849.7  No Authorization.........      2,502.9   -1,346.8    -35.0%
[Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund] \1\....         n/a  No Authorization.........     $1,625.9          -         -
Regulatory.............................       210.0  No Authorization.........        204.4       -5.6     -2.6%
Expenses...............................       206.0  No Authorization.........        199.3       -6.7     -3.3%
Office of the Assistant Secretary of            5.0  No Authorization.........          5.0        0.0      0.0%
 the Army.
Mississippi River and Tributaries (MRT)       380.0  No Authorization.........       $269.7     -110.3    -29.0%
Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF).....       113.0  No Authorization.........        52.15     -60.85    -53.8%
FUSRAP.................................       250.0  No Authorization.........  [250.0] \2\          -         -
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies          35.0  No Authorization.........         35.0        0.0      0.0%
 (FCCE).
                                        ------------                           ---------------------------------
  Total................................    $7,894.3                             $6,792.5 \3   -1,101.8    -13.9%
                                                                                          \
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The President's budget distinguishes between Operation and Maintenance expenditures for non-navigation
  projects and O&M expenditures utilizing Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund expenditures. When compared with the FY
  2021 appropriated levels for O&M activities ($3.849 billion), the FY 2022 President's budget allocates a total
  of $4.295 billion for O&M activities, for an increase of $446 million (or 11.58 percent).
\2\ Funds for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) program are included in the FY22
  budget request under the Department of Energy's Office of Legacy Management, but would still be performed by
  the Corps). If such funds were included in the FY22 budget request for the Corps, the total request would be
  $7.042 billion, which would be a decrease of $875 million (-10.8%) from the FY21 enacted level.

    The\\ water resources development projects and programs of 
the Corps support vital economic and environmental needs of 
this nation. These projects provide for continued economic 
growth, job creation, and economic stability while protecting 
human lives and property, ensuring reliable waterborne 
transportation of goods, and restoring valuable natural 
resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See Fiscal Year 2022, Civil Works Budget of the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers, accessed at https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/
collection/p16021coll6/id/42
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The administration's FY 2022 request for the Corps of 
$6.793 billion would be a reduction of $1.101 billion from the 
FY 2021 enacted level for the agency.

                 Sources of Appropriations for FY 2022:
General Fund..............................  $5.067 billion
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.............  $1.625 billion
Special Recreation User Fees..............  $47 million
Inland Waterways Trust Fund...............  $52.15 million
 

    Investigations: The President's budget request would 
provide a total of $113 million for the Investigations program, 
consisting of $105.8 million from the Investigations account 
and $7.1 million from the Mississippi River and Tributaries 
account. This program funds studies to determine the need, 
feasibility, and economic and environmental benefits of 
potential water resources projects. The investigations account 
is used to fund the study of potential projects related to 
river and harbor navigation, flood control, shore protection, 
environmental restoration, and related purposes. This account 
also funds the restudy of authorized projects, miscellaneous 
investigations, and plans and specifications of projects prior 
to construction.
    The budget focuses on ongoing work and on promoting efforts 
to provide local communities with technical and planning 
assistance to enable them to reduce their flood risk, with 
emphasis on non-structural approaches. The budget would include 
$29 million for technical and planning assistance programs that 
will help local communities identify and address their risks 
associated with climate change, $17 million for research and 
development, $4 million to complete dredged material management 
plans necessary to enable the disposal of dredged material from 
seven Great Lakes projects and two Mississippi River projects 
over the next 20-25 years, and $1 million to incorporate 
climate resilience into planning and policy guidance for how 
the Corps formulates future projects.
    The budget requests funding to initiate seven new studies: 
Central and Southern Florida Flood Resiliency Study, FL (flood 
and storm damage reduction); Boise River, Garden City, Ada 
County, ID (flood and storm damage reduction); Great Lakes 
Coastal Resiliency Study, IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, PA, NY, & WI 
(flood and storm damage reduction); Spring Creek South, Jamaica 
Bay (Howard Beach), Queens, NY (aquatic ecosystem restoration); 
Little Narragansett Bay, RI (navigation); Waccamaw River, Horry 
County, SC (flood and storm damage reduction); and Little Goose 
Creek, Sheridan, WY (aquatic ecosystem restoration).\4\ The 
budget also requests funding to complete 15 ongoing studies.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See id.
    \5\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Construction: The Construction account would provide $1.889 
billion for the construction of Corps projects, consisting of 
$1.792 from the Construction Account, $63.7 million from the 
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF), and $32.6 million from 
the Mississippi River and Tributaries account. The budget 
includes requests for four construction new starts, including: 
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, Three Rivers, 
AR (navigation); West Sacramento, CA (flood and storm damage 
reduction); Anacostia Watershed Restoration, Prince George's 
County, MD (aquatic ecosystem restoration); and Norfolk Harbor 
and Channels, VA (Deepening) (navigation).\6\ The budget also 
proposes sufficient funding to complete construction of four 
ongoing projects.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ See id.
    \7\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 2022 budget would include $350 million for the South 
Florida Ecosystem Restoration (SFER) (Everglades) program, a 
$100 million increase, or forty percent, from the 2021 enacted 
level. SFER funding was also included in the administration's 
infrastructure proposal, the American Jobs Plan.\8\ Taken 
together, a robust amount of funding is proposed for SFER, 
enabling significant progress on ecosystem restoration. In an 
effort to improve the resilience of the nation's ports and 
waterways, the plan would also include $2 billion over five 
years to cover the federal share of coastal navigation 
construction projects and $780 million to cover 65 percent of 
the cost to complete construction of on-going capital 
improvement projects and major rehabilitation of existing 
inland navigation construction projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/
2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The budget proposes modifying the performance criteria for 
projects funded on the basis of their economic return to the 
nation, by lowering the threshold benefit-to-cost ratio (BCR) 
(previously at 2.5 to 1) to 2.0 to 1 or greater at a seven 
percent discount rate.
    Operation and Maintenance (O&M): The President's budget 
would provide a total of $4.295 billion for the O&M program, 
consisting of $2.503 billion from the O&M account, $1,557 
billion from the HMTF, and $235.3 million from the Mississippi 
River and Tributaries Account.
    The budget would provide $75 million to advance near-term 
climate resilience efforts by specifically targeting operation 
and maintenance activities that are focused on improving 
climate resilience and/or sustainability at existing Corps-
owned projects, $60 million for work needed to mitigate for 
adverse impacts from existing Corps-owned projects, $20 million 
to improve cybersecurity at existing Corps-owned projects, and 
$13 million to complete major rehabilitation studies at six 
inland waterway locks and dams projects. These funds will be 
used in addition to the $2 billion over five years proposed in 
the American Jobs Plan for the maintenance and repair of 
existing navigation channels and navigation locks and dams on 
the nation's inland waterways that support commercial 
navigation.
    Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF): The President's 
budget proposes to spend $1.626 billion from the HMTF for 
eligible projects and activities with an emphasis on operation 
and maintenance, including dredging, of completed projects, the 
highest amount ever proposed in a President's budget since 
enactment of the HMTF in 1986. The budget requests $787 million 
to address the top 50 U.S. coastal ports across the nation, 
which handle around 90 percent of the waterborne cargo that is 
shipped to or from the United States. The budget also requests 
$252 million for operation and maintenance of Great Lakes-
projects, $58 million for projects that support access by 
Native American tribes to their legally recognized historic 
fishing areas, and $63 million for five construction projects 
that will accommodate disposal of material dredged from coastal 
navigation projects. The budget also highlights funding in the 
American Jobs Plan that proposes an additional investment of 
$2.8 billion over five years for activities in coastal ports 
that are HMTF eligible.
    Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T): The President's 
budget request includes a total of $275 million, consisting of 
$269.688 million from the Mississippi River and Tributaries 
account and $5.312 million from the HMTF, for ongoing work in 
the lower Mississippi River and its tributaries, with emphasis 
on the 1,600 miles of levees and related features on the main 
stem of the lower Mississippi River and in the Atchafalaya 
Basin.
    Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE): The 
President's budget request includes $35 million for 
preparedness and training for floods, hurricanes, and other 
natural disasters.
    Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP): 
The President's budget request proposes to transfer financial 
responsibility for FUSRAP sites back to the Department of 
Energy. NOTE: The Department of Energy budget request includes 
$250 million for management of the FUSRAP program.
    Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF): The President's budget 
request proposes to spend $52.150 million from the IWTF to 
begin construction on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River 
navigation system, Three Rivers, AR project, which will reduce 
the risk of a breach between Arkansas and White Rivers during 
high water that would likely result in a loss of navigation on 
the Mississippi River. The budget also includes $420 million in 
funding proposed in the American Jobs Plan over the next five 
years to cover 35 percent of the cost to complete construction 
of on-going capital improvement projects and major 
rehabilitation of existing inland navigation construction 
projects.
    Veteran's Curation Program and Collections Management: The 
President's budget proposal includes $6.5 million for the 
Veteran's Curation Program, which provides rehabilitation and 
training for veterans using the archaeological collections of 
the Corps.

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS)

                                      Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \9\
                                                  (in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Diff. of FY 2022
                                                    FY 2021                       FY 2022    Pres. Budget and FY
                      Program                       Enacted       FY 2022       President's      2021 Enacted
                                                                 Authorized        Budget   --------------------
                                                                                                 $          %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations.........   $175.0   Such Sums as May       $175.0        0.0       0.0
                                                                 be Necessary.
Watershed Rehabilitation Program..................     10.0  No Authorization.         10.0        0.0       0.0
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program.     50.0              $50.0        $50.0        0.0       0.0
                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------
  Total...........................................   $235.0                $50       $235.0        0.0       0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The\\ NRCS is authorized to give technical and financial 
help to local organizations planning and carrying out watershed 
projects for flood protection, agricultural water management, 
recreation, municipal and industrial water supply, and wildlife 
enhancement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-budget-
summary.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The President's budget proposes $50 million in mandatory 
funding for the Watershed Protection and Flood Program, which 
was created in the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 
115-334) through amendments to the Watershed Protection and 
Flood Prevention Act (P.L. 83-566).
    In addition, the budget proposes level funding of $175 
million for Watershed and Flood Prevention activities 
authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534) and 
the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (P.L. 
83-566). This program directs NRCS to work with localities to 
plan and install flood prevention improvements and share the 
cost for improvements in flood prevention, agricultural water 
management, recreation, and fish and wildlife development. 
Further, the FY 2022 budget proposes an increase of $10 million 
in funding under this program for small watershed operations 
authorized under P.L. 83-566. This program provides federal 
resources to small watersheds of 250,000 acres or less for both 
for technical and financial assistance of flood prevention and 
watershed projects on private land for the conservation, 
development, utilization, and disposal of water, and for the 
reduction of sediment and erosion damages.
    The President's budget highlights a proposal to increase 
funding for the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations 
program by $100 million per year (totaling $1 billion over ten 
years).
    Lastly, the President's budget proposes level funding for 
the Watershed Rehabilitation Program at $10 million for FY 
2022. This program provides financial and technical assistance 
to communities for planning and financing the rehabilitation of 
federally constructed flood prevention dams that have reached 
the end of their design lives. The program is authorized under 
Section 14 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act 
(16 U.S.C. 1012), as amended.

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)

                                     Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \10\
                                                  (in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Diff. of FY 2022
                                                                                  FY 2022    Pres. Budget and FY
                      Appropriations Account                          FY 2021   President's      2021 Enacted
                                                                      Enacted      Budget   --------------------
                                                                                                 $          %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Ocean Service (NOS)......................................      $628.2       $862.4     $234.2     37.2%
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OOAR).................       614.1        815.7      201.6     32.8%
                                                                   ---------------------------------------------
  Total \1,2\.....................................................    $1,242.3     $1,678.1     $435.8     35.1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table totals the discretionary funding for NOS and OOAR, and does not highlight accounts outside the
  jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
\2\ Total includes funding for both operations, research, and facilities, and procurement, acquisitions, and
  construction accounts.

    The\\ Subcommittee has jurisdiction over various NOAA 
programs and activities, including responsibilities under the 
Clean Water Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act 
Reauthorization Amendments (P.L. 101-508), the Marine 
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (P.L. 100-688), 
Superfund (P.L. 99-499), the Oil Pollution Act (P.L. 101-380), 
the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act 
(P.L. 104-332), the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research 
and Control Act (P.L. 105-383), and the Estuary Habitat 
Restoration and Partnership Act of 2000 (P.L. 105-457). The 
Subcommittee's jurisdictional interest in the NOS includes 
coastal water pollution and natural resource damages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/
NOAA%20FY22%20CJ.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The President's FY 2022 budget requests $815.67 million for 
discretionary funding for the OOAR, $201.58 million more than 
the FY 2021 enacted level of $614.09 million.
    The President's FY 2022 budget requests $862.4 million for 
discretionary funding for the NOS, $234.2 million more than the 
FY 2021 enacted level of $628.2 million. The National Coastal 
Zone Management (CZM) Program is part of the NOS.
    The FY 2022 request includes level the following:
     LCoastal Zone Management Grants ($108.5 million) 
within the CZM Program. These grants support actions of states 
and other grantees authorized under the Coastal Zone Management 
Act (CZMA). Some of this work supports section 6217 of the 
Coastal Zone Reauthorization Amendments Act for controlling 
coastal non-point pollution. The CZM Program is a voluntary 
partnership between the federal government and coastal states, 
Great Lakes states, and territories to address coastal issues. 
This is a $30 million increase over the FY 2021 enacted level.
     LNational Centers for Coastal Ocean Science 
(NCCOS) Competitive Research Funding Support for Ecological 
Threats ($22 million). The NCCOS competitive research program 
provides grants to academic institutions to conduct ecological 
research that advances NOAA's missions--including for algal 
blooms.
     LNational Sea Grant Program ($130 M). This program 
funds a network of 34 Sea Grant programs located in coastal 
states and territories, as well as more than 3,000 scientists, 
researchers, students, and outreach experts from more than 300 
institutions. This funding number includes the total of funds 
from the National Sea Grant College Program and Marine 
Aquaculture program.

    The President's FY 2022 budget proposes to increase funding 
for Coral Reef Restoration and Threat Abatement Initiatives by 
$10 million to $43 million. This program funds efforts to 
protect and restore coral reefs, diagnose and treat coral 
reefs, and partners with USGS in support of research and 
epidemiology of coral disease.

GREAT LAKES ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (GLS)

                                     Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \11\
                                                  (in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Diff. of FY 2022
                                                                                  FY 2022    Pres. Budget and FY
                Program                    FY 2021       FY 2022 Authorized     President's      2021 Enacted
                                           Enacted                                 Budget   --------------------
                                                                                                 $          %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................       $38.0  No Authorization.........        $37.7      -$0.3     -0.8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The\\ St. Lawrence Seaway is a 328 nautical-mile deep-draft 
waterway between the Port of Montreal and Lake Erie. It 
connects the Great Lakes with the Atlantic Ocean via the lower 
St. Lawrence River. The Seaway includes a network of 15 locks 
and connecting channels located in Canada and the United 
States. Thirteen of the locks belong to Canada and the 
remaining two locks, located in Massena, New York, belong to 
the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2021-05/
GLS-FY-2022-President-Budget-Request.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The U.S. portion of the Seaway was authorized in 1954, and 
is operated by the GLS, an agency within the DOT. The Canadian 
portion of the Seaway is operated by the Great Lakes St. 
Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, a private corporation 
established in the 1990s and owned by the nine largest Canadian 
users of the Seaway.
    The President's budget request for the GLS from the HMTF is 
$37.7 million. This would fund the daily operations and 
maintenance of the U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway 
($23.2 million) and Seaway infrastructure investment (14.5 
million).
    Operational, maintenance, and capital asset renewal needs 
for the U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway are derived 
from appropriations from the HMTF and revenues from other 
sources.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA)

                          SUMMARY OF FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See https://www.tva.com/docs/default-source/1-float/
_tva_annual_performance_
report__final_05.21.21853293c8-12c6-43e3-96e6-
5058b2d21607.pdf?sfvrsn=fb9f903_3; see also https://www.whitehouse.gov/
wp-content/uploads/2021/05/oia_fy22.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The TVA is the nation's largest government-owned wholesale 
power producer established by the Tennessee Valley Authority 
Act (16 U.S.C. 831) in 1933. TVA supplies power to nearly ten 
million people over an 80,000 square mile service area covering 
Tennessee, and parts of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North 
Carolina, Virginia, and Kentucky. In addition, TVA's non-power 
program responsibilities include the multi-purpose management 
of land and water resources throughout the Tennessee Valley.
    Initially, federal appropriations funded all TVA 
operations. Direct federal funding for the TVA power program 
ended in 1959, and appropriations for TVA's environmental 
stewardship and economic development activities were phased out 
by 1999. TVA currently receives no federal appropriations but 
operates and maintains its assets through commercial and 
residential rates, and the authority to issue federally secured 
bonds.

UNITED STATES SECTOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION 
                    (IBWC)

                                     Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \13\
                                                  (in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Diff. of FY 2022
                                                                                  FY 2022    Pres. Budget and FY
                      Appropriations Account                          FY 2021   President's          2021
                                                                      Enacted      Budget   --------------------
                                                                                                 $          %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Expenses.............................................       $49.8        $52.0        2.2      4.4%
Construction......................................................       $49.0        $46.8       -2.2     -4.4%
                                                                   ---------------------------------------------
  Total...........................................................       $98.8        $98.8        0.0       0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First\\ established in 1889, the IBWC has responsibility 
for implementing the boundary and water treaties between the 
United States and Mexico and settling issues that may arise 
along the 1,952-mile common border. The IBWC is an 
international body, composed of a United States sector and 
Mexico sector, each headed by an Engineer-Commissioner 
appointed by the respective President. The United States sector 
of the IBWC receives its policy guidance from the U.S. 
Department of State and the Mexico sector of the IBWC receives 
its policy guidance from Mexico's Secretariat of Foreign 
Relations. The U.S. IBWC is headquartered in El Paso, Texas, 
and the Mexico IBWC has its headquarters in Ciudad Juarez, 
Chihuahua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/FY-2022-
State_USAID-Congressional-Budget-Justification.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The President's budget request for U.S. IBWC Salaries and 
Expenses is $51.97 million, which is an increase of $2.2 
million over the FY 2021 enacted amount. The budget request for 
U.S. IBWC construction activities is $46.8 million, which is a 
decrease of $2.2 million from FY 2021 levels.

AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY (ATSDR)

                                     Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \14\
                                                  (in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Diff. of FY 2022
                                                                                  FY 2022    Pres. Budget and FY
                      Appropriations Account                          FY 2021   President's          2021
                                                                      Enacted      Budget   --------------------
                                                                                                 $          %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................................       $78.0        $81.8       $3.6      4.8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The\\ ATSDR is the nation's public health agency for 
chemical safety. The agency's mission is to use the best 
science, take responsive action, and provide trustworthy health 
information to prevent and mitigate harmful exposures and 
related disease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ https://www.cdc.gov/budget/documents/fy2022/FY-2022-CDC-
congressional-justification.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ATSDR was created by the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 
(P.L. 96-510), more commonly known as the Superfund law, and 
was formally organized in 1985.
    Under its CERCLA mandate, the agency's work falls into four 
functional areas: (1) protecting the public from hazardous 
exposures; (2) increasing knowledge about toxic substances; (3) 
educating health care providers and the public about toxic 
chemicals; and (4) maintaining health registries. In recent 
years, ATSDR has focused on pathways of potential exposure to 
toxic chemicals, including food, water, air, and consumer 
goods.
    The administration's FY 2022 budget request for ATSDR is 
$81.75 million, which is $3.75 million more than the FY 2021 
appropriations for the agency.

                           WITNESSES (Part I)

     LLieutenant General Scott A. Spellmon, Chief of 
Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
     LJaime A. Pinkham, Acting Assistant Secretary of 
the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army
     LJeff Lyash, President and Chief Executive 
Officer, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
     LDaniel Avila, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Sector of 
the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC)
    Mrs. Napolitano. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I call 
this hearing to order.
    Today's hearing will focus on President Biden's fiscal year 
2022 budget request and his administration's priorities for the 
upcoming year. This hearing will serve as part 1 of two 
hearings on these topics, in order to hear from multiple 
agencies in the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
    Let me begin by asking unanimous consent that the Chair be 
authorized to declare a recess at any time during today's 
hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I ask for unanimous consent that Members not on the 
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at 
today's hearing, and be permitted to ask questions.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    It is the responsibility of each Member seeking recognition 
to unmute their microphone prior to speaking, and to mute 
themselves upon the end of their 5 minutes. To avoid any 
inadvertent background noise, I request that every Member keep 
their microphone muted when not seeking recognition to speak. 
Should I hear any inadvertent noise, background noise, I will 
request that the Member please mute their microphone.
    And finally, to insert a document into the record, please 
have your staff email it to [email protected].
    Now, for my opening statement, I will tell you that today 
we will discuss the President's fiscal year 2022 budget request 
and other policy goals and objectives of the Biden 
administration.
    Let me begin by commending the Biden administration for 
restoring critical funding and respect to the agencies under 
the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, and recognizing the 
essential role that they play in addressing the critical water 
resources and human health needs of our communities.
    As we all remember, the previous administration tried to 
singlehandedly gut the expertise and authorities of Federal 
agencies, both by systematically trying to roll back 
environmental protections, as well as by slashing agencies' 
funding to prevent hard-working Federal employees from doing 
the job that we directed them to do, and that provides critical 
economic, environmental, and public health benefits to the 
American people.
    This year, it is refreshing to see that the President's 
budget request restores the funding levels that are necessary 
to accomplish the important work of all the agencies under the 
subcommittee's jurisdiction, not just Band-Aid solutions.
    This budget request would provide funding for critical Army 
Corps of Engineers projects across the country, which would 
provide communities with flood protection, water supply, and 
environmental restoration. I am pleased to see that this budget 
request includes sufficient funds to complete a dam safety 
project at Whittier Narrows Dam in California.
    For the Corps, the fiscal year 2022 budget request 
represents the largest single budget request for the Corps in 
its entire history.
    The budget also calls for the largest transfer of critical 
navigation maintenance funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
Fund. These dollars will fund operation and maintenance 
projects at our coastal ports, which strongly support all our 
economy, and keep us globally competitive. Such projects will 
be essential as we come out of COVID-19 pandemic, which had 
devastating effects on our export economy.
    The budget also maintains funding for agencies with large 
regional impacts like the International Boundary and Water 
Commission. These agencies have an important role to play--we 
don't hear much about them--in managing water supplies in the 
Southwest; and for keeping our border waters clean, safe, and 
reliable; and for implementing aspects of drought contingency 
plans with Mexico and the Western States on the Colorado River.
    At the same time, the administration is now reviewing the 
nearly 100 environmental rules that were weakened or revoked 
altogether by the previous administration. Today, I hope to 
hear your plans to correct these wrongdoings and return to the 
protection of our environment and resources, rather than the 
protection of polluters and their bottom lines.
    The reality is Americans know that protecting our waters 
creates economic growth with healthy communities and clean 
water for agriculture, for residential, and business use.
    As the administration looks at the many environmental 
protections that have been attacked over the last 4 years, 
there are certainly some priority areas for the subcommittee. 
Overall, we need to ensure the protection of our waterways and 
the availability of clean water for every community.
    For example, I was heartened to hear that the Biden 
administration proposes to replace the ``dirty water rule,'' 
which was the single largest rollback in clean water 
protections in the history of the Clean Water Act. However, I 
do remain concerned that every day the ``dirty water rule'' 
remains in place, additional waters--including seasonal rivers, 
streams in the West, and wetlands across the country--are being 
polluted, degraded, or destroyed.
    We will also need to address rules which fail to protect 
children from toxic chemicals, such as the coal ash storage 
rule and the steam electric effluent guidelines rules. These 
weakened rules will have a devastating impact on families near 
facilities that produce such toxic pollution in communities of 
color, even beyond them.
    We also need to address rules which failed to give 
communities a voice or choice in highly impactful projects. 
Whether the project is pipelines that may cut through the 
entire communities, or open-pit mines that threaten their 
natural resources or way of life, we cannot leave minority, 
rural, or Tribal voices out of the conversation.
    Today, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on your 
budget priorities and learning how you are planning to restore 
your offices to their sworn duties and missions that were so 
neglected over the last 4 years.
    [Mrs. Napolitano's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
  Prepared Statement of Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in 
Congress from the State of California, and Chair, Subcommittee on Water 
                       Resources and Environment
    Today, we will discuss the president's fiscal year 2022 budget 
request and other policy goals and objectives of the Biden 
administration.
    Let me start by commending the Biden administration for restoring 
critical funding and respect to the agencies under the jurisdiction of 
this Subcommittee and recognizing the essential role that these 
agencies play in addressing the critical water resources and human 
health needs of our communities.
    As we all remember, the previous administration tried to 
singlehandedly gut the expertise and authorities of Federal agencies, 
both by systematically trying to roll-back environmental protections, 
as well as by slashing agency funding to prevent hard working federal 
employees from doing the job that we directed them to do, and that 
provides critical economic, environmental, and public health benefits 
to the American people.
    This year, it is refreshing to see that President Biden's budget 
request restores the funding levels that are necessary to accomplish 
the important work of all the agencies under this subcommittee's 
jurisdiction.
    This request would provide funding for critical Army Corps of 
Engineers projects across the country, which will provide communities 
with flood protection, water supply, and environmental restoration. I 
am pleased to see this request includes sufficient funds to complete a 
dam safety project at Whittier Narrows.
    For the Corps, the fiscal year 2022 budget request represents the 
largest single budget request for the Corps in its history.
    The budget also calls for the largest transfer of critical 
navigation maintenance funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 
These dollars will fund operation and maintenance projects at our 
coastal ports which strongly support our economy and keep us globally 
competitive. Such projects will be essential as we come out of the 
COVID-19 pandemic which had devastating impacts on our export economy.
    The budget request also maintains funding for agencies with large 
regional impacts, like the International Boundary and Water Commission. 
These agencies have an important role to play in managing water 
supplies in the Southwest, for keeping our border waters clean, safe, 
and reliable, and for implementing aspects of drought contingency plans 
with Mexico and Western states on the Colorado River.
    At the same time, the administration is now reviewing the nearly 
100 environmental rules that were weakened or revoked altogether by the 
previous administration. Today, I hope to hear your plans to correct 
these wrongdoings and return to the protection of our environment and 
resources, rather than the protection of polluters and their bottom 
lines.
    The reality is Americans know that protecting our waters creates 
economic growth with healthy communities and clean water for 
residential and business use.
    As the Administration looks at the many environmental protections 
that have been attacked over the last four years, there are certainly 
some priority areas for this subcommittee. Overall, we need to ensure 
the protection of our waterways and the availability of clean water for 
every community.
    For example, I was heartened to hear that the Biden administration 
proposes to replace the Dirty Water Rule--which was the single largest 
rollback in clean water protections in the history of the Clean Water 
Act. However, I remain concerned that every day the Dirty Water Rule 
remains in place, additional waters (including seasonal rivers and 
streams in the West and wetlands across the country) are being 
polluted, degraded, or destroyed.
    We will also need to address rules which failed to protect children 
from toxic chemicals, such as the Coal Ash Storage Rule and the Steam 
Electric effluent guidelines rule. These weakened rules will have 
devastating impacts on families near facilities that produce such toxic 
pollution, and communities even beyond them.
    We also need to address rules which failed to give communities a 
voice or choice in highly impactful projects. Whether the project is 
pipelines that may cut through entire communities, or open-pit mines 
that threaten their natural resources or way of life, we cannot leave 
minority, rural, or tribal voices out of the conversation.
    Today, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on your budget 
priorities and learning how you are planning to restore your offices to 
their sworn duties and mission areas that were so neglected over the 
past four years.

    Mrs. Napolitano. At this time I am pleased to yield to my 
colleague, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Rouzer, 
for any thoughts he may have.
    Mr. Rouzer. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you 
holding this hearing, and I would like to, of course, thank our 
witnesses for being with us today, too.
    And I might add that I hope we can get back to a day when 
we are all here in the committee, including our panelists. In 
fact, I think it is past time to get back to that. That was my 
editorial comment.
    A little different viewpoint on things, as compared to the 
chairman's remarks, today's hearing will focus on the 
President's fiscal year 2022 budget proposal for the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the 
U.S. Sector of the International Boundary and Water Commission 
within the Department of State.
    First, I am going to start with Army Corps, and I 
appreciate that we have representation from both the Corps and 
its political leadership at the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
    You both know how important the Corps projects are around 
the country, and, certainly, my district is no different. The 
beaches in my district rely on Army Corps maintenance to 
protect life, property, and our critical tourism economy in the 
event of a natural disaster. Our beaches in New Hanover County 
specifically have benefitted from regular Army Corps 
maintenance. These projects require continued and consistent 
funding.
    However, I am concerned with the administration's proposed 
budget, in part because of its lack of dedication to 
undertaking and completing projects like this. Overall, the 
President's budget proposes cutting Corps funding by more than 
10 percent, a reduction of almost $800 million. Now, I think we 
are all certainly of the mind that--or at least most of us--
that the Federal Government needs to undergo a little fiscal 
belt-tightening. But the Corps' Civil Works budget is not what 
needs to be cut.
    Evidently, this current administration doesn't feel the 
need for fiscal restraint elsewhere, in fact, particularly in 
light of some of its other enormous spending proposals. 
President Biden's $6 trillion budget plan, proposing a level of 
relative spending not seen since World War II, is not exactly 
the picture of fiscal restraint. So the fact that this 
administration has proposed increasing spending in nearly every 
aspect of the Federal Government, but then would cut the Corps 
budget by 10 percent defies logic, common sense, and everything 
else, especially when considering the tremendous backlog of 
projects.
    An administration proposes a budget to show Congress and 
the American people what its priorities are. What is it Speaker 
Pelosi always says? Show me your budget, and I will show you 
your priorities. Well, look here. Based on this budget, it 
would appear that President Biden is talking out of both sides 
of his mouth: on the one hand, talking about spending lavishly, 
supposedly for infrastructure, but on the other hand, putting 
the extremely important infrastructure projects that the Corps 
is responsible for as a very low priority. How else do you read 
it?
    While on the subject of the Army Corps, I need to take a 
moment to discuss the announcement from 2 weeks ago that the 
administration is yet again going to reconsider the definition 
of ``waters of the U.S.,'' or WOTUS, as we call it, for 
purposes of the Clean Water Act. While not a surprise to hear 
that this administration is proposing to take this action, it 
is no less a disappointment.
    I understand that no new regulation has been issued yet, 
not even an official proposal. However, the system we have in 
place now, it works. It is fair to our Nation's farmers, 
ranchers, businesses, city planners, and everyone else.
    A return to anything close to the 2015 WOTUS rule would be 
a failure, and the regulatory burden placed on average 
Americans and the effect on the economy would be highly 
detrimental. As I said a couple of weeks ago, no bureaucrat in 
Washington should be able to dictate what our farm families, 
small businesses, local governments, and citizens do on their 
property after a significant rainfall.
    Now, aside from the representatives of the Corps, we also 
have folks here from two other important entities: the 
Tennessee Valley Authority and the International Boundary and 
Water Commission. TVA has not taken any Federal funds since 
1999, which is certainly a rarity among entities created by 
Congress. However, that does not mean that TVA doesn't face 
challenges in performing its mission. In fact, I look forward 
to hearing about what TVA needs to be able to most effectively 
and cost-efficiently achieve its missions, including that of 
delivering crucial electricity to its customers.
    And finally, I look forward to hearing from the 
International Boundary and Water Commission and the challenges 
it faces as it implements the boundary and water treaties 
between the United States and Mexico and resolves differences 
they may have.
    Again, Madam Chair, thank you for holding this hearing, and 
I want to thank our witnesses. I yield back.
    [Mr. Rouzer's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Hon. David Rouzer, a Representative in Congress 
 from the State of North Carolina, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
                    Water Resources and Environment
    Thank you, Chair Napolitano. I appreciate you holding this hearing, 
and I would also like to thank our witnesses for being here today. I 
might add that I hope we can get back to a day when we are all here in 
the Committee, including our panelists. In fact, I think it's past time 
to get back to that.
    As noted, today's hearing will focus on the President's Fiscal Year 
2022 budget proposal for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the 
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and the U.S. Sector of the 
International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) within the 
Department of State.
    Let's start with the Army Corps of Engineers.
    I am appreciative that we have representation from both the Corps 
itself and its political leadership at the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. You both know how important the 
Corps' projects are around the country, and my district is no 
different.
    The beaches in my district rely on Army Corps maintenance to 
protect life, property, and our critical tourism economy in the event 
of a natural disaster. Our beaches in New Hanover County specifically 
have benefitted from regular Army Corps maintenance. These projects 
require continued and consistent funding.
    However, I'm concerned with the Administration's proposed budget in 
part because of its lack of dedication to undertaking and completing 
projects like this. Overall, President Biden's budget proposes cutting 
Corps funding by more than 10 percent--a reduction of almost $800 
million.
    Now, I am certainly of the mind that the federal government needs 
to undergo some fiscal belt-tightening. But the Corps' Civil Works 
budget is not what needs to be cut.
    Evidently, this current administration doesn't feel the need for 
fiscal restraint elsewhere in fact. Particularly in light of some of 
its other enormous spending proposals. President Biden's $6 trillion 
budget plan, proposing a level of relative spending not seen since 
World War II, is not exactly a picture of fiscal restraint. So, the 
fact that this administration has proposed increasing spending in 
nearly every aspect of the federal government, but then would cut the 
Corps budget by 10% defies logic, common sense, and everything else. 
Especially when considering the tremendous backlog of projects.
    An administration proposes a budget to show Congress and the 
American people what its priorities are. Based on this budget, it would 
appear that President Biden is talking out of both sides of his mouth--
on the one hand talking about spending lavishly supposedly for 
``infrastructure,'' but on the other hand putting the extremely 
important infrastructure projects that the Corps is responsible for as 
a very low priority.
    While on the subject of the Army Corps, I need to take a moment to 
discuss the announcement from two weeks ago that the Administration is, 
yet again, going to reconsider the definition of ``Waters of the United 
States'' (or ``WOTUS'') for purposes of the Clean Water Act.
    While not a surprise to hear that this administration is proposing 
to take this action, it is no less a disappointment. I understand that 
no new regulation has been issued yet--not even an official proposal. 
However, the system we have in place now works--it is fair to our 
nation's farmers, ranchers, businesses, city planners, and anyone else.
    A return to anything close to the 2015 WOTUS rule would be a 
failure, and the regulatory burden placed on average Americans and the 
effect on the economy would be highly detrimental. As I said two weeks 
ago, no bureaucrat in Washington should be able to dictate what our 
farm families, small businesses, local governments, and citizens do on 
their property after a significant rainfall.
    Now, aside from representatives of the Corps, we also have folks 
here from two other important entities: the Tennessee Valley Authority 
(TVA) and the International Boundary and Waters Commission (IBWC).
    TVA has not taken any federal funds since 1999, which is certainly 
a rarity among entities created by Congress. However, that does not 
mean that TVA doesn't face challenges in performing its mission. In 
fact, I look forward to hearing about what TVA needs to be able to most 
effectively and cost-efficiently achieve its missions, including that 
of delivering crucial electricity to its customers.
    Finally, I look forward to hearing from the IBWC and the challenges 
it faces as it implements the boundary and water treaties between the 
United States and Mexico and resolves differences that may arise.

    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Rouzer. At this time I am 
pleased to yield to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. 
DeFazio, for any thoughts he may have.
    Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Madam Chair. I am pleased to have the 
Corps and the other entities before us today to talk about 
protecting the environment, investing in science, and putting 
real money toward our crumbling infrastructure.
    I would just slightly correct the ranking member's 
statement. It is the highest submission ever. It is $2 billion 
over what Trump asked for. It is the highest submission ever by 
a President. All Presidents have played this game forever. They 
know Congress is going to add in more money, but this is the 
highest starting point we have ever had. So I am certain we 
will top the numbers of last year, particularly after 25 years 
of effort that have unlocked the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 
And we will see the results of that.
    In fact, I was talking to an Appropriations Committee 
subcommittee chair yesterday about $400 million unallocated 
from the unlocked Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund that won't 
count against our allocations, and I am hoping to see all of 
that money spent to begin to deal with our backlog.
    I wanted to spend the money more quickly. I had to 
negotiate with the Republican-run Senate, two committees. The 
first committee, we worked it out. We were going to spend the 
money in 5 years. Then Senator Shelby got involved. Because the 
Senate is so dysfunctional, they couldn't pass or even bring up 
a bill that passed the House unanimously. And Senator Shelby 
said, ``No, no, no, we are not going to spend that money in 5 
years. Ten years.'' So, you know, that is how we got to this 
point.
    But it is the highest ever submission by a President. So 
let's see the record corrected on that.
    It does restore significant funding levels to programs with 
community-level impacts, such as flood protection, resiliency 
to climate change, sea level rise, severe weather events, and 
other issues. I didn't see much commitment to that throughout 
the reign of the former President and his administration, and I 
am pleased to see a new emphasis on that.
    They brought, as I said, a $2 billion lower proposal for 
the Corps to us last year. Congress fixed that, ultimately, but 
it was not by the initiative of the Trump administration. And, 
simultaneously, they were dismantling critical laws. The 
gentleman mentioned the ``waters of the U.S.'' I have been 
engaged in the debate over this issue for a quarter of a 
century. The rule adopted by the Trump administration removes 
protections from somewhere between 70 and 80 percent--they 
couldn't even tell us in the hearing--of the wetlands and 
waterways in the United States.
    Now, some on the committee may not be old enough to 
remember when rivers burned. I do. Some may not remember, 
because you haven't been out our way, when the Willamette River 
was an open sewer in Oregon. It is now fishable, swimmable, 
drinkable. The Cuyahoga doesn't burn anymore. And we have 
preserved critical wetlands for migratory birds and other 
species, and they ultimately lead into our rivers and streams, 
and the health of our rivers and streams.
    We have lost a lot because of the Trump ``dirty water 
rule.'' In fact, I couldn't disagree more with the ranking 
member. That rule should be immediately repealed. I hate to say 
it, but the Bush rule to which we would revert is better, way 
better than what Trump did. And then the Corps needs to 
undertake to write a rule that makes sense and works for 
everybody, including farmers.
    The first rule proposed by the EPA was turgid under Obama. 
And so all sorts of myths were created. It was going to 
regulate birdbaths, and puddles on farms, and this and that. 
Under much pressure, they finally rewrote it. And what they 
finally wrote, actually, was good. We were holding a joint 
hearing over in the Capitol with the Senate. There was this 
slide that you guys like to show of a farm field and say, 
``This guy had to go through a full environmental analysis, 
just to farm his field.''
    And I asked Gina McCarthy, the then-head of the EPA, what 
would happen to that farmer under the new rule you are 
proposing? And she said, ``Oh, it would be categorically 
exempt.'' So actually, we did have a workable rule, and it 
would have benefited everybody, but also protected critical 
wetlands and waters. So I am disappointed they haven't 
immediately repealed the Trump rule. We are losing wetlands, 
and polluting streams on a daily basis.
    There are also rollbacks of pollution discharge 
requirements from coal-fired powerplants, and I am thrilled we 
have got someone here from TVA today to talk about this. These 
discharges include arsenic, lithium, mercury, selenium--not 
great things to have in our waterways, drinking water, or 
fishable water. So that is not too good. But I have read that 
the TVA is somehow taking advantage of this rule, and continues 
discharging unsafe levels. And I hope that I am wrong, and I 
hope that the record will be straightened out today. And if 
not, then we are going to want to see that that does happen in 
the near future.
    I remember the massive disaster of 2008, with the coal ash, 
where we have lost a lot of contractors who were sent in there 
to try and clean up that unbelievable mess without proper 
protective equipment. More than a decade later, that toll 
continues. So this is nothing to be trifled with at all.
    One other issue missing from the last administration was 
significant community engagement that included all communities, 
including Native American communities, in terms of moving 
forward projects which would have major impacts on the 
environment of these communities. And I am pleased that the 
Acting Assistant Secretary overturned one of the last-minute 
out-the-door policies of the Trump administration to exclude 
consultation with Tribal communities in Clean Water Act 
jurisdictional decisions. Who thinks that is a good idea? 
Really? So that is a good step.
    And I also want to see--because in the WRDA 2020 bill, I 
got a provision in there to improve consultation, and I am 
going to want to hear what the Corps has done to improve 
consultation. The Corps also has to swiftly implement the 
policies which will increase resiliency in projects; utilize 
nature-based infrastructure options, which was again mandated 
in that bill; provide access to lower income communities; and 
truly maximize sustainable development.
    So I am looking forward to this hearing, clearing up some 
of these issues and questions, and laying aside some myths. So 
thank you, Madam Chair.
    [Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
   Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in 
      Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure
    Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding today's hearing.
    Today's hearing is refreshing in that, for the first time in five 
years, I don't feel like we are operating in two parallel universes. 
Finally, we have a budget in front of us that demonstrates this 
administration's commitment to protecting our nation's environment, 
investing in science, and putting real dollars towards our crumbling 
infrastructure. It is a budget that recognizes the critical role that 
the federal government plays in sustaining our economy, our 
environment, and our quality of life.
    First and foremost, I am glad to see the highest numbers ever 
requested in a President's budget for the Army Corps of Engineers 
(Corps). This is also the highest amount ever requested to be 
transferred from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund--over $1.6 billion.
    I have been working for over two decades--since the days of 
Chairman Bud Shuster--to unlock the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. At 
last, after successful enactment of my proposal in WRDA 2020, those 
dollars will finally be spent on the activities they were collected 
for, instead of sitting idle in the U.S. Treasury. I look forward to 
continued partnership with our Appropriations Committee colleagues to 
finally fully utilize the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund proceeds.
    Other agencies within the subcommittee's jurisdiction are also 
well-supported in this budget. In many cases, this budget restores 
significant funding levels to programs with community-level impacts, 
such as flood protection and resiliency to the threats of climate 
change. Properly funding these programs will restore and protect our 
ecosystems, will allow our local and national economies to thrive, and 
will help us to meet the complex challenges of the 21st century.
    We, as members of Congress, are tasked with ensuring the strength 
and health of our nation, our economies, and our overall quality of 
life for future generations. Many of the agencies under this 
subcommittee have similar mission areas. Yet, we saw a lack of federal 
commitment to these goals throughout the entirety of the previous 
administration. Instead of protecting children and families from 
exposure to toxic chemicals, we saw corporate and polluter giveaways 
under the false notion of economic benefits.
    The previous administration continuously brought us laughable 
budget proposals that ignored federal responsibility, or reality. 
Simultaneously, the last administration worked to dismantle and weaken 
existing law that protects our nation's waters, public health, and the 
economy.
    Separate from the numbers alone, I am glad to have these agency 
representatives before the subcommittee today to hear about their 
priorities and policy objectives for the new administration. There is 
certainly a lot of work to do to correct the missteps of the last 
administration and the war the former president waged on our 
environment and our most vulnerable communities. I hope to work with 
you all on some of the most egregious examples.
    One of the most important, at least for this committee, will be the 
rewrite of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, known here as the 
Dirty Water Rule. This rule would have removed protections from up to 
71 percent of streams, and more than 50 percent of wetlands. That is 
simply unconscionable.
    I was pleased to hear the announcement that the Biden 
administration will overturn the Dirty Water Rule; however, I believe 
this rule must be immediately repealed and then replaced. Every day 
that the Dirty Water Rule remains in place, countless waters and 
wetlands are polluted, degraded, or destroyed, and American families 
will pay the cost of this destruction through more polluted waters, 
less protected drinking water sources, greater flood risk, and a 
degraded environment.
    This is too high a cost to pay for inaction and I will continue to 
push this administration for the immediate repeal of the Dirty Water 
Rule.
    I am also deeply concerned with another environmental reversal of 
the last administration, the rollback of pollution discharge 
requirements from coal-fired power plants. We know these discharges 
include arsenic, lithium, mercury, and selenium. We know each one is 
detrimental to the health of our waterways. I expect this corporate 
giveaway to also be reversed soon. In the meantime, I have read press 
reports that the Tennessee Valley Authority is trying to take advantage 
of this misguided rule and to continue discharging what I consider to 
be unsafe levels of toxic chemicals while this rule is under potential 
revision.
    The Tennessee valley knows all too well the impacts of coal ash and 
coal pollution. I hope Mr. Lyash can shed some light on the TVA's 
decisions and provide this committee with an update on issues 
associated with the health of contractors involved in the cleanup of 
the Kingston coal ash spill in 2008, which sadly, more than a decade 
later, continues to cost workers' lives. Their families deserve 
answers.
    Madam Chair, one other issue that was uniquely missing from the 
last administration was ensuring agency actions were developed with 
significant community engagement. This means meaningful involvement and 
consultation with tribes, rural communities, economically-disadvantaged 
communities, and minority communities.
    Addressing environmental justice considerations and community 
engagement needs to become the norm again as we address how our 
environmental laws are developed and applied, and how our federal 
agencies communicate and discuss potential impacts of federal actions 
on local communities.
    For example, I am pleased by the action of the Acting Assistant 
Secretary to overturn a last-minute policy of the last administration 
to exclude consultation with tribal communities in Clean Water Act 
jurisdictional decisions. However, that is just the start, and the 
Corps needs to continuously engage with Tribal, rural, and 
economically-disadvantaged communities, in both regulatory decisions 
and as it develops future water resources development projects.
    I look forward to hearing where the Corps is on updating these 
consultation policies, as required by the WRDA 2020 bill.
    Other aspects of WRDA 2020 should be a major priority as well. We 
truly passed a strong, bipartisan, and forward-looking bill last year. 
The Corps must swiftly implement the policies which will increase 
resiliency in projects; better utilize nature-based infrastructure 
options; provide access to lower-income communities; and truly maximize 
sustainable development.
    As we look forward to real federal investment and implementation of 
the policy goals of the Biden administration, I hope to see continued 
support for the protection of our communities and our environment. We 
must be determined in restoring and renewing our federal commitments to 
clean water and modern, resilient infrastructure.
    Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you all. Thank you, gentlemen, and we will now 
proceed to hear from our witnesses who will testify today. 
Thank you all for being here. You are very welcome.
    On today's panel we have Lieutenant General Scott A. 
Spellmon, Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the Army 
Corps of Engineers; Mr. Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army; 
Jeff Lyash, President and Chief Executive Officer of the 
Tennessee Valley Authority; and Daniel Avila, Acting 
Commissioner of the U.S. Sector of the International Boundary 
and Water Commission.
    Without objection, your prepared statements will be entered 
into the record, and all witnesses are asked to limit their 
remarks to 5 minutes. Your testimony will be on file.
    Lieutenant Spellmon, welcome. You may proceed.
    General Spellmon. Madam Chairwoman, with your permission, I 
would like to defer to Mr. Pinkham to give his statement first.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Certainly.
    Mr. Pinkham, you may proceed.

 TESTIMONY OF JAIME A. PINKHAM, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 
 THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; LIEUTENANT 
 GENERAL SCOTT A. SPELLMON, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS AND COMMANDING 
   GENERAL, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; JEFFREY J. LYASH, 
    PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TENNESSEE VALLEY 
 AUTHORITY; AND DANIEL AVILA, ACTING COMMISSIONER, U.S. SECTOR 
       OF THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION

    Mr. Pinkham. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking 
Member Rouzer, and Chairman DeFazio, and also to members of 
this committee. I appreciate the opportunity to join General 
Spellmon to discuss the President's budget request for the 
Civil Works program for the Army Corps of Engineers.
    And as noted, the fiscal year 2022 budget is the highest 
annual budget ever proposed, at roughly $6.8 billion.
    And we want to emphasize investments that heighten economic 
and environmental returns; increase the resiliency to climate 
change; facilitate safe, reliable, and sustainable commercial 
navigation; and advance the delivery of the water resources 
projects.
    In my short time in this position, I witnessed that our 
work, and thus this budget, relies on a foundation of strong 
relationships between the Corps and our public and private 
partners to help deliver on the three main missions of the 
Civil Works program: commercial navigation, flood and storm 
damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration.
    And the budget supports a diverse set of tools and 
approaches to working with our partners, whether it is cost 
sharing, providing planning and technical assistance, or 
collaborative conversations on how best to respond to our water 
resources challenges.
    In addition, we want to advance two key objectives of this 
administration, including increasing infrastructure and 
ecosystem resilience to climate change and decreasing climate 
risk for the communities, as well as promoting environmental 
justice in disadvantaged communities in line with the Justice40 
Initiative.
    And just let me give you, quickly, the top numbers in the 
budget. The investigations account is funded at $106 million; 
construction at $1.8 billion; operation and maintenance, $2.5 
billion; Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund at $1.6 billion; the 
Inland Waterways Trust Fund at $52 million; and the Mississippi 
River and tributaries account at $270 million. Other important 
accounts include flood control and coastal emergencies at $35 
million; our regulatory program at $204 million. The Corps' 
expense account is at $199 million, and the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of Civil Works is $5 million.
    And if we convert this to how it will be used on the 
ground, it will be used in projects such as this: $3.4 billion 
of it will support projects and activities that facilitate 
commercial navigation; $1.7 billion to help reduce the risk of 
damages from floods and storms; $501 million to restore aquatic 
ecosystems to more natural conditions; and also over $75 
million that will help increase the resilience of Corps' 
infrastructure to climate change, including energy and water 
conservation measures, updates to water control manuals, a 
charging infrastructure to support a Federal fleet of zero-
emission vehicles, and an evaluation of ways to increase the 
resiliency of the Corps' infrastructure over the long term.
    But in this is also $29 million for technical and planning 
support and assistance to States and Tribes and local 
communities, as they take steps to reduce flood risk, including 
those risks that are associated with climate change.
    And the American Jobs Plan also includes an additional $8 
billion over 5 years for the Corps to improve ports and 
waterways.
    There are some important place-based initiatives within the 
budget, including $350 million for the south Florida Everglades 
restoration, a $100 million-increase over the 2021 enacted 
level.
    We are going to initiate seven new studies: central and 
southern Florida flood resiliency, Great Lakes coastal 
resiliency, and studies in States that are Idaho, Rhode Island, 
South Carolina, Wyoming, and Queens, New York.
    And there will be a construction of four new projects: the 
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System; West 
Sacramento, California; Norfolk Harbor and Channels; and a 
project that will start and complete construction on the 
Anacostia watershed restoration in Maryland.
    And we also look forward to completing two projects, the 
Calumet Harbor and River in Illinois and Indiana, and the 
project at the mouth of the Columbia River between Oregon and 
Washington.
    And within the $1.6 billion derived from the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund, $787 million will be used to support 
commercial navigation at the top 50 U.S. coastal ports across 
the Nation, which handle an estimated 90 percent of the 
waterborne cargo that is shipped to or from the United States 
in foreign commerce.
    There is $252 million for operation and maintenance of 
Great Lakes projects, and $63 million for five projects that 
will accommodate the disposal of material dredged for coastal 
navigation.
    Our budget proposal also includes returning the 
responsibility and management of the Formerly Utilized Sites 
Remedial Action Program, FUSRAP, back to the Department of 
Energy.
    The budget also advances the process of addressing the 
climate crisis as outlined in President Biden's Executive 
order. The Army will evaluate the Civil Works program to 
identify the appropriate actions the agency can take to support 
this policy objective in the 2023 budget.
    The Army is also committed to securing environmental 
justice, and spurring economic opportunity for disadvantaged 
communities that have been historically marginalized and 
overburdened by pollution, and experience underinvestment in 
our essential services.
    And lastly, I want to point to the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2020, which was enacted last December. We 
have moved forward with implementation. A public comment period 
was conducted, including five listening sessions. So we plan to 
have the implementation guidance for many of the provisions 
ready in August. But other provisions may require more time to 
go through the rulemaking process.
    Madam Chair, it has been an honor to serve in this position 
and help implement the President's priorities and the Army's 
Civil Works programs. I have been on board for slightly over 2 
months, and I continue to deepen my understanding, which I hope 
will assist in our common efforts to address the challenges we 
face with the resources that are entrusted to us.
    And thank you for inviting me today, and I look forward to 
your questions.
    [Mr. Pinkham's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting Assistant Secretary of 
            the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army
    Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer and distinguished 
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here 
today to discuss the President's Budget request for the Civil Works 
program of the Army Corps of Engineers.
    The Fiscal Year 2022 Budget request provides roughly $6.8 billion 
for the Army Civil Works program, which is the highest annual budget 
ever proposed, with a focus on investments that will yield high 
economic and environmental returns, increasing resiliency to climate 
change; facilitating safe, reliable and sustainable commercial 
navigation; and accelerating and improving the delivery of water 
resources projects. This Budget relies on a foundation of strong 
relationships between the Corps and local communities, which allow us 
to work together to help develop, manage, restore, and protect the 
Nation's water resources.
    The Budget focuses on the highest performing work within the three 
main missions of the Army Civil Works program:
      Commercial navigation,
      Flood and storm damage reduction, and
      Aquatic ecosystem restoration.

    In developing the Budget, consideration was given to advancing two 
key objectives including: 1) increasing infrastructure and ecosystem 
resilience to climate change and decreasing climate risk for 
communities based on the best available science; and 2) promoting 
environmental justice in disadvantaged communities in line with the 
Justice40 Initiative and creating good paying jobs that provide the 
free and fair chance to join a union and collectively bargain.
    The Budget supports a Corps program that has a diverse set of tools 
and approaches to working with local communities, whether this means 
funding projects with our cost-sharing partners, providing planning 
assistance and technical expertise to help communities make better 
risk-informed decisions, or participating in national and international 
conversations on how to best address our water resources challenges. 
The Budget also focuses on maintaining the vast water resources 
infrastructure that the Corps owns and manages, and on finding 
innovative ways to rehabilitate it or transfer ownership to willing 
recipients. For example, the Budget includes $13 million to complete 
six new major rehabilitation studies for inland waterways locks and 
dams and $2 million to investigate the disposition of completed 
projects.
    The FY 2022 Investigations account is funded at $106 million, the 
Construction account at $1.8 billion, the Operation and Maintenance 
account at $2.5 billion, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund at $1.6 
billion, the Inland Waterways Trust Fund at $52 million, and the 
Mississippi River and Tributaries account at $270 million. Other 
accounts include the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account at 
$35 million, the Regulatory Program account at $204.4 million, the 
Expenses account at $199.3 million, and the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works account at $5 million.
    The Army Corps will use $3.4 billion of these funds to invest in 
projects and activities that will facilitate commercial navigation, 
$1.7 billion to help reduce the risk of damages from floods and storms, 
and $501 million to restore aquatic ecosystems to a more natural 
condition. These amounts include:
      $75 million to increase the resilience of Corps 
infrastructure to climate change, consisting of $38 million for energy 
and water conservation measures at Corps projects, $23 million for 
updates to water control manuals at Corps projects that will account 
for the changing climate, $8 million for the charging infrastructure 
needed to support a Federal fleet of Zero Emission Vehicles, and $6 
million to evaluate ways to increase the resilience of Corps 
infrastructure over thelonger term; and
      $29 million for Corps technical and planning assistance 
programs, through which the Corps is able to assist states and local 
communities with taking steps to reduce their flood risks, including 
risks associated with climate change. For example, the Budget supports 
Corps participation in joint Federal-State interagency teams known as 
the Silver Jackets, which work at the state level to help local 
communities to understand their flood risks and identify options to 
help them manage those risks, with an emphasis on non-structural 
approaches.

    The American Jobs Plan also includes an additional $8 billion over 
five years for the Corps to improve ports and waterways.
    The Budget includes $350 million for the South Florida Everglades 
Restoration or SFER program. The SFER request of $350 million is a $100 
million increase, or 40 percent, to the 2021 enacted level. SFER 
funding is also included in the American Jobs Plan. Taken together, a 
robust amount of funding is proposed for SFER, enabling significant 
progress on this ecosystem restoration program.
    The FY 2022 Budget includes funding to initiate seven new studies:
      Central & Southern Florida Flood Resiliency (Section 
216), FL;
      Boise River, Garden City, Ada County, ID;
      Great Lakes Coastal Resiliency Study, IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, 
PA, NY & WI;
      Spring Creek South, Jamaica Bay (Howard Beach), Queens, 
NY;
      Little Narragansett Bay, RI;
      Waccamaw River, Horry County, SC; and
      Little Goose Creek, Sheridan, WY.

    The FY 2022 Budget also includes funding to initiate construction 
at four new projects--McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, 
Three Rivers, AR; West Sacramento, CA; Anacostia Watershed Restoration, 
Prince George's County, MD; and Norfolk Harbor and Channels, VA 
(Deepening) as well as to complete three construction projects--Calumet 
Harbor and River, IL & IN; Columbia River at the Mouth, OR/WA; and 
Anacostia Watershed Restoration, Prince George's County, MD.
    Within the $1.6 billion proposed in the FY 2022 Budget to be 
derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, $787 million will be 
used to support commercial navigation at the top 50 U.S. coastal ports 
across the Nation, which handle an estimated 90 percent of the 
waterborne cargo that is shipped to or from the Unities States in 
foreign commerce; $252 million for operation and maintenance of Great 
Lakes projects; $58 million for projects that support access by Native 
American tribes to their legally recognized historic fishing areas; and 
$63 million for five construction projects that will accommodate 
disposal of material dredged from coastal navigation projects.
    The FY 2022 Budget proposes $10 million for a new Innovative 
Funding Partnership program, which supports Corps efforts to accelerate 
and improve the delivery of water through greater non-Federal 
participation, and by removing barriers that prevent State, local, and 
private parties from moving forward with investments that they deem 
priorities.
    In addition, the Budget also proposes to return responsibility for 
management of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program 
(FUSRAP), back to the Department of Energy (DOE). Consolidation of 
FUSRAP with the other DOE cleanup programs under a single agency will 
allow the DOE to consider a broader range of federal cleanup 
responsibilities in prioritizing work each fiscal year and will result 
in efficiencies for taxpayers. The Army Corps will continue to perform 
cleanup of FUSRAP sites on a reimbursable basis with the DOE.
    The FY 2022 Budget begins the process of addressing the climate 
crisis. As outlined in Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate 
Crisis at Home and Abroad, the Army will evaluate the Civil Works 
program to identify the appropriate actions the agency can take to 
support this policy objective in the FY 2023 Budget. The Army is also 
committed to securing environmental justice and spurring economic 
opportunity for disadvantaged communities that have been historically 
marginalized and overburdened by pollution and experience 
underinvestment in essential services. The Army will actively work 
towards ensuring 40 percent of the benefits of climate and clean energy 
investments are directed to disadvantaged communities. These actions 
will include an examination of the activities of key programs to 
determine whether those programs' benefits have accrued to 
disadvantaged communities. The Army will also begin to track program 
expenditures that impact disadvantaged communities and consider metrics 
that will help track how applicable covered program benefits accrue at 
specific disadvantaged communities.
    I would also like to highlight one of the initiatives proposed in 
the Budget--an important technical change to the account structure of 
the Corps, which will improve our ability to oversee the spending 
financed through our two navigation trust funds. This proposal involves 
changes to the appropriations language for the Construction, Operation 
and Maintenance, and Mississippi River and Tributaries accounts, as 
well as the adoption of appropriations language for the Harbor 
Maintenance and Inland Waterways Trust Funds. It is needed and would 
enable greater transparency and accountability in how these funds are 
budgeted and spent.
    Lastly, when the Water Resources Development Act 2020 was enacted 
in December 2020, we immediately moved to begin implementation. As 
required by the Water Resources, Reform Development Act of 2014, a 
public comment period was conducted from March 8 to May 7, 2021. During 
the public comment period, the Army Corps held five listening sessions 
to hear directly from stakeholders. A total of 517 stakeholders 
participated and submitted 148 written comments. We are now drafting 
guidance for many of the WRDA 2020 provisions to provide clarification 
on their implementation. Other provisions may warrant a rulemaking.
    I am very honored to have been selected for this position, to help 
implement the President's priorities for the Army Civil Works program. 
I have been on-board for just over two months, and I've had the 
opportunity to make a few short trips to Tacoma Harbor in Washington 
State and multiple project sites throughout West Virginia, northern 
Ohio, Maryland and Delaware. I have been very impressed with the 
professionalism and dedication of the Army Corps of Engineers 
employees, who build and maintain water resources facilities for our 
primary Civil Works missions. There is much work to be done; I'm 
excited to be a part of this great team--serving our Nation.
    Thank you all for inviting me here today. I look forward to your 
questions.

    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mr. Pinkham, we 
appreciate your testimony.
    And now I will ask the general--your testimony is welcome.
    General Spellmon. Thank you, and good morning. Chairwoman 
Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer, and full committee Chairman 
DeFazio, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank 
you for the opportunity to testify today.
    I have been in command of the Corps a little bit over 9 
months now, and I would just like to provide a few brief 
highlights of the great work our team is accomplishing, as we 
are already making progress on three of my initial focus areas. 
And those are transforming our organization to accommodate an 
increased workload; expanding research and development with a 
focus on delivering projects faster and cheaper and getting 
after some of our current challenges across the Nation; and of 
course, strengthening our already-talented workforce. And these 
are just a few of the key initiatives that we are going to use 
to optimally leverage the annual appropriations that we 
receive, meet the priorities of both Congress and the 
administration, and, of course, to ultimately deliver on our 
vision, that is, to engineer solutions for our Nation's 
toughest challenges.
    Over the past several years, the Corps has successfully 
delivered an annual Civil Works program in the range of $7 to 
$8 billion, and I want to expand this competency into one that 
could deliver double that benefit, by stretching our dollars 
further through better partnering practices, revolutionizing 
our processes, and seeking efficiencies with functional pilot 
programs.
    Our Nation is again seeking to renew its infrastructure, 
and we in the Corps are poised to support this pivotal 
modernization. Some examples of our initiatives include the 
Corps' continued efforts to build upon public-private 
partnerships and other innovative financing solutions. We are 
also working to streamline our regulatory program by providing 
straightforward, commonsense rules. But we continue to face 
challenges with a funding-static stream during an ever-
increasing demand on these resources.
    We will continue to seek efficiencies in project delivery 
by reducing cost, optimizing schedules, and eliminating 
unnecessary redundancies. We have successfully validated a 
number of these concepts through implementation of the regional 
dredge demonstration program down on the gulf coast, and we 
look forward to applying those concepts in other regions, as 
well as furthering potential efficiencies in our navigation 
program by advancing the beneficial use of dredge material.
    I feel strongly that, in order to achieve this vision, we 
also need to elevate our research and development program, and 
we are working to expand our R&D initiatives and strengthen our 
partnerships with academic institutions to leverage the 
enormous capacity of our Nation's scientists so we can meet the 
challenges of the 21st century head on.
    Investment in research and development will help us find 
solutions for today's challenges, like those posed by harmful 
algal blooms in Florida and the Great Lakes, drought and 
wildfires across the West, and reservoir sedimentation across 
the country. And of course, we want to engineer more with 
nature everywhere we work.
    And finally, successful investment in our future cannot be 
accomplished without the talented and passionate professionals 
of our workforce. People remain our greatest resource. 
Investing in our people, our leaders, and diversity in all its 
forms, as well as maintaining our commitment to safety in all 
that we do, are keys to developing our future team.
    For the past 245 years, the Corps of Engineers has served 
as our Nation's engineers, and we have risen to meet the 
challenge of the day, and today is no exception. We are going 
to engineer the future, but we do not do it alone. We need the 
help of our non-Federal partners, all our project stakeholders, 
and, of course, Congress to enable us to succeed. And I look 
forward to continuing our great collaboration with this 
committee, as we strive to finish quality projects on time, 
within budget, and do it safely.
    So thank you again, Madam Chairwoman and members of the 
subcommittee.
    I look forward to answering any questions that you may 
have.
    [Lieutenant General Spellmon's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Scott A. Spellmon, Chief of 
     Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer, and Members of the 
Subcommittee:
    I am honored to testify before your committee today, along with Mr. 
Jamie Pinkham, the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 
Works, in regard to the President's Fiscal Year 2022 (FY 2022) Budget 
for the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Civil Works 
Program.
    Through its Civil Works Program, the Corps works with other Federal 
agencies, and with State, Tribal, and local agencies and others, to 
develop, manage, restore, and protect water resources, primarily 
through the construction, operation and maintenance, and study of 
water-related infrastructure projects. The Corps focuses on work that 
provides the highest economic, environmental, and public safety returns 
to the Nation. The Corps also regulates development in waters of the 
United States and works with other Federal agencies to help communities 
respond to, and recover from, floods and other natural disasters. The 
FY 2022 Budget invests in improving the Nation's water infrastructure, 
including U.S. coastal ports, while incorporating climate resilience 
efforts into the Corps' commercial navigation, flood and storm damage 
reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration work.
    The Corps' Military program also continues our work across the 
globe with presence in more than 110 countries supporting national 
security and our Combatant Commanders.
                                Overview
    The Civil Works Program is performance-based. It uses a targeted 
approach to invest in our water resources and promote climate 
resiliency, which will benefit the Nation's economy, environment, and 
public safety--now and in the future. With the requested funds, the 
Corps will emphasize: Investments in High Return Projects; Increasing 
Resiliency to Climate Change; Facilitating Safe, Reliable and 
Sustainable Commercial Navigation; and Accelerating and Improving 
Delivery of Water Resource Projects.
    The Corps focuses on high-performing projects and programs within 
its three main water resources missions: commercial navigation, flood 
and storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The 
Budget includes $6.8 billion for these Civil Works activities 
throughout the Nation. The American Jobs Plan includes an additional $8 
billion over five years for the Corps to improve ports and waterways.
                         Investigations Program
    The Investigations program of the Corps is funded both in the 
Investigations account and in the Mississippi River and Tributaries 
account. The Corps uses these funds to evaluate water resources 
problems and opportunities, design projects within the Corps three main 
mission areas, and support related work. The Investigations program 
includes the Corps planning assistance and technical assistance 
programs, where the Corps shares its expertise with local communities 
to help them identify and understand their water resources problems, 
and helps them to develop options including ways that they can increase 
their resilience to, and preparedness for, flood risks. In addition to 
ongoing efforts, the FY 2022 Budget supports starting seven new studies 
of problems and opportunities associated with the commercial 
navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem 
restoration missions of the Corps.
                          Construction Program
    The Construction program of the Corps is funded both in the 
Construction account and in the Mississippi River and Tributaries 
account.
    The goal of the construction program is to produce as much value as 
possible for the Nation from the available funds. The Corps also gives 
priority to investments, selected on a risk informed basis, in dam 
safety assurance, seepage control, and static instability correction 
work at dams that the Corps owns and operates.
    The Budget provides $350 million for the South Florida Everglades 
Restoration (SFER) program, which includes the everglades. This is $100 
million above the enacted level for FY 2021, an increase of 40 percent. 
Additional SFER funding is included in the American Jobs Plan. Taken 
together, these funds would enable the Corps to make significant 
progress on this restoration program.
    The Budget also invests in four previously unfunded construction 
projects: West Sacramento, California, a flood and storm damage 
reduction project; McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, 
Three Rivers, Arkansas, and Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia 
(Deepening), which are commercial navigation projects; and Anacostia 
Watershed Restoration, Prince George's County, Maryland, an aquatic 
ecosystem restoration project.
                Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Program
    The O&M program of the Corps is funded both in the O&M account and 
in the Mississippi River and Tributaries account, with the Budget 
providing over $4 billion.
    All structures age and can deteriorate over time, causing a 
potential decline in reliability. As stewards of a large portfolio of 
water resources projects, the Corps is working to sustain the benefits 
that the key features of this infrastructure provide.
    The Corps continues to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of 
its operation and maintenance program. The Corps does so by targeting 
its investments in infrastructure maintenance, repair, and 
rehabilitation on a risk informed basis. It invests in the highest 
priority needs with emphasis on the key features of the infrastructure 
that the Corps owns and operates, and in work that will reduce long-
term O&M costs in real terms.
    Generally, the O&M program supports completed works owned or 
operated by the Corps, including administrative buildings and 
laboratories. Work to be accomplished includes: operation and 
maintenance of locks and dams along the inland waterways; maintenance 
dredging of inland and coastal Federal channels; operation and 
maintenance of multi-purpose dams and reservoirs for flood risk 
reduction and related purposes such as hydropower; monitoring of 
completed navigation and flood damage reduction projects; and 
management of Corps facilities and associated lands including serving 
as a responsible steward of the natural resources on Corps lands.
                           Regulatory Program
    Through its Regulatory Program, the Corps protects the Nation's 
waters including wetlands, and regulates development that could impede 
navigation, while allowing reasonable development to proceed.
                          Emergency Management
    The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE) account funds the 
planning, training, exercises, and other preparedness measures that 
help the Corps respond to floods, hurricanes, and other natural 
disasters, and to support emergency operations in response to such 
natural disasters, including advance measures, flood fighting, 
providing potable water, and the repair of certain damaged flood and 
storm damage reduction projects. The FCCE funding proposed in the 
Budget is for preparedness work. The Corps also prepares for 
emergencies through funding provided under the National Emergency 
Preparedness program, an O&M account remaining item.
                          Reimbursable Program
    Through the Interagency and International Services (IIS) 
Reimbursable Program, the Corps assists other Federal agencies, state, 
local, tribal governments, and those of other countries with timely, 
cost-effective solutions. These agencies can turn to the Corps, which 
already has these capabilities, rather than develop their own internal 
workforce and expertise to act as their design and construction agent. 
The work is principally technical oversight and management of 
engineering, environmental, and construction projects. The work itself 
is typically performed by private sector firms and is financed by the 
agencies we service. We only accept agency requests that are consistent 
with our core technical expertise, in the national interest, and that 
can be executed without impacting our primary mission areas.
                               Conclusion
    The FY 2022 Budget for the Corps represents a continuing, fiscally 
prudent investment in the Nation's water resources infrastructure and 
the restoration of aquatic ecosystems. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
is committed to a performance-based Civil Works Program, based on 
innovative, resilient, and sustainable risk-informed solutions.
    Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Members of Subcommittee. This 
concludes my statement. I look forward to answering any questions you 
or other Members of the Subcommittee may have.

    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, General, for your speech, and 
it is truly welcome.
    Mr. Lyash, you may proceed with your testimony, sir.
    Mr. Lyash. Well, Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member 
Rouzer, and members of the committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to represent one of the Nation's largest and most 
innovative utilities, and a corporate agency of the Federal 
Government, the Tennessee Valley Authority.
    I want to thank, in particular, Representative Cohen, a 
member of our Tennessee delegation, for his service to the 
Memphis area. I have the opportunity to discuss issues quite 
frequently with Representative Cohen, and I always appreciate 
his perspective and his counsel on a broad range of issues.
    My career in the energy industry spans more than 40 years. 
I was president and CEO of Ontario Power. I served as executive 
vice president of Duke Energy and Progress Energy, and CEO of 
Progress Energy Florida. From my perspective in the energy 
industry and in the nuclear industry, I firmly believe that 
reliable, affordable electricity is foundational to our 
national security and our economy, more so today than ever.
    TVA was established almost 90 years ago to serve the 
Tennessee Valley and the Nation by developing innovative 
solutions to complex problems in energy, the environment, and 
economic development. Through this public power model, TVA 
works with 153 local power companies like Memphis Light, Gas, 
and Water, to supply low-cost, reliable energy to 10 million 
people in 7 Southeastern States. We carry out TVA's mission 
with no Federal appropriation of tax dollars. The last 
appropriations for the power system were in 1959, and, as was 
said earlier, for the purposes of river operations our last 
appropriations were in the mid-1990s.
    TVA has strengthened its financial and operational 
performance in recent years with disciplined business planning. 
We have reduced operating and maintenance costs by $800 million 
a year, reduced fuel and purchase power costs by over $1 
billion a year, reduced our long-term debt to its lowest level 
in 30 years, and we have invested $15 billion so that our 
generating portfolio provides a cleaner, lower cost energy mix 
that will last for decades to come, all while keeping TVA's 
effective rates lower than they were a decade ago, and staying 
on course to keep rates low and stable through the end of this 
decade.
    In February, in fact, the Lazard management firm provided 
an independent review of TVA to our board of directors that 
recognized TVA's performance and the ongoing value of this 
public power model to the region and the Nation. Today, TVA is 
working to decarbonize our energy system and support a net-zero 
carbon future for the Nation.
    A core strength of TVA lies in our diverse and clean 
generating portfolio, one of the Nation's most diverse, with 
hydroelectric power, rapidly growing contributions from 
renewable energy, natural gas, a lessening contribution from 
coal, and the Nation's third largest nuclear fleet. Our mass 
carbon emissions today are 63 percent less than they were in 
2005, and we are executing a plan to achieve a 70-percent 
reduction by 2030, and we have a path to an 80-percent 
reduction by 2035, using existing technologies, and without 
adversely impacting reliability or cost.
    Our aspiration is to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 
2050, but we recognize that closing that last 20 percent gap in 
CO2 emissions to reach that net zero depends on the development 
of a set of emerging technologies at a commercial scale, and at 
a cost that will enable their broad deployment in the 2030s. 
Across Government and industry, we must work together to 
develop these new technologies.
    TVA is investing in research and development of 
technologies that include long-duration energy storage and 
carbon capture to enable their potential deployment in the 2030 
to 2040 timeframe and beyond. We are also partnering with the 
State of Tennessee to support another key technology, the 
electrification of transportation, which is the leading source 
of greenhouse gas emissions.
    And as an industry leader in nuclear technology, we are 
engaged today in developing new nuclear technology for 
tomorrow, and we stand ready to help lead the Nation in 
development and demonstration of advanced nuclear technology, 
specifically small modular reactors, SMRs, as they are known. 
We see SMRs as a key to decarbonizing our system and our 
economy. Provided the funding becomes available, TVA's plan is 
to have a reliable, affordable, flexible, and clean advanced 
reactor option available by 2032.
    But it is not a path we can take alone. Industry 
partnerships and Federal financial support, these are essential 
to breaking through the risks of developing first-of-a-kind 
technology so that it can be demonstrated, commercially 
replicated, and eventually exported around the world. TVA would 
be honored to be part of this effort, if it is a priority for 
the Nation, and if it brings value to the people and 
communities we serve.
    Thank you, Madam Chair, and I look forward to answering 
your questions.
    [Mr. Lyash's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Jeffrey J. Lyash, President and Chief Executive 
                  Officer, Tennessee Valley Authority
                              Introduction
    Chairman Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer, and members of the 
committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to represent 
one of the nation's largest utilities and a corporate agency of the 
federal government, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
    I marked my second anniversary as president and chief executive 
officer (CEO) of TVA in April. I am privileged and honored to lead the 
10,000 women and men of TVA as we serve the communities and people of 
the Tennessee Valley region and the nation.
    My career in the energy industry spans more than 40 years. Before 
joining TVA, I was president & CEO of Ontario Power Generation, one of 
Canada's largest electric utilities with a diverse generating 
portfolio.
    Before that, I was president of CB&I Power, with responsibilities 
that included providing operating plant services for nuclear and other 
forms of generation. Formerly, I served in executive vice president 
capacities at Duke Energy and Progress Energy, and as president and CEO 
of Progress Energy Florida. I spent a significant portion of my career 
building, maintaining and operating nuclear facilities.
    I have held a Senior Reactor Operator's License issued by the U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and worked in a wide range of 
leadership roles at nuclear facilities including as operations manager, 
engineering manager, plant manager, and director of site operations.
    Earlier in my career I served at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
in both technical and leadership positions.
    From my perspective as a leader in the energy industry and in 
nuclear energy specifically, I firmly believe that reliable and 
affordable electricity is foundational to our national security and our 
economy. I also believe that low carbon electricity is critical to 
decarbonizing the broader economy.
    To accomplish and sustain this, a diverse portfolio of generating 
assets will be needed, and nuclear energy must continue to play a vital 
role in our nation's energy supply. I appreciate the Committee's 
interest in our energy resources and the infrastructure needs of the 
nation.
    TVA's mission is to serve the people of the Tennessee Valley region 
and the nation to make life better, and our national charter is 
engraved in stone at many of our facilities: ``Built for the People of 
the United States.''
    TVA was created in a time of great challenges for our nation--a 
time when new ideas and fresh approaches were essential to economic 
recovery during the Great Depression. TVA and its broad mission of 
service represented a break with the past, a determination to bring new 
thinking to the problems at hand, and an investment in building the 
infrastructure necessary to an improved quality of life and economic 
opportunity.
    That investment, which has since been repaid with interest, helped 
lift the region out of the Great Depression and supplied energy for 
crucial defense industries to help win World War II.
    Today, TVA is applying the same spirit of service, innovation, and 
forward-thinking that revolutionized life in the Valley to the emerging 
challenges of our time. In my testimony, I will discuss how we are 
continuing TVA's mission as we adapt to new challenges, technologies, 
and opportunities.
                              TVA Mission
    In 1933, personal income in the TVA region averaged $3,500 a year 
in today's dollars--and just 45% of the national average at that time. 
Nearly two-thirds of Valley residents were farmers, and only 3% of them 
had electricity. Even fewer had running water. Valley lands were 
ravaged by erosion, overuse and wildfires. In some parts of North 
Alabama, three people in five had malaria. The Tennessee River was 
unmanaged, subjecting the region to devastating floods year after year 
while at the same time impeding transportation in areas of shallow 
water and treacherous shoals.
    TVA was tasked with addressing a wide range of challenges. It 
focused on the innovative concept of managing the vast resources of the 
Tennessee Valley as an integrated system, across jurisdictional 
boundaries, to benefit the region as a whole. TVA engineers built a 
network of hydroelectric dams to achieve multiple purposes--providing 
the infrastructure not only for low-cost power but also flood control, 
transportation, water quality, and more.
    TVA scientists and educators developed groundbreaking fertilizer 
technology that helped revive the Valley's exhausted farmland and 
became the basis for 75% of the fertilizers used around the world. TVA 
engineers developed the nation's first 512-kV transmission systems to 
reliably link TVA to a regional family of local power companies across 
80,000 square-miles. And TVA economic development specialists pursued 
collaborative approaches to recruiting and retaining investments that 
would create and sustain quality jobs.
    TVA's commitment to developing and delivering new ideas transformed 
the seven-state Tennessee Valley region, leveraging the value of low-
cost public power and going far beyond it, helping to lift the people 
of the Valley out of poverty and bringing the benefits of low-cost 
power to every community in the Valley.
    In 2018, the region's per capita income had risen to 82% of the 
national level. The Valley's dependence on agriculture has shifted to 
an emphasis on industry, with only 0.5% of workers still employed in 
agriculture. TVA's early efforts to reforest the region with 570 
million seedlings restored large tracts of land to beneficial use. 
TVA's integrated network of multi-purpose dams has averted more than 
$9.5 billion in potential flood damage since 1936. The TVA's managed 
system also provides extensive recreation opportunities for hunting, 
fishing, and other valued outdoor leisure.
                            TVA's Operations
    Today, TVA is the nation's largest public power supplier, providing 
energy that 10 million people across seven southeastern states rely on 
every day. We are also the nation's third-largest electricity 
generator. Our transmission system is the nation's second-largest, with 
16,300 miles of high-voltage lines; and we have delivered low-cost 
energy to our customers with 99.999% reliability--every year since 
2000.
    TVA has one of the nation's largest, most diverse, and cleanest 
generating portfolios, including hydroelectric, natural gas, coal, 
wind, and solar generation, as well as significant energy storage 
resources. In addition, and a focus of our discussion today, our 
portfolio includes the nation's third-largest nuclear fleet. In Fiscal 
Year 2020, our nuclear fleet generated 42% of the electricity delivered 
to our customers, energy that is carbon-free.
    TVA's nuclear fleet has a generating capacity of approximately 
8,000 megawatts and is the backbone of our clean generation portfolio. 
TVA is an industry leader in expanding nuclear generation. In 2016, TVA 
brought online the first new nuclear generation of the 21st Century, 
achieving commercial operation of the second unit at the Watts Bar 
Nuclear Plant, adding about 1,164 megawatts of carbon-free energy for 
our system.
    We have upgraded our existing Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant units to 
generate additional low-cost, reliable and carbon-free energy; and we 
are investing in maintaining and upgrading our plants to extend their 
operations by decades.
    In our fossil-fueled generation, TVA's coal-burning units are among 
the nation's oldest. They have served our power system well for 
decades. In FY 2005, coal supplied about 60% of our total power supply, 
compared with less than 15% in FY 2020. TVA has retired or announced 
retirements for 8,600 megawatts of coal generation. We will continue to 
evaluate the impact of retiring the balance of the coal fleet by 2035; 
our evaluation includes environmental review, public input and Board 
approval. As plants are retired, we work closely with each plant 
community and its public officials, business leaders, the public, and 
plant employees to support the transition.
    As we reduce coal generation, we are modernizing our gas generation 
fleet as a bridging technology. This, and our continued and increased 
reliance on nuclear generation, will to help reduce emissions and 
support high levels of reliability, given the intermittency of 
renewables. And in partnership with multiple other utilities in the 
Southeast, we are working to establish the Southeast Energy Exchange 
Market. This market could potentially help all participants in the 
Southeast realize a higher penetration of renewables by creating a 
bilateral market to exchange energy efficiently.
                         Energy and the Economy
    The impact of a reliable, low-cost energy supply can be seen in the 
region's economic development successes. Over the past five years, TVA 
has helped attract or retain about 341,000 jobs and more than $45 
billion in capital investment for the region. In FY 2020, despite 
pandemic conditions, we helped the region attract or retain 67,000 jobs 
and more than $8.6 billion in capital investment.
    For a growing number of businesses and industries, having a supply 
of carbon-free energy has joined cost and reliability as a key factor 
in determining where they locate or expand their operations. TVA's 
ability to provide low-cost, increasingly clean, highly reliable energy 
is essential for powering the ambitious strategies and climate goals of 
these businesses. This ability creates a competitive advantage for our 
region in attracting innovative industries, jobs and investments and 
continuing to power the Valley's economic development.
    The priorities on which TVA has focused during the past several 
years include investing and modernizing the power system to drive down 
costs, maintaining financial and organizational discipline, and 
significantly strengthening our partnerships with customers, labor 
unions, and stakeholders. Our success in executing this strategy has 
positioned us well for the future.
    Over the past decade, TVA has kept its effective rate flat while at 
the same time investing over $15 billion to balance and modernize our 
generation portfolio, and we continue to make investments to further 
modernize and diversify our generation system.
    TVA is investing more than $2 billion in transmission system 
improvements over five years to ensure that we continue to provide 
increasingly clean, low-cost, reliable energy. We are working to find 
ways to ensure reliability as local power companies bring their own 
solar and other renewable resources onto the system.
    The heart of the energy system of the future will be TVA's new 
System Operations Center and Energy Management System, a $300 million 
investment employing smart technologies to manage power grid operations 
more reliably, efficiently and securely. The center's Energy Management 
System will increase system flexibility by integrating and monitoring 
distributed energy resources and demand response, helping to keep costs 
low and reliability high as energy sources and customers' energy use 
continue to evolve.
    TVA's responsibilities for energy, environmental stewardship, and 
economic development also make us an important contributor to ongoing 
efforts to improve air quality in the region and the nation. Our system 
is one of the nation's cleanest with almost 60% of our energy supply 
coming from carbon-free sources.
    Our efforts to build a resilient, diverse power generation mix have 
led to a 63% reduction in mass carbon emissions since 2005 in the total 
energy we supply to the region. In addition to our expanding use of 
nuclear energy, from 1970 to 2020, TVA invested $6.8 billion in 
environmental controls to reduce emissions from fossil-fueled plants. 
These environmental control investments have reduced our sulfur dioxide 
emissions 99% below 1977 levels. Nitrogen oxide emissions have been 
reduced 97% below 1995 levels. We have reduced carbon dioxide emissions 
by about 60% compared with the 2005 benchmark, one of the largest 
decreases in the power industry.
    To continue diversifying our power system, we are adding 
significant renewable energy. As of the second quarter FY 2021, TVA has 
commitments of over 2,300 megawatts of solar capacity expected to come 
online by the end of 2023. Including these projects, we expect to add 
10,000 megawatts of solar by 2035, which is primarily based on customer 
demand in the near term and represents a 24-fold increase from today.
    In renewable energy, our utility-scale solar program, Green Invest, 
is setting a standard for the industry. The program is based on a 
unique public/private partnership structure and competitive bid process 
that enable the growth of affordable solar without shifting costs to 
non-participants. Additionally, Green Invest leverages the demand for 
utility-scale solar from business and industry for economic development 
in our communities.
    Since 2018, Green Invest has attracted nearly $2.7 billion in solar 
investment and procured more than 2,000 megawatts of solar on behalf of 
its customers--maintaining TVA's green energy leadership as the energy 
provider with the greatest amount of renewable generation in the 
Southeast.
    TVA's environmental responsibilities include managing the 652-mile 
Tennessee River system, an important part of the nation's commercially 
navigable inland waterway system. Nearly 50 million tons of commercial 
goods move through the TVA system of locks and dams each year. Other 
benefits of the river system include flood control that prevented $1 
billion in flood damage in FY2020 as the region experienced 150% of 
normal rainfall.
    The river system's hydro-electric dams are TVA original energy 
source; and the system's 40,000 miles of rivers, streams and 
tributaries also support water supply and water quality, as well as 
other needs. The river system also supports a thriving recreation 
industry that produces almost $12 billion a year in economic activity, 
supporting more than 130,000 jobs and generating almost $917 million in 
tax revenues to the region's state and local governments.
                         The Public Power Model
    TVA carries out all aspects of its mission of service with no 
federal appropriations of tax dollars. While TVA is a corporation of 
the federal government, TVA funds its power system and virtually all 
other operations entirely with revenues from energy sales and proceeds 
from debt issuances.
    TVA's unique business model is structured so that TVA serves the 
people of the Valley with public power, in partnership with local power 
companies. In supplying public power, TVA is statutorily obligated to 
supply energy at the lowest feasible rate, with an obligation to serve 
the people and their communities, not shareholders. And we serve people 
throughout the region, from the largest cities to the most remote 
farms.
    Because TVA is self-financing and must fulfill its broad mission, 
revenues from energy sales cover TVA services that investor-owned 
utilities generally do not offer, such as river management, extensive 
economic development programs, innovative demonstration projects, and a 
wide range of environmental stewardship programs.
    Even so, TVA maintains some of the nation's lowest energy prices. 
About 70% of the people served by large utilities across the nation pay 
higher rates than do TVA customers, and TVA's industrial rates are 
among the lowest in the nation--lower than 90% of the nation's top 100 
utilities. TVA's effective rates have remained flat and low for the 
past seven years even as we have reduced debt to its lowest level in 
more than 30 years and invested in the power system. Our long-term 
financial plan projects flat, effective wholesale rates for the next 
decade, and we continue to have solid confidence in those plans.
    TVA's commitment to putting the people and communities we serve 
first was evident this winter as extreme weather overwhelmed other 
power providers outside the TVA region. Unfortunately, the people 
living in those areas were hit hard by the blackouts and price surges. 
While only a portion of our service territory experienced similar 
extreme weather, TVA's commitment to service, our ongoing investments 
in the power system, and the dedication of our employees kept our 
plants operating, supplying energy at stable prices, and with high 
reliability. This event has demonstrated the resiliency of our system.
    Built into TVA's business model is our relationship with the 153 
local power companies across the region. We supply wholesale energy to 
the local power companies, which then distribute the energy to the 
homes and businesses they serve.
    In the past two years, we have strengthened the partnership between 
TVA and local power companies, by introducing the long-term partnership 
agreement. As a result, we now have new and stronger partnerships in 
place with 142 of the 153 local power companies that we serve, 
representing 93% of the region's local power companies. We are aligned 
around 20-year commitments to plan and work together to keep rates low 
and stable, across the seven-state region.
    Long-term partners benefit from a 3.1% credit on their monthly 
wholesale bills, and 71 of our partners also are taking advantage of 
TVA's Generation Flexibility program to help meet local generation 
needs for their customers, including the deployment of distributed 
solar resources. In addition, TVA directly supplies energy to 57 large 
corporations and federal installations in the region, including Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory and other Department of Energy facilities at 
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
    Last winter, the TVA Board commissioned the internationally 
recognized Lazard firm to assess TVA's business performance through 
2020 and determine if this business model is a reasonable approach to 
fulfilling TVA's mission in the future. The Lazard report builds on an 
earlier strategic review by the firm, one done in 2014, and notes that 
TVA's financial performance has been notably strong against both our 
own financial plan and the performance of other utilities. The report 
concludes that TVA's business structure and the public power model 
continue to be a reasonable approach to support TVA's mission for 
providing the greatest value to the 10 million people in TVA's seven-
state service area.
    Public power means having financial stability without tax dollars; 
and it puts service, community, and people over profits. During 
pandemic conditions, TVA has been uniquely situated to demonstrate its 
commitment to our customers and communities by helping to mitigate the 
impact of unprecedented challenges.
    For all customers, for FY 2021, we have reduced our already low 
energy prices by 2.5% through a Pandemic Relief Credit on monthly bills 
during the year. This credit will put a projected $200 million back 
into Valley communities in FY 2021 in the form of rate reductions, bill 
assistance for those in need, upgraded system infrastructure to 
maintain reliability, and more.
    For large industrial and commercial customers, we began offering 
Back-to-Business incentives to help businesses return to full 
operations and to help the economy recover. As of the second quarter FY 
2021, we have invested $12 million in credits to help everyone get 
``back to business.''
    Early in the pandemic, as household bills began to stack up, TVA 
provided the local power companies we serve with regulatory flexibility 
and $1 billion in credit support to help them and the people they 
serve. Also, early on, we established a Community Care Fund to help 
charitable organizations meet local needs through matching funds from 
local power companies and others. The value of the Community Care Fund 
now exceeds $7 million. The Community Care Fund has made more than 460 
grants to organizations across the region, addressing local needs 
through food banks, boxed-lunch programs for students, United Way, Boys 
and Girls Clubs, and other programs.
    Together, TVA and local power companies ensure a reliable, 
increasingly clean and low-cost energy supply; a local presence and 
local voice; and the reinvestment of revenues into the energy, economic 
development, and environmental services that benefit the region.
                        Governance and Finances
    TVA is governed by our Board of Directors, which is responsible for 
providing strategic oversight. The nine part-time Board members are 
appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the U.S. 
Senate. Board responsibilities include formulating broad strategies, 
goals, long-range plans, and policies for TVA; reviewing and approving 
annual budgets; and setting and overseeing electric rates.
    For FY 2021, the TVA Board approved a budget of $10.0 billion, 
which includes $2.2 billion in continuing capital improvements to our 
generating, transmission and infrastructure assets. TVA's financial 
position continues to be strong and stable.
    In FY 2020, the TVA team delivered exceptionally strong financial 
results, providing TVA the flexibility to take a number of special 
steps, such as the $200 million Pandemic Relief Credit and the 
Community Care Fund I mentioned previously. These initiatives helped 
address the ongoing impacts of COVID-19 in our communities.
    In FY 2020, TVA's total operating revenues of $10.2 billion were 
down about 5% from projections due to a combination of weather factors 
and the impacts of the pandemic. That shortfall was offset by improved 
operational performance that lowered operating and maintenance costs, 
reduced fuel costs and exceeded TVA's debt reduction target by nearly 
$400 million, reducing debt to its lowest level in 30 years.
    TVA's fuel, purchased power, operating and maintenance, tax 
equivalents, and interest expense were all lower in FY 2020 than in FY 
2019. TVA's fuel and purchased power expense was 15% lower year-over-
year, primarily driven by lower effective fuel rates and lower energy 
sales due to impacts of milder weather and COVID-19, as well as the 
increased generation of nuclear power.
    TVA paid nearly $552 million in tax equivalent payments in FY 2020 
to state and local governments served by its energy generation or in 
areas supporting TVA properties. The payments compensate state and 
local governments that cannot levy property or sales taxes on TVA as a 
federal entity. We return 5% of power sales revenues from the previous 
year in the form of tax equivalent payments to the eight states where 
we sell electricity or own generating plants, transmission lines, 
substations and other assets, and directly to 147 local governments 
where TVA owns power property.
    TVA's strong financial position helped us absorb the impacts of the 
pandemic in 2020, provide extra support for our customers, and reduce 
effective power rates for customers for 2021, when our communities need 
relief the most. This would not have been possible without the ongoing 
financial discipline of our employees.
                        The Women and Men of TVA
    The strength of TVA truly is its people--a diverse and skilled 
workforce of 10,000 employees and almost 14,000 contractor partners. 
Almost 20% of TVA employees are veterans, and we will continue our 
focus on employing those American heroes as we face the future. Our 
employees and contractors are represented by 17 unions, and we value 
and appreciate all our union partners.
    In 2020, we entered into two historic agreements with our union 
partners--a 10-year extension of the recognition of the TVA Trades and 
Labor Council for Annual Employees as representing TVA craft employees, 
and a 10-year extension of TVA's project labor agreements with the 
North American Building Trades Union.
    The TVA Retirement System administers retirement benefits for 
approximately 9,700 employees and 23,000 retirees and beneficiaries. 
Pension assets total about $8 billion; liabilities are approximately 
$13.6 billion; annual pension benefit payments total about $720 
million; with a plan to be fully funded for TVA's pension liability by 
2036. TVA implemented a plan in 2016 focused on fully funding the 
pension over a 20-year period. The plan includes assumptions around 
system demographics, contributions, asset returns, and discount rates. 
The funding plan is ahead of schedule, and we consistently update the 
details of the funding plan. Separately, 401(k) plan assets total $3.3 
billion.
                             Cybersecurity
    As we supply reliable energy, the efficiency and security of our 
transmission system are critical. TVA works around the clock to monitor 
and protect its critical cyber assets, partnering with other government 
agencies, as well as with industry groups and peers such as the Edison 
Electric Institute and neighboring utilities.
    TVA has a comprehensive cybersecurity program aligned to industry 
and federal best practices that operates to identify, detect, protect, 
and respond to threats. We focus on being proactive and using risk-
based assessments to protect TVA. In addition to having multi-layered 
threat analysis capabilities, we perform continuous monitoring, 
penetration testing and vulnerability assessments.
    TVA's critical systems are housed within a specialized, isolated 
network that is separated from corporate networks and inaccessible from 
the internet. This network segmentation provides a significant added 
level of security.
    TVA trains its employees to recognize and resist cyber threats. TVA 
also adheres to an array of industry and government standards, 
including National American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) 
Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) standards, Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) security requirements and the Federal Information 
Security Management Act (FISMA).
                            Carbon Reduction
    TVA is a national leader in carbon reduction and is the largest 
clean-energy producing utility in the Southeast, including our nuclear 
energy and hydro generation, and home to a nationally recognized solar 
energy program.
    We have nearly 50% more clean generation than our closest regional 
peer, and currently have one of the lowest greenhouse gas intensities 
per unit of electricity produced in the U.S. But we are not satisfied. 
We are committed to continuing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while 
maintaining our focus on delivering low-cost, reliable energy that our 
customers expect and deserve for the long-term.
    In May, we announced TVA's decarbonization plan to increase our 
carbon reduction from the current 63% to 70% by 2030 and a path for 
reaching approximately 80% by 2035, using existing technology and 
without impacting TVA's reliability or costs. While we are encouraged 
by more ambitious goals, under the current technology and expected 
costs, our aspirational goal is to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 
2050.
    We recognize that reaching net-zero by closing the last 20% gap in 
carbon emissions, or accelerating our reduction, depends on the 
development of emerging technologies at a commercial scale and at a 
cost that will enable their deployment. These include advanced nuclear, 
carbon capture and sequestration, long-duration energy storage, and 
alternative fuels such as hydrogen. Importantly, our challenge is not 
only to lower CO2 emissions from the existing generation system, but 
also to provide the additional zero-carbon resources needed to satisfy 
what may very well be increasing demand as clean electricity is used to 
decarbonize other sectors of the economy, such as transportation.
    In 1950, electricity was just 2% of end-use energy. Today, it is 
22%; and by 2050, there are projections that say it could be over 40%. 
We must work together to develop and demonstrate new technologies to 
meet this critical demand for electricity to further evolve existing 
technologies, such as energy storage systems and carbon capture, and 
develop new capabilities, such as advanced nuclear technologies.
    TVA stands ready to help lead in these innovation efforts.
                        The Need for New Nuclear
    I believe our goal for the energy industry and the nation should be 
to decarbonize the generation of electricity and then use our clean 
energy supply to reduce emissions, drive innovation and grow the 
economy. I believe that goal can be achieved through the development 
and use of carbon-free nuclear energy.
    Carbon-free nuclear is one key aspect of our energy supply as we 
work to electrify the economy, drive down customer costs, and eliminate 
emissions. TVA is engaged today in developing new nuclear technology 
because we believe it is essential to TVA's and the nation's 
decarbonization efforts. We are applying TVA's experience as a leader 
in technology innovation and deployment in the industry to the new 
challenge of identifying the best options for the next generation of 
advanced nuclear.
    TVA believes light water small modular reactors are the specific 
advanced nuclear technology that could be most ready for deployment 
near-term--with the first commercial operation by 2030s. This would 
enable advanced nuclear to make a meaningful contribution to carbon 
reduction within the next two decades.
    In December 2019, TVA received the nation's first Early Site Permit 
for a small modular reactor from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
for two or more small modular reactors at our Clinch River Site in Oak 
Ridge, Tennessee. This is the only site in the nation with an NRC-
approved early site permit for small modular reactors.
    In the second quarter of 2021, TVA initiated a programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement to address potential environmental 
effects associated with the construction, operation, and 
decommissioning of an advanced nuclear reactor. We already have a 
partnership to explore the economic feasibility of small modular 
reactor technology with the University of Tennessee and the Department 
of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, among others.
    Successful partnerships, such as our recent agreement to 
collaborate with Kairos Power on deploying a low-power demonstration 
reactor, are particularly important in the development of advanced 
nuclear designs. In the Tennessee Valley and elsewhere, nuclear 
technology plays a critical role in meeting electricity generation 
needs and carbon reduction goals in a manner that maintains reliability 
and keeps rates affordable. As one of the nation's largest electricity 
providers, TVA is committed to being part of the solution and to 
working with others to meet this important challenge.
    TVA is working with Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory, the largest multi-program science and energy research lab 
in the United States, to explore options and opportunities for 
fostering innovations in nuclear and other technologies.
    The national lab is a customer of TVA and a key part of the 
Department of Energy's efforts to reduce its carbon footprint. TVA and 
ORNL have a number of exciting opportunities to work together to 
develop advanced nuclear technologies. In the Tennessee Valley and 
elsewhere, nuclear technology is one way to meet electricity generation 
needs and carbon reduction goals. As one of the nation's largest 
electricity providers, TVA is committed to being part of the solution 
and to working with others to meet this important challenge.
    TVA is poised with a site, expertise, nuclear construction know-
how, and mission to lead in this technology to achieve the nation's 
carbon-free goals. As TVA strives to explore new technologies, we must 
remain cognizant of our unique business model: TVA is a federal entity 
with no appropriated funding, with a mandate to set power rates as low 
as feasible, and with no eligibility for tax credits or other 
incentives available to investor-own utilities.
                               Conclusion
    TVA delivers on its mission of service through work in three key 
areas: energy that is low-cost and reliable; economic development that 
brings jobs and capital investment to the region; and environmental 
stewardship of the region's public lands, water and air. TVA was 
created with, and has continued to build on, its clear mission to 
benefit the public good.
    This was our initial mission during the Great Depression as we 
began building the infrastructure to support a better quality of life. 
This was our mission while powering the nation to win World War II. 
This continued to be our mission during the subsequent decades of 
American growth and prosperity, and it is still our mission.
    We are investing in the future today as we set our plans and 
aspirations for years to come.
    The challenges are certainly different today than in 1933, but they 
are no less critical to the lives of those we are privileged to serve--
delivering vital services and support across the region for almost 90 
years, including during this unprecedented pandemic that has impacted 
families, communities, businesses and industries.
    TVA's mission has stood the test of time, but TVA has never stood 
still. We are always striving to live up to the words prominently 
visible at many TVA facilities: Built for the People of the United 
States.

    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Lyash. That was very good 
testimony.
    And Steve, I didn't know if you wanted to introduce him. I 
am sorry if I didn't let you, but do you want to add a word or 
two about Mr. Lyash?
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Lyash has done a 
great job at TVA in representing the Authority in a manner that 
it deserves. He is a breath of fresh air from his predecessor. 
But even then, he is outstanding, and I appreciate his kind 
remarks.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mr. Cohen.
    Mr. Avila, you may proceed with your testimony, sir.
    Mr. Avila. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member 
Graves, Chair Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer, members of the 
subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify regarding 
the U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water 
Commission's fiscal year 2022 budget request.
    The agency's important border water-related functions 
include controlling floods, generating power and international 
dams, ensuring adequate water supplies, and undertaking 
specific sanitary projects that require cooperation with 
Mexico.
    I would like to thank Congress for appropriating $300 
million to EPA for the construction of sanitation 
infrastructure in the San Diego-Tijuana area.
    U.S. IBWC is consulting closely with EPA to help decide on 
the best projects to pursue. Once EPA selects the projects, 
U.S. IBWC will join other stakeholders in assisting EPA with 
project implementation, as authorized. We will also work 
closely with Mexico to develop any necessary agreements where 
their participation is needed.
    It is critical to keep in mind that operation and 
maintenance expenses for large, new facilities could reach as 
high as $40 to $50 million per year.
    While EPA developed long-term solutions, the two sections 
of the IBWC, along with local stakeholders, established a 
binational rapid response team in the San Diego-Tijuana region 
to respond to wastewater incidents when the flows could reach 
the United States.
    With an unprecedented drought in Western United States, the 
U.S. IBWC is working to reduce the impact on U.S. water users. 
Last October, U.S. IBWC negotiated a successful conclusion to 
the 5-year Rio Grande water cycle, which ended with Mexico 
delivering the entire volume required under a 1944 treaty. 
Currently, we are holding technical and policy discussions to 
encourage Mexico to adopt more systematic and transparent water 
delivery schedules.
    For the Colorado River Basin, U.S. IBWC helped develop and 
implement IBWC Minutes 319 and 323, ensuring that if the United 
States makes a shortage declaration this August, Mexico will 
take proportionate cuts to the Colorado River water deliveries 
in 2022. U.S. IBWC is working with Bureau of Reclamation and 
Mexico to prepare Mexico for cuts under our Colorado River 
international agreements. Mexico has conserved hundreds of 
thousands of acre-feet of water, helping to boost Lake Mead 
water elevation, and forestall mandatory reductions to users in 
both countries.
    My written testimony provides details of the fiscal year 
2022 budget request for $98.8 million, matching last year's 
appropriation.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look 
forward to answering any questions you might have.
    [Mr. Avila's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
Prepared Statement of Daniel Avila, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Sector of 
            the International Boundary and Water Commission
    Thank you for inviting me to testify regarding the Fiscal Year 2022 
budget request for the U.S. Section of the International Boundary and 
Water Commission. We welcome the opportunity to discuss the current 
issues and opportunities to improve infrastructure and the quality of 
life in the United States along the U.S. southern border with Mexico.
    The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC)'s mission is 
to provide binational solutions to issues that arise during the 
application of U.S.-Mexico treaties regarding, among other things, 
water quality and flood control in the border region, including 
constructing, rehabilitating and operating flood control systems, 
storage dams, and wastewater treatment plants, as directed by Congress. 
The IBWC is an international organization composed of U.S. and Mexican 
Sections, each headed by an Engineer Commissioner appointed by the 
President of the country. Each Section is administered independently of 
the other. The U.S. Section (USIBWC) is an independent federal agency 
that operates under the foreign policy guidance of the Department of 
State and is funded through the annual Department of State, Foreign 
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act.
    The IBWC has over a century of experience in bi-national 
cooperation and partnership, dating back to the temporary boundary 
commissions established by the Treaty of Guadalupe, the Gadsden Treaty, 
and an 1882 Convention to map the international boundary between the 
United States and Mexico. The U.S. and Mexican governments established 
what became the IBWC (then the International Boundary Commission) in 
1889, initially to resolve boundary-related differences arising along 
the border. The 1944 U.S.-Mexico water treaty established the key 
organizational components of IBWC and its two sections. Today, the IBWC 
is charged with applying boundary and water treaties concluded between 
the United States and Mexico, including water distribution and flood 
management of the transboundary rivers, and settling differences that 
arise in their application along the nearly 2,000-mile border. 
Virtually every aspect of USIBWC's mission protects American lives and 
property and supports the economies of U.S. border communities by 
facilitating water deliveries for agricultural, industrial and 
municipal uses.
    The USIBWC's activities include:
      demarcation of the land boundary along the States of 
California, Arizona and New Mexico, including at international ports of 
entry and international bridges;
      preservation of the international boundary defined by the 
Rio Grande along the State of Texas;
      determination and accounting for national ownership of 
the waters of the Rio Grande and Colorado River and allocation of water 
between Mexico and the United States during severe drought;
      operation and maintenance of flood control systems 
consisting of over 500 miles of river and floodway levees, 20,000 acres 
of floodplains, 700 hydraulic structures, 100 hydrologic gaging 
stations, and four diversion dams;
      operation and maintenance of two international storage 
dams and associated hydroelectric power plants;
      operation and maintenance of two wastewater treatment 
facilities in the United States;
      maintenance of two international bridges in the El Paso/
Ciudad Juarez area;
      water quality monitoring for bi-national IBWC-approved 
projects and exchange of data; and
      review of all plans for new international bridges, border 
crossings, and pipe and power lines that cross the international 
boundary to ensure compliance with boundary treaty requirements.

    This year, the Department of State, in tandem with the U.S. Section 
of the IBWC, submitted four reports to Congress on: Mexico's Rio Grande 
water deliveries to the United States; the release of effluent from 
Mexico into the United States; the interagency plan to address the 
impact of toxic transboundary flows on U.S. communities; and USIBWC 
support for the state of Texas's efforts to control Carrizo cane along 
the border.
                            Priority Issues
Water Delivery
    As the Western United States faces unprecedented severe drought 
conditions, the USIBWC's ability to negotiate international agreements, 
known as Minutes, with Mexico under the 1944 Water Treaty allows our 
respective countries to develop solutions to current issues, and our 
water accounting function helps ensure the equitable distribution of 
the waters of the Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers is in accordance with 
the treaties and Minutes. For the Colorado River basin, USIBWC helped 
develop and implement Minutes 319 and 323, ensuring that if the United 
States makes a shortage declaration, Mexico will take cuts to Colorado 
River water deliveries along with the Lower Colorado River Basin in the 
United States. The Bureau of Reclamation expects to make a shortage 
declaration in August 2021, forcing automatic water delivery cuts in 
2022. USIBWC's budget provides for work to implement drought planning 
and water conservation in the Colorado River Basin, including working 
with Reclamation and Mexico to prepare to implement cuts in Mexico.
    This year marks the first year of water savings by Mexico under the 
Binational Water Scarcity Contingency Plan agreed to in Minute 323, a 
plan that complements savings undertaken in the United States under the 
domestic Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan approved by Congress in 
2019. Prior to this year, under the terms of Minute 323 and related 
Minutes, Mexico has conserved hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of 
water, adding to volumes conserved in the United States, to help boost 
Lake Mead elevation and forestall mandatory reductions to users in both 
countries.
    On the Rio Grande in Texas, under the 1944 Water Treaty, Mexico is 
required to deliver water from the Rio Grande to the United States in 
five-year cycles. For the water delivery cycle that ended in October 
2020, USIBWC was instrumental in ensuring Mexico finished without a 
water debt. IBWC conducts regular technical and policy meetings to 
ensure Mexico meets its Rio Grande delivery requirements and the United 
States and Mexico fulfill their obligations on the Colorado River.
Sanitation--San Diego, California
    Another of the Commission's top priorities is addressing sanitation 
conditions along the U.S. Mexico border. To that end, USIBWC operates 
and maintains two bi-national wastewater treatment facilities at San 
Diego, California (South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant) 
and Nogales, Arizona, and participates with Mexico in its operation of 
a facility in Mexico that discharges into the Rio Grande River near 
Laredo, Texas. In the early 1990s when NAFTA was being drafted and 
implemented, Mexico made major investments in sanitation infrastructure 
with substantial U.S. cost-shares through entities like the Border 
Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC) and EPA. The San Diego 
wastewater treatment facility was also constructed during this time. 
However, rapid economic and demographic growth along Mexico's northern 
border with the United States did not bring proportionate Mexican 
investments in infrastructure or maintenance of the existing 
infrastructure, particularly in water and sanitation. As a result, much 
of that infrastructure is coming to the end of its useful life. This 
results in increased operations and maintenance costs at USIBWC's 
facilities and recurring sewage spills across the border into the 
United States.
    For decades, nearby communities have had to cope with the 
transboundary wastewater flows between Tijuana and San Diego. Despite 
massive U.S. investment in the City of Tijuana's collection system, 
that system has aged, and the city's population has grown since the 
mid-1990s. During rainstorms or wet weather in Tijuana and when 
pipelines or pumps break, water flows to the Tijuana River and canyons 
and mixes with unknown amounts of urban runoff, treated effluent from 
the Tijuana River, and wastewater in Mexico before flowing into the 
United States. During dry weather, the runoff is largely groundwater 
and some untreated flows from illegal connections in Mexico (dry-
weather flows); during storms, this runoff mixes with large amounts of 
rainfall (wet-weather flows). Thus, transboundary flows that cross the 
U.S.-Mexico international border can transport pollutants generated in 
Mexico that impact downstream surface waters in the United States.
    Among the factors leading to transboundary flow incidents are aging 
and unmaintained Tijuana sewer lines and pumps, power outages, and wet 
weather flows from storms that overwhelm the capacity of pumps in 
Mexico that are diverting sewage flows away from the United States. 
USIBWC uses its relationships with Mexican officials to leverage larger 
solutions than one small agency can achieve on its own. We consult 
closely with U.S. stakeholders and encourage Mexican officials to 
access federal, state, local and private sources to fund repairs.
    In the mid-1990s the IBWC constructed the South Bay plant to treat 
a limited amount of Mexican wastewater sent to the plant primarily from 
the City of Tijuana's collection system, before discharging the treated 
effluent offshore in the Pacific Ocean. The collection system in Mexico 
includes a small-capacity pump in the Tijuana River in Mexico to divert 
to the South Bay plant the dry-weather flows that occur in the river on 
a regular basis. However, there are two scenarios when the flows from 
Mexico overwhelm South Bay's capacity. First, when it rains, wastewater 
mixes with stormwater in the Tijuana River and canyons, exceeding 
Mexico's capacity to capture the river flows and exceeding the South 
Bay plant's treatment capacity. The River simply cannot be stopped from 
flowing into the United States and no single wastewater treatment plant 
could treat the entire river, which is part of the drainage of a 
watershed that is over 1,700 square miles in size.
    Second, Mexico's wastewater system sometimes sends flows to the 
South Bay plant that exceed its limited capacity. Over the last four 
years, pump station failures and leaks in Tijuana's sewage pipelines 
have become particularly acute, leading to increased wastewater flow to 
the United States. For example, the plant began receiving much higher 
flows from Mexico's collection system in August 2020. The USIBWC was 
informed after many inquiries that Mexico was experiencing electrical 
power difficulties with pump stations PB1A and PB1B, and that multiple 
sections of the conveyance lines to a Mexican-side treatment plant had 
collapsed and were undergoing repairs. Due to this confluence of 
multiple system components breaking down all at once, Mexico was unable 
to decrease the flow coming to the South Bay plant. From approximately 
August 2020 through January 2021, flows in excess of 25 million gallons 
per day were sent to the plant. While transboundary flows through the 
River channel were greatly reduced during this period, the plant began 
to experience effluent exceedances in November 2020.
    American communities are understandably frustrated. The State of 
California, (through the San Diego Regional Water Quality Board), two 
municipalities, the Port of San Diego, and an environmental group have 
filed three related lawsuits against USIBWC for alleged Clean Water Act 
violations related to transboundary flows from Mexico. The plaintiffs 
are demanding construction of defensive infrastructure in the United 
States aimed at preventing the flows from Mexico that exceed the South 
Bay plant's capacity. Although the activities that form the basis for 
the plaintiffs' claims do not constitute any violations of law, 
settlement could resolve the litigation in a manner that fosters long-
term cooperation. Given the engineering and regulatory complexities in 
addressing this issue, all stakeholders must work together in proposing 
and implementing technically feasible solutions while accounting for 
long-term operation and maintenance costs and regulatory issues.
    This subcommittee has expressed particular interest in 
infrastructure in the Tijuana River Valley and, while it is not typical 
for USIBWC to report on another agency's efforts, it will do so here 
given Congress's interest in this geographic region and the overlap of 
EPAUSIBWC efforts. In January 2020, Congress appropriated $300 million 
for border area infrastructure, as part of the United States-Mexico-
Canada Agreement (USMCA) implementing legislation. The funds were 
appropriated to EPA to design and construct new infrastructure in 
coordination with eligible public entities. EPA is assessing which of 
nine technically feasible proposed projects to build. USIBWC has been 
identified as one from a list of 11 eligible entities including state 
and local agencies who may be suitable candidates to implement one or 
more of the nine projects. The leading projects under consideration 
include an expansion of the USIBWC's South Bay plant, which treats 
wastewater to the secondary level, or construction of a new treatment 
plant adjacent to the existing one, for treatment of much larger 
volumes of wastewater at the advanced primary level.
    As part of EPA's process, USIBWC is taking part in a series of 
meetings with California stakeholders to review the project options. It 
will take several years to conduct feasibility studies, obtain 
environmental approvals, and design and build new structures. If USIBWC 
participates in any of the projects, that project will need bi-national 
participation and therefore may also involve a new IBWC Minute. If the 
Administration determines that IBWC is the entity most appropriate to 
own and operate additional wastewater management infrastructure in the 
Tijuana Valley, IBWC's authority to receive additional funds, construct 
new facilities, and own and operate such facilities would need to be 
clarified.
    Technical feasibility studies need to cover the affordability not 
only of construction, but also of operation and maintenance for the 
life of the project. The long-term operation and maintenance costs of 
some of the proposed projects are significant and this operational 
aspect, as well as technical feasibility, need to be carefully 
understood by any entity participating in the implementation of the 
projects. Some of the projects, if built, would require as much as $40-
50 million annually to operate and maintain. The studies also need to 
determine whether the new structures meet regulatory requirements.
    The two Sections of IBWC have joined forces with local stakeholders 
in the United States to establish a binational Rapid Response Team in 
the San Diego-Tijuana region. In January 2020, the team responded to a 
clogged pipe behind a highway in Tijuana which created a large pool of 
water that threatened to collapse the highway and bring contaminated 
water into the United States. The team provided subject matter experts 
and lent City of San Diego bypass pumps to Tijuana to control the flow. 
USIBWC was able to drain the pool, capturing all the contaminated water 
and treating it at the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment 
Plant.
    Mexico's federal government allocated the equivalent of over ten 
million dollars in 2020 to upgrade Tijuana sanitation infrastructure. 
In July 2020, the Mexican Section of IBWC took over the operation of 
the largest pump station, PB-CILA, ensuring round-the-clock operation 
and improved maintenance. By May 2021, the Mexican Section completed 
the station's rehabilitation, refurbishing pumps and acquiring new 
ones. The Mexican Section's analysis of Tijuana's needed sanitation 
infrastructure upgrades between 2021 and 2024 has a projected cost of 
4.7 billion pesos, or roughly 240 million dollars. If funds are 
obtained, the plan's execution would include the use of treated 
wastewater, the upgrade of wastewater treatment plants, the repair and 
replacement of wastewater pipelines, and the repair of pump stations.
Sanitation--Nogales, Arizona
    Southeastern Arizona has been impacted by deteriorating 
international wastewater pipelines in Santa Cruz County known as the 
Nogales Main Collector Line (Trunkline) and the International Outfall 
Interceptor (IOI). Wastewater from Nogales, Sonora, Mexico as well as 
Nogales and Rio Rico, Arizona, travels through the wastewater pipelines 
to the Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant (NIWTP), which 
is operated and maintained by the USIBWC. The multi-year rehabilitation 
of the Nogales IOI is needed to avoid adverse environmental impacts and 
to ensure reliable operation of the wastewater collection and treatment 
system.
    The amount of Mexican sewage treated at the NIWTP has often 
exceeded agreed limits. In addition, since 2011 the Mexican government 
has failed to pay the full amount owed for treatment of this sewage, 
leading to a debt of over 4 million dollars. The City of Nogales, 
Arizona, has also failed to pay for treatment of its domestic 
wastewater. The transboundary flows sometimes include heavy metals 
primarily from industries in Mexico and the treatment plant cannot 
remove these contaminants. This led the Arizona Department of 
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to sue the USIBWC in 2012, asserting 
violations of the Clean Water Act, and to issue a violation for 
USIBWC's discharge in 2019.
    USIBWC has worked within the Administration's budget request 
process to obtain federal funds to repair the Trunkline and IOI. 
Through multiple-year appropriations, USIBWC has received nearly $44 
million in funding to rehabilitate the pipelines by installing a new 
liner inside the pipeline. The ADEQ obtained state and non-governmental 
funds for a cost share with the federal government. USIBWC solicited 
proposals for the construction of the initial phases of the Trunkline 
and IOI relining, and we hope to award a contract by July 2021. The 
multi-year rehabilitation of the Nogales IOI is needed to avoid adverse 
environmental impacts and to ensure reliable operation of the 
wastewater collection and treatment system.
    The project represents a narrow settlement of litigation between 
ADEQ and the USIBWC over the pipeline. A broader settlement that also 
delineates federal and local responsibilities for maintaining the 
pipeline has not yet been possible. Although the City of Nogales, 
Arizona disputes past charges for wastewater treatment, by USIBWC's 
account the City owes us over $5 million (or over $6 million if we 
include interest and penalties) for the treatment of city wastewater. 
USIBWC agrees with the City that charges should be based on actual 
usage and is prepared to negotiate how usage is calculated. The City 
and USIBWC have agreed to mediate this and other legal issues in Autumn 
2021.
    The City of Nogales, Sonora has also accumulated large unpaid 
balances for the treatment of its wastewater at NIWTP. In coordination 
with the U.S. Department of State, USIBWC has repeatedly pressed 
Mexico's federal government to pay the ballooning debt on behalf of the 
local utility, which currently amounts to over $4 million.
Flood Control and Dam Safety--Texas
    Dam safety is another one of USIBWC's top priorities. While the 
Agency does not seek additional funds for its Safety of Dams Program 
this year, it will use unobligated carryover balances to develop and 
implement risk mitigation plans. USIBWC is working with the Mexican 
Section to determine the best option to reduce the risk of dam failure, 
which will require a cost share with Mexico. The most recent safety 
inspections have identified urgent or high priority deficiencies at 
five of the six Rio Grande dams operated by the U.S. Section or jointly 
with the Mexican Section. American, International, Retamal, and Falcon 
Dams received a Dam Safety Action Classification (DSAC) of ``High 
Priority, Conditionally Unsafe,'' while Amistad Dam received a DSAC 
rating of ``Urgent, Potentially Unsafe.'' A minimum of $20 million in 
unobligated carryover funds will be used to implement mitigation 
measures at Amistad International Dam. About 98 percent of the water 
used in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas and Mexico is released 
from Amistad and Falcon Dams, providing potable water for 1.5 million 
U.S. and Mexican border residents. Failure of either of these dams 
would have catastrophic consequences in terms of potential loss of life 
and property, and damage to the economy in the Lower Rio Grande Valley.
              Components of Agency's Proposed 2022 Budget
    The President's FY 2022 budget request for the USIBWC Salaries and 
Expenses (S&E) Account is for $51,970,000, an increase of $2,200,000 
above the FY 2021 Appropriation of $49,770,000. The requested funds 
will allow the USIBWC to continue critical or urgent maintenance and 
repairs of its facilities and infrastructure for storage, diversion, 
and flood control of river waters, as well as maintenance of USIBWC 
sanitation projects. The request funds 249 positions of the authorized 
total of 253 and administrative costs of the U.S. Section, as well as 
the funds needed for the continued operation and maintenance of the 
U.S. portion of bi-national infrastructure along the border. That 
infrastructure is required to ensure compliance with treaties and other 
international agreements between the United States and Mexico that are 
within the purview of the IBWC.
    The USIBWC has eight field offices and four satellite offices that 
span the border from San Diego, California to Brownsville, Texas. Staff 
in these offices operate and maintain projects, including many operated 
jointly with Mexican Section personnel based in companion offices on 
the Mexican side of the border. Of the roughly $52 million request, 
$34.5 million will support continued operation and maintenance (O&M) 
costs of existing infrastructure. This activity includes the 
measurement and determination of the national ownership of boundary 
waters.
    The S&E funding also covers the U.S. share of O&M for two 
international wastewater treatment plants, two major international 
storage dams with associated hydroelectric power plants, four diversion 
dams, river channel and levee projects, and boundary demarcation 
activities.
    The remaining $17.5 million that is requested for the S&E Account 
includes $12.7 million for administration, which covers negotiations 
and supervision of joint projects with Mexico to solve international 
boundary and water problems; overall management of the USIBWC; 
formulation of operating policies and procedures; and financial 
management, information technology (IT) infrastructure modernization 
and administrative services to carry out international obligations of 
the United States consistent with international agreements and other 
authorities.
    In addition, $4.8 million is requested to cover activities in 
USIBWC's Engineering Department, which support our projects and include 
technical and environmental planning, engineering design and hydraulic 
studies, construction oversight of new projects, and engineering 
guidance. Other areas include environmental monitoring and compliance; 
surveys and mappings, and investigations to determine the need for and 
feasibility of future projects. Engineering funds also cover the design 
and management of projects, surveys, studies, and investigations to 
address international boundary and water problems with Mexico in 
accordance with IBWC treaties and agreements. The IBWC participates in 
multiagency water quality programs in the Rio Grande, Colorado River, 
New River, and the Pacific Ocean.
    The FY 2022 Construction Account request of $46.8 million is $2.2 
million below the FY 2021 President's Budget of $49.0 million. Of this 
amount, $28.8 million is requested for the Water Conveyance Program: 
this includes $20.8 million for rehabilitating and upgrading the Rio 
Grande flood control levee systems, which have impacts in southern New 
Mexico and Texas, and $8.0 million to rehabilitate the Tijuana River 
levee systems protecting the San Diego area. The amount of $15.0 
million is requested for the Resource and Asset Management Program, 
including $5.7 million for deferred maintenance and repairs and $5.0 
million for facilities renovation, among other projects. The request 
also includes $3.0 million for the Water Quality Program, for the 
rehabilitation of the Nogales International Outfall Interceptor and 
Trunkline, as described above.
    Planned Rio Grande flood control levee upgrades are part of a 
multi-year effort to protect communities along the Rio Grande. The 
construction and maintenance of the Rio Grande flood control system are 
part of an effort undertaken with Mexico to preserve the Rio Grande as 
the international boundary and protect lives and property on both sides 
of the river. The U.S. Section is responsible for maintaining levees 
and floodways on its side of the border, as is Mexico on its territory. 
On the U.S. side, the USIBWC flood control system consists of over 500 
miles of levees and interior floodways, segments of which date to the 
1930s and 1940s. The system is divided in three parts: the Upper Rio 
Grande flood control system protects one million U.S. residents in the 
Las Cruces, New Mexico-El Paso, Texas area, with its 225 miles of 
levees; the fifteen-mile long Presidio Valley system protects nearly 
5,000 people in Presidio, Texas; and the Lower Rio Grande system, with 
its 270 miles of river and interior floodway levees, protects one 
million U.S. residents in the Brownsville-Harlingen and McAllen-
Edinburg-Mission areas in south Texas.
    Deficient segments of the flood control system will be improved in 
order of priority by risk, population, and development. Improvements 
will include upgraded levees, floodwalls, gated hydraulic structures, 
and other structures to sustain the system's conveyance capacity and 
contain floodwaters. By building structures that meet criteria 
established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the 
program can alleviate the need for border residents to purchase costly 
flood insurance.
    The Tijuana River Levee System Rehabilitation Project will 
rehabilitate approximately four miles of deficient levees and related 
flood control structures along the Tijuana River in the United States. 
Originating in Mexico, the Tijuana River crosses into the United States 
near San Ysidro, California, then flows west 5.3 miles to discharge 
into the Pacific Ocean at a point 1.5 miles north of the border. The 
levee system protects San Ysidro from river floods. The agency has 
completed the environmental assessment and the engineering work is 
almost complete. Construction of the first phase of the levee system 
improvements will address improvements on the river's North levee. A 
second construction phase for the river's South levee will be the 
subject of a future funding request.
    The FY 2022 Request for $5,700,000 will continue the multi-year 
Deferred Maintenance and Repairs Project, established in FY 2020, for 
the repair and replacement of mission-critical assets in prioritized 
order. This includes infrastructure for storage, diversion, and flood 
control of transboundary river waters, as well as our sanitation 
projects. It also includes field office facilities and heritage assets 
such as Falcon International Dam and the fixed monuments demarcating 
the U.S.-Mexico boundary. Deferred maintenance and repairs requirements 
have accumulated over years of funding constraints. The Request will 
allow execution of the second phase of this multi-year project.
    Originally funded in FY 1992, the Facilities Renovation project 
will continue with a multi-year program to renovate and modernize 
deteriorated IBWC facilities along the U.S.-Mexico border to current 
industry standards. These facilities, most of which were constructed 
between 1930 and 1950, require major rehabilitation work to meet OSHA 
standards, comply with current environmental laws, and provide more 
efficient, effective, and secure working environments. The project 
consists of structural, electrical and mechanical improvements, as well 
as renovations necessary to meet regulatory requirements.
    The USIBWC has performed condition assessments of its facilities to 
determine a priority ranking based on condition, purposes, and code 
compliance, and to determine the most cost-effective means of 
improvement either through renovation or replacement. Among the more 
urgent priorities, the agency will provide for a new administration 
building at the Lower Rio Grande Field Office in Mercedes, Texas. The 
existing administration building is an old metal building in poor 
condition that contains asbestos and does not have fire protection. The 
old building will be demolished and replaced with a new building of the 
same size, designed to comply with current building codes and conserve 
energy.
    The USIBWC welcomes your support as we implement these important 
projects as part of our mission to address boundary and water issues 
along the U.S.-Mexico border. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Avila, for your testimony. 
It is nice to know that we have somebody looking out for us 
there.
    Thank you to all our witnesses, and we will now have 
questions for the witnesses.
    And again, we will use a timer to allow 5 minutes for 
questions from each Member. If there are additional questions, 
we may have additional rounds, as necessary.
    And now I would like to recognize Mr. DeFazio to begin the 
questioning.
    Mr. DeFazio, you may proceed.
    Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair. As I mentioned during 
my remarks, I freed up a substantial portion of the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund, which was sequestered in the Treasury. 
And I would like to ask General Spellmon--I just discussed with 
the chair of the subcommittee an approach yesterday--the $400 
million that was left on the table.
    And first, I want to know--there is a critical project for 
Coos Bay-North Bend in my district. The jetty is deteriorating. 
And as the general knows, the deterioration starts, and when we 
get 35-foot seas in the winter, it accelerates at a rapid rate, 
and it becomes even more and more and more expensive. And 
obviously, the harbor entrance becomes dangerous for commercial 
and recreational.
    So I would just like to confirm. I have heard from the 
region that you do have the capability, if I can get the full 
allocation of $32.72 million, that you would have the 
capability to act in the next fiscal year.
    General Spellmon. Sir, that is absolutely correct.
    Mr. DeFazio. OK, excellent. Well, I am working on it, and 
hopefully I will get you those funds.
    The other issue for our whole region is the Columbia River 
Treaty. It has expired. It was the first cross-border 
beneficial use of water treaty in the world. LBJ came out here 
to actually sign the treaty. It was a big deal. It is expired.
    And one of the critical components of it is flood control 
on the Canadian end of the whole basin. If there isn't a new 
treaty in 2024, we will have to call on Canada to provide the 
flood. But we don't have provisions negotiated or--not even, as 
I understand, estimates on, potentially, what it might cost, 
and how the Corps could pay for that. I understand there are 
negotiations going on. They are confidential. But as I 
understand it, Members can receive--you know, we can get top-
secret briefings, we can get confidential briefings.
    We need to be prepared if the Corps is going to need 
allocations in those fiscal year budgets to move forward. So I 
would ask that the Corps reach out to Members--we have a 
working group from the Northwest--and perhaps provide a 
confidential briefing, so we can have an idea of where this 
might be headed.
    General Spellmon. Yes, sir. And sir, you and I discussed 
this before. You know our objective, from the beginning and 
remains, is to provide similar levels of flood protection for 
the people of the Pacific Northwest. And sir, we would welcome 
the opportunity to come and brief you in private with a group, 
with our team. We continue to provide technical advice and 
modeling and analysis to the Department of State. But, sir, we 
would welcome the opportunity to give you a more detailed 
update.
    Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you, General. And the Corps does 
have all the legal authorities it needs to make these payments, 
right?
    What we have to do is find the money. You don't need 
further legal authority. Is that is correct?
    General Spellmon. Sir, if I understand your question, you 
know, we paid in advance back in 1964 for the 60 years of flood 
protection. We have given our numbers to the Department of 
State. They have been put on the table with our partners in 
Canada. And sir, I would welcome the opportunity to walk you 
through that in our analysis that supports those estimates.
    Mr. DeFazio. OK. And then, I guess this is, perhaps, to the 
Assistant Secretary, and maybe to you.
    I live on a boat in DC, in the channel leading out of what 
has now become the trendiest, most congested neighborhood in 
DC. They now have kayak rentals, canoe rentals, all sorts of 
stuff, an unbelievable amount of recreational traffic, water 
taxis, in addition to the sightseeing ferries and all that. And 
there is a proposal that makes no sense that's for security 
purposes, they would restrict people to the far side of the 
channel, which I believe will ultimately lead to fatalities, 
because once one swimmer came over the wall.
    I would say, if the generals who are getting that wonderful 
free housing with a great view of Hains Point are concerned 
about security, it would be more appropriate to put up a fence, 
or a wall--but that would really impede their view.
    And some time at the beginning of the year there was a leak 
thing about, oh, al-Qaida is threatening Fort McNair, or the 
Quds Force, or somebody. The Quds Force is not going to say, 
oh, that is a restricted zone, there is a red buoy, I can't 
cruise in there and do anything. It makes no sense.
    You know, we passed a bill out of committee. I believe that 
this is not the solution to whatever problem they have. And I 
do believe it will lead to very dire problems. And so I don't 
know what the current status is of that rulemaking.
    And I don't know if it is you or the Assistant Secretary 
that could tell me on that.
    General Spellmon. Sir, I will start. So, sir, that action 
has gone from our Baltimore District, in conjunction with their 
coordination with the Military District of Washington. It is 
now in my headquarters.
    Sir, you may be aware the President's Executive order has 
taken that decision away from the Corps to be rendered by a 
political appointee yet to be confirmed. And if I am asked for 
my recommendation, I will give my best military advice to the 
Assistant Secretary at that time, after I have had an 
opportunity to look at the facts myself.
    Mr. DeFazio. Sure. I was talking to the Commandant of the 
Coast Guard. He is waterfront down in a much more sensitive 
base. And he said he doesn't even have--there's nothing in his 
backyard, and no restrictions on traffic. And that base has 
much more sensitive operations going on down there. So I am 
very puzzled as to this request.
    And then finally, Secretary Pinkham, the ``dirty water 
rule.'' We have lost--irrevocably--resources, and we are losing 
them every day to inappropriate development because of the 
total loss of protections under the Trump rule for up to 80 
percent of our waterways and wetlands. I am puzzled as to why 
you are just contemplating writing a new rule, which usually 
takes a couple of years, as opposed to revoking that rule, 
returning to what would take us back to the Bush-era rule, 
which had problems, but it is way better than what Trump did. 
Can you address that?
    Mr. Pinkham. Yes, thank you for the question. When the 
President issued an Executive order to review the former 
environmental rules for consistency with the new agenda, 
``waters of the U.S.'' was one of the rules that was evaluated. 
And when I came on board, we were in an active effort to reach 
out to stakeholders to--you know, and we heard from a variety 
of prospective stakeholders, including the ag industry and 
local governments. And there was a wide range of concerns about 
the rule.
    One, there was a concern, as Chairman DeFazio has pointed 
out, is this ongoing damage that is occurring now, and is 
expected to continue to occur. And people from the Southwest, 
where we have these drought-related areas, were highlighting 
that. On the other hand, we were hearing concerns from the ag 
community, about they felt there was a level of certainty with 
this rule.
    And so what--we used that--was just to inform ourselves 
that, in fact, we needed to change the rule. So we decided to 
at least start with an intent to inform the Nation that a new 
rule was needed. But what we want to do is take the time and 
create a deliberative approach. I mean, we have been 
experiencing the rule going left and right, and, you know, this 
pendulum, and we want to find a way to find a more durable 
rule. So it is going to take time.
    We haven't really refined the process to go forward, but I 
am working with EPA on defining what that process and the 
timelines will be. And Mr. DeFazio, if you would like to have 
some additional conversations, one on one, I would be happy to 
meet with you to discuss it. But give us time. We will continue 
to work on the road ahead.
    Mr. DeFazio. Yes, well, I don't consider that acceptable. 
The damage is irreversible, and the 2 to 3 years it takes 
agencies to write a rule--I have very little patience with 
bureaucracy--the amount of destruction could be extraordinary.
    And again, we do have a backup. And you could just go back 
and look at the rewritten Obama rule, which was put into place, 
which actually lessened the burden on most farmers, except of 
all the BS that went out about rain puddles, and drainage 
ditches, and birdbaths, and all the other crap that was out 
there that was totally fictitious.
    So, yes, you are going to hear from the Farm Bureau, ``Oh, 
this would be horrible, it will be horrible.'' Well, it wasn't. 
And, in fact, as I pointed out, it exempted lots of farmers 
from more environmental review under the old existing rule.
    So, I don't find that an acceptable answer, and I think the 
delay is very, very disappointing. And we are going to lose 
resources that we can never recover that are already in short 
supply.
    So, yes, I will look forward to having an individual 
conversation with you and whoever is responsible for this at 
EPA to drive that point home a little bit more, and then bring 
it up myself with the White House. So thank you.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. I think you have 
got a point, I think we have got to follow that. And I would 
ask the gentleman, Mr. Pinkham, to report to the committee on 
what is happening.
    Mr. Rouzer, you are recognized.
    Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I assume we will 
probably do multiple rounds of questions. I am going to try to 
get my first set here within the 5 minutes, just to be fair to 
everybody else.
    Mr. Secretary and General Spellmon, my initial questions 
here are for you two. As you are probably aware--and these deal 
with some local projects I have back home--as you are probably 
aware, there are two federally authorized coastal storm damage 
reduction projects in my district. Wrightsville Beach is one, 
Carolina Beach and vicinity is the other. Both of them have 
scheduled renourishment--or supposed to be renourished--this 
year, for fiscal year 2021.
    However, they were not funded, as you know, in the Army 
Corps fiscal year 2021 work plan, which, quite frankly, came as 
a great surprise to everybody up and down the chain, at least 
those that I have spoken to. And I understand that the 
Wilmington District and some others had put together a plan to 
utilize funds that were left over from a couple of other 
projects in North Carolina, and convert those for these two 
projects.
    I understand it is on your doorstep, if not already seen, 
and I want to make sure that you are aware of that, and just 
get any input from you here, while I have you.
    General Spellmon. Sir, this is General Spellmon. I will 
begin.
    First I want to say we acknowledge the importance of both 
of these beach renourishments to the people in the region.
    The good news for Wrightsville Beach is the plans and 
specifications are complete. Our intent was to perform the 
construction with our flood control and coastal emergency 
account. Unfortunately, we had the 2019 floods, which took many 
other priority needs to other parts of the Nation. So I am 
working two avenues to fund Wrightsville Beach. I will start 
there.
    First, we are working on an internal reprogramming action, 
where we will find funds from other projects within the Corps 
that either are no longer needed, or came in under budget. And 
the need here for Wrightsville is $14.3 million, so that 
research is ongoing.
    Similarly, a second prong is we have asked the 
administration to consider moving this project, Wrightsville, 
from the flood control and coastal emergency account to our 
construction account under the Disaster Response Act of 2019.
    Mr. Rouzer, both of those options, both of those prongs 
that we are working on require administration and congressional 
committee review, and we would like to get those decisions here 
next month, so we can get to a contract award by September, so 
we can get this project in before the environmental windows 
take effect.
    Sir, similarly on Carolina Beach, we are--again, we are--
this one we are working an internal reprogramming action to 
find--the funds they need here is $24 million, and we are 
working to find those funds as expeditiously as possible. And 
then we will take our recommendation to the Assistant 
Secretary, and to the administration.
    I hope that answers your question.
    Mr. Rouzer. I appreciate that very, very much. And, as you 
mentioned, the timing of this, getting this done as quickly as 
possible is obviously very important. The longer it waits, the 
greater the cost.
    One quick question. I assume OMB has to sign off on this, 
or is this just strictly internal with you all?
    General Spellmon. Sir, I believe Mr. Pinkham in our 
Assistant Secretary's team will work these options with OMB and 
the administration, yes.
    Mr. Rouzer. OK. One other community I want to ask about 
real quick. The town of Holden Beach requires funding for their 
coastal storm damage reduction feasibility study. They are a 
federally authorized beach, obviously. Will you work to ensure 
that the funding is included in the fiscal year 2022 work plan?
    General Spellmon. Yes, sir, we can't make any commitments 
at this time, but we will give our best technical 
recommendation to the Assistant Secretary as--if we are offered 
a fiscal year 2022 work plan, to prioritize these type 
projects.
    Mr. Rouzer. Thank you very much.
    First question--and I am going to go back to the discussion 
on ``waters of the U.S.''--which agency is going to be the lead 
on this? Is that going to be the Army Corps, is that going to 
be you all, or is this going to be the EPA taking the lead?
    Mr. Pinkham. OK, it will be primarily EPA, with a 
tremendous amount of engagement from the Civil Works program at 
the Army.
    Mr. Rouzer. I don't know if I like the sound of that. Let 
me ask you this. Can you tell us the criteria that the 
administration is considering for what will be regulated as a 
water of the U.S.?
    Mr. Pinkham. Ranking Member Rouzer, I am not going to 
predetermine what the outcome is of this process, and this is 
why we want to engage the various stakeholders to come up with 
what that definition will be. And we hope that definition will 
be durable.
    Mr. Rouzer. Madam Chair, I notice that my time has expired, 
and I hope that we can do some additional rounds. I yield back.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Well, we hope so. Or you can ask they be 
submitted and answered in writing. Thank you, Mr. Rouzer.
    I would like to--I just gave the courtesy to the chair. 
That is why I allowed him to have extra time. But the order of 
the speakers for the next few are myself, Mr. Katko, Ms. 
Johnson from Texas, Mr. Babin, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Graves.
    OK, and I have a question for General Spellmon and Mr. 
Pinkham, and I sincerely thank the administration for fully 
funding Whittier Narrows, which is in my district. It is so 
important for millions of residents in my district and the 
surrounding region.
    Can you give the committee a status update on the project, 
and what the budget request would accomplish?
    General Spellmon. Madam Chairwoman, I will start. First, 
you know that we have completed the risk reduction measures on 
the spillway gates at Whittier Narrows last December, so there 
we transitioned from mechanical controls to electrical controls 
to prevent premature openings.
    This year we have two important prerequisites for the large 
dam safety work. We are going toward an environmental 
mitigation contract, and we have some utilities that we have to 
move. The large-scale dam safety work, we are wrapping up 
design. We plan to award that contract in September of next 
year. The President's fiscal year 2022 budget funds that work 
to completion for this very important project.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Yes.
    General Spellmon. And this is a large effort, ma'am. We are 
scheduled--it is looking at a schedule completion in 2026.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Pinkham, in your testimony you mentioned that the 
budget provided $23 million of updates to water control manuals 
at Corps projects that will account for the changing climate 
and for the operation, an issue I have been working for many 
years at Prado, Whittier Narrows, Santa Fe in southern 
California, and I am pleased to see investment, but I am 
concerned that we are talking about water control manual 
updates for years, and very little ever gets implemented.
    Money is not the only issue, but also bureaucracy, with the 
involvement from various agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife 
Service outside the Corps. How will you ensure that the manuals 
are actually updated to address current hydrological 
conditions, and provide sufficient protections and water 
supply?
    Mr. Pinkham. Chair Napolitano, thank you for the question, 
and I think it is an important question, and one that I will 
work closely with General Spellmon on, is, in addition to the 
manuals, how do we consult and work with the other Federal 
interests that are out there, whether it is around endangered 
species or water quality.
    So, Madam Chair, let me commit to work with General 
Spellmon on making sure your concerns are addressed.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. I visited Morris Dam this week, 
and I find that dam pristine, run by the county of Los Angeles. 
And I think we should have the same situation in all of our 
dams that are run by the Corps.
    General Spellmon and Mr. Pinkham, as wildfire season is 
upon us at the West, all of the West, my district has 
experienced four wildfires on Army Corps property along the 
river over the past 2 years. These wildfires were caused by 
homeless trespassers and reckless behavior. This is a major 
hazard to homes and businesses along the river, and the Army 
Corps infrastructure and personnel in the region.
    What are we doing to address the problem?
    How many rangers do we now have for the entire area?
    General Spellmon. Madam Chairwoman, first I want to say we 
share your concerns for the safety and security, just given the 
risks that we are seeing with the increased homeless population 
across the region.
    And also, I want to say we appreciate Congress' support in 
the CARES Act that gave us additional funding to provide 
additional security personnel for our projects. With that 
support we have already conducted three very large-scale debris 
removals from three homeless camps at San Gabriel River and the 
Santa Fe River spillway. We have a fourth debris removal 
scheduled for this September. And, ma'am, I think you are 
tracking, we are working very closely with the L.A. County 
Sheriff's Department and the Department of Parks and 
Recreation.
    We have already expanded our patrols, and we are looking 
for other opportunities where we can bring down this fire risk. 
And, ma'am, we will keep you updated as we continue to work our 
way through this.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
    Mr. Avila, as drought plagues the Colorado River system, 
have recent minutes to your treaty with Mexico addressed 
drought contingencies and mitigation, and what are the next 
steps for the agency in addressing drought at the Colorado 
River?
    Mr. Avila. Yes, IBWC is working hard to mitigate the 
impacts of the drought in the Colorado River Basin in both the 
United States and Mexico.
    IBWC Minute 323, signed in 2017, ensures that Mexico will 
get reduced water deliveries in 2022, if--and it is very 
likely--the Department of the Interior declares a shortage this 
August.
    We are currently helping Mexico prepare for the reductions 
in developing drought plans and conserving water. As agreed 
under relevant IBWC minutes, Mexico is already undertaking 
temporary water savings, which can be recovered if reservoir 
conditions improve. In 2021, these savings amount to 41,000 
acre-feet. Mexico's efforts complement similar U.S. savings 
under the U.S. lower basin drought contingency plan, which 
Congress approved in 2019.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much. My time is up.
    Mr. Katko, you may proceed.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Madam Chair, this is Graves of 
Louisiana. I think I am going to be next.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I just highjack him?
    Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Graves, you may proceed, then, I am 
sorry.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I want to thank you both for being here today, and I 
certainly do appreciate your service. I have a number of 
things. I am going to try and get through them as quickly as I 
can.
    First of all, BBA 2018, there are a couple of projects that 
were funded. One of them is a Comite diversion project. The 
other one is one we refer to casually as ``Five Bayous,'' 
otherwise known as Baton Rouge Area Flood Control. The Comite 
project is a critical project. It has history dating back to 
the late 1970s, early 1980s. This is a fully funded project. It 
was recently announced that the project schedule slipped 50 
percent, 50 percent slippage in schedule. Every day that this 
thing is delayed, it is potentially putting people at risk.
    Just about a month ago we had a record flood. We had 
another one a few weeks ago. I just want to put this on your 
radar. Colonel Murphy down in New Orleans has been great to 
work with, but this project has got to stay on the front 
burner, both of them. They have got to stay on the front 
burner, and I just don't see them moving at the urgency that 
they need, so I just wanted to flag that for you all.
    General Spellmon. Sir, this is General Spellmon. I 
acknowledge the 1-year slip in delivery. It did take us longer 
to get our right-of-way drawings out, which slowed down the 
real estate transactions.
    And sir, I will just say I appreciate your personal 
leadership, as we work through the Florida gas LNG pipeline. We 
are currently in a day-per-day slip. I know that is 
complicated, but I do appreciate your leadership in helping us 
through that. Over.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. General, and I am going to keep 
doing it. This is really personal for all the people that we 
represent. And I want to say it again. Colonel Murphy has been 
great to work with, very communicative, and I appreciate that. 
But this--you know, this slippage every single day--you know 
the vulnerability we have down there. So I just want to ask 
that this be kept on the front burner.
    I am going to jump to the next one, the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2020, we had a provision there regarding the 
hurricane protection system payback. And we did send a 
delegation letter asking the Corps to get moving on the 
interpretation. We got a pretty tight fuse on this. And I just 
wanted to flag that for you all, and ask you to, once again, 
please keep that on the front burner. We have got to get moving 
on this. Huge financial implications that is potentially 
diverting money away from other hurricane protection, coastal 
restoration, and flood protection needs in the State.
    General Spellmon. Yes, sir, this is General--yes, sir. I 
acknowledge all. We acknowledge the WRDA provision. We are 
working with the Secretary's office on implementation guidance 
to get out in the field, and our suspense back to Colonel 
Murphy is the 15th of August.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. OK, and I think you know that some 
of the timelines on that date into September and October 
timeframe, so there is a really tight fuse on that first kind 
of action item.
    General, I want to bring up--or Secretary--bring up 
something else. We have legislated in Congress, and we do it 
all the time on things. And probably the thing that aggravates 
me more than anything else I do is when we pass a law, only to 
have some bureaucrats come back and tell us that it didn't do 
what we said it did, or intended it did. Whenever we 
prenegotiated the language, we got drafting assistance and all 
that stuff, and we deal with that exact issue right now in 
multiple places. But one of them is nonstandard to States, it 
has to do with real estate acquisition for environmental 
restoration projects.
    In the case of Louisiana, and--the landowners will donate 
project easements, right-of-ways, whatever, and the Corps has 
come back and said, ``No, you have to have it in fee title.'' 
We can lower the project cost. We can decrease the conflict 
with locals and stakeholders. This makes no sense at all. If we 
can get all the rights we need through a conservation easement 
or a project easement, we change the law only to have the Corps 
come back and write the same damn thing in their guidance as 
they had written before.
    We didn't change the law for fun. We did it because we 
don't agree with what the Corps has been doing. And I just want 
to ask you all to please go back and take a look at this.
    Mr. Pinkham. Representative Graves, and, you know, this--I 
am new to the program, and this is an issue I was unaware of. 
But I will commit to you that I will look into this, and 
provide you with a response.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you. Secretary, I appreciate 
that.
    Beneficial use of dredged material is another issue. 
Congress has come in in the last few WRDAs. I think we have 
done two different revisions to beneficial use of dredge 
material, because what has happened in areas like south 
Louisiana, which--I won't get into all the plumbing issues 
related to the Mississippi River causing much of our coastal 
land loss, but you also do extensive dredging in the Bird's 
Foot, and we changed the law to make it, instead of least-cost 
alternative, looking at how beneficial use of dredged material 
for ecological restoration can be calculated as a benefit, 
appropriately. Yet we continue to see where the spoil material 
is dumped in the hopper dredge disposal areas off the deep 
waters of the Gulf of Mexico, providing zero benefit. And 
meanwhile, we have, by some measure, $15 billion in ecological 
restoration projects authorized through the Corps of Engineers, 
none of which are moving forward.
    This really seems like it is an opportunity for a better 
win-win. It is a good environmental win, it is a better use of 
resources. And I just want to ask if you could take a 10th 
relook at what Congress intended whenever we changed the law on 
beneficial use of dredged material calculations.
    General Spellmon. And, sir, this is General Spellmon. I 
acknowledge all. We want to flip the numbers. Today we put 
about 30 percent of our nationwide dredged material to 
beneficial use. The other 70 percent, as you said, gets dumped. 
I want to flip those numbers.
    There is an R&D component to this, and there is some best 
practices that we need to share across the enterprise. But, 
sir, we are committed to it.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you very much. I just want 
to make note for the record that I got my buddies, Mr. Huffman 
and Mr. Garamendi from California, that are over there, 
cheerleading. So they agree, they are on board with this, and 
we don't agree with much.
    Mr. Huffman. The Beneficial Reuse Caucus, I think, has just 
begun.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. All right.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Gentlemen, your time is up, Mr. Graves. 
And I agree with you, by the way. So I thank you very much.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Madam Chair, can I talk you into a 
second round?
    Mrs. Napolitano. We will look at it. It depends on how many 
are----
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. If I get you a cup of coffee? If I 
get you a king cake, a second round of questions?
    [Laughter.]
    Mrs. Napolitano. All right, sir, thank you.
    Ms. Johnson from Texas, you are on.
    Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, and let me 
welcome our witnesses, and simply say that I have an opening 
statement that I ask unanimous consent to put in the record.
    [Pause.]
    Mrs. Napolitano. So ordered.
    Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you. With the proposed funding 
increases in your agency's budget, in what way specifically do 
you believe that this funding would impact and assist cities 
and communities like mine in the Dallas area?
    To Mr. Spellmon, and then I will follow up.
    General Spellmon. So, ma'am, as you heard in the opening 
remarks, this is a record-level budget request from the 
President. I think it is going to help us immensely get after a 
number of projects to complete what we have already started, 
then, of course, with the New Start authorities given to us 
from the administration to get after some backlog projects, as 
well. So we appreciate the trust and the investment, and I do 
believe a number of these will help urban areas, as you have 
described.
    Ms. Johnson of Texas. Well, thank you very much.
    About almost 2 years ago now, I convened a COG--council of 
governments--geographical area around Dallas; Federal, State, 
county, and local officials to talk about a plan for some 
preventions that--some catastrophes that we could possibly 
avoid, since we know that the Corps has basically looked at 
that after the fact.
    Are you aware of the plan that we came up with?
    General Spellmon. Ma'am, I am not familiar with the 
details, no.
    Ms. Johnson of Texas. OK, any of the panelists there 
familiar with those details?
    Mr. Pinkham. Member Johnson, I am not familiar.
    Ms. Johnson of Texas. OK. Well, I am sorry we don't have 
anyone here from that region, but we did spend a great deal of 
time putting together a plan for prevention, because, as you 
know, most of our troubles in the area comes from flooding 
after the fact. And so we had a plan, and a pilot project came 
from that, named the ``Integrated Planning for Regional 
Transportation Development and Stormwater Management in the 
Dallas-Fort Worth Region.'' And I guess, if you don't know 
about the planning that we did, then you don't know about the 
project.
    I was curious if you were aware of that important pilot 
there, with the Army Corps of Engineers, and how you supported 
it. But I guess, if you don't know about it, I can't ask you a 
question you don't know about.
    But specifically, with respect to climate change, just 
briefly, what are each of your agencies doing to reduce 
disruptive costs of the Federal Government?
    One example of concrete action in my congressional district 
is the extension of levees in the city of Dallas. For some 
reason, we can't seem to get completed projects. Can any of you 
comment on that?
    General Spellmon. So, ma'am--this is General Spellmon--
first I will tell you that we have been incorporating climate 
change into our projects for at least the last 12 years. I know 
we are looking at the climate change effects for both the 
Dallas Floodway and the Dallas Floodway extension. So we are 
accommodating the potential of future flows that we may see in 
that region.
    I would just also share, from a very high level, we have 
also just completed following the administration's guidance to 
submit our climate adaptation plan across all of our programs, 
not just Civil Works, but also for the construction that we do 
around the country.
    Ms. Johnson of Texas. Let me--this is the final question. 
When there is a plan that we have come together with, including 
the Corps, what should the----
    Mrs. Napolitano. The----
    Ms. Johnson of Texas [continuing]. Process--excuse me?
    [Pause.]
    Ms. Johnson of Texas. How should we get that well known, 
and how can it get attention?
    General Spellmon. Ma'am, I am sorry, this is General 
Spellmon. I am sorry, I don't understand the question.
    Ms. Johnson of Texas. When a regional effort comes 
together, and puts together a plan to attempt to save money by 
providing activities ahead of the storms, how does that become 
known in the entire agency, and how can we get that known for 
implementation?
    General Spellmon. So, ma'am, we have done this in other 
regions of the country. So what I will do immediately after 
this hearing, I will follow up with General Beck to talk about 
the integrated planning for the Dallas-Fort Worth region. I 
will get myself smarter on that, and then we will come back to 
you with what we believe the next step should be.
    Ms. Johnson of Texas. Well, thank you very much. I yield 
back, Madam Chair.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
    Next is Mr. Babin, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Weber, Mr. Lowenthal.
    Mr. Babin, go ahead, please.
    [Pause.]
    Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Babin?
    Mr. Rouzer. Madam Chair, I understand Mr. Mast would be up 
next.
    Mrs. Napolitano. OK. No, Mr. Mast is after Mr. LaMalfa.
    Mr. Rouzer. He is not here, either.
    Mrs. Napolitano. OK.
    Mr. Rouzer. My understanding from the team is Mr. Mast 
would be next.
    Mrs. Napolitano. All righty. Mr. Mast, you are on. Please 
proceed.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. I 
have with me a photo here. Maybe we will be able to move it 
into the shot, if the staff can move it into the shot. And it 
is just a snapshot of the hundreds of miles of algal blooms on 
Lake Okeechobee.
    [Photo displayed.]
    General Spellmon, Mr. Pinkham, I know that you are well 
aware of what is going on out there. We have spoken about it 
numerous times before.
    Mr. Pinkham, we spoke about this in private. I visited Port 
Mayaca with General Graham during a visit, where it was 
absolutely disgusting, it looked exactly like what you see here 
behind me. This is the lock and dam. This is where your 
individuals work, right up here. We tried to go out onto this 
lock and dam, right here. And it was so disgusting that we 
couldn't even breathe. And because it was so disgusting and we 
couldn't even breathe, we tried to go inside of the building 
there. And even in the building, it was an unbearable state. We 
were spitting every couple of seconds to get the taste of it 
out of our mouths. Our clothes reeked for hours thereafter.
    And my question is, have you spoken with Major General 
Graham about this, Mr. Pinkham?
    And has he issued a written report detailing the conditions 
that Army Corps of Engineers personnel, both uniformed 
servicemembers and civilians, are being forced to work in in 
these conditions? Has he issued a report on that day?
    Mr. Pinkham. Representative Mast, yes. And as a result of 
our conversations, and your meeting with General Graham on 
this, as I laid out in my letter to you, shared how we are 
relying on the Florida Department of Public Health, the Centers 
for Disease Control, and EPA on guidance on the precautions 
that both visitors and the workforce should be taken at that 
site. So we had provided written guidance to all personnel 
about both the health risks and the other precautions they 
should be taking.
    Mr. Mast. Yes, I am--thank you, Mr. Pinkham. I am concerned 
about the letter that you sent me. It states specifically in 
the letter that the EPA, who I know I got to write a standard 
on these algal blooms, on this toxic water, says the EPA 
indicates health risks associated with inhalation are very low.
    I want to submit for the record a study by the University 
of Florida, Madam Chairwoman, if there is no objection to that, 
that indicates that the inhalation hazard from harmful algal 
blooms, these toxic algal blooms, can actually travel for up to 
10 miles, and is persistent for hours on end, Mr. Pinkham----
    Mrs. Napolitano. So ordered.
    [The information follows:]

                                 
  Article entitled, ``Atmospheric Progression of Microcystin-LR from 
  Cyanobacterial Aerosol,'' Submitted for the Record by Hon. Brian J. 
                                  Mast
                         Supporting Information
 Atmospheric Progression of Microcystin-LR from Cyanobacterial Aerosol
Myoseon Jang \*1\, David E. Berthold \2\, Zechen Yu \1\, Cecilia Silva-
Sanchez \3\, H. Dail Laughinghouse IV \2\, Nancy D. Denslow \3\, and 
Sanghee Han \1\

\1\ P.O.Box 116450, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, 
University of Florida, Florida 32611
\2\ 3205 College Ave., Agronomy Department, Fort Lauderdale Research 
and Education Center, University of Florida, Davie, Florida 33314
\3\ 2187 Mowry Road, Department of Physiological Sciences and Center 
for Environmental and Human Toxicology, University of Florida, 
Gainesville, Florida 32608
\*\ corresponding author: [email protected], 352-846-1744 (phone), 352-392-
3076 (fax)

Number of Figure: 3
Number of section: 1 (Description of the chamber, experimental 
procedures, and instrumentation)

         [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


         Figure S1. The molecular structure of Microcystin-LR.


         [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


  Figure S2: The Atmospheric Photochemical Outdoor Reactor (UF-APHOR) 
                      chambers and instrumentation

Section S1. Description of the chamber, experimental procedures, and 
        instrumentation
    UF-APHOR chamber. The UF-APHOR dual chambers are located on the 
roof of Black Hall (latitude/longitude: 29.64185 +/-82.347883 +) at the 
University of Florida (UF), Gainesville, Florida.1-3 The air 
volume of the half-cylinder shaped, dual chambers is 104 m\3\ (52 m\3\ 
+ 52 m\3\). The dual, Teflon film chambers were operated simultaneously 
to allow for investigation of two different experiments under the same 
ambient, diurnal profiles of sunlight, relative humidity (RH), and 
temperature (T). To allow for gas and aerosol characterization, chamber 
air was pumped through several sampling lines into the atmospheric 
chemistry lab that is located directly below the chamber.
    Experimental procedure using UF-APHOR. The atmospheric process of 
MC-LR in cyanobacterial aerosol was performed on the form of the batch 
reaction in UF-APHOR. The chamber air was cleaned using air purifiers 
(GC Series, IQAir) for 48 hours prior to each experiment. 
CCl4 (>99.9%, Sigma Aldrich) was used as a tracer for 
dilution. CCl4 was injected to the chamber using a glass 
manifold with clean air. Both gas data (i.e., ozone) and MC-LR data 
were corrected for the chamber dilution. The chamber dilution rate 
ranged between 0.007-0.008 per hour (less than 1% per hour). Prior to 
each experiment, the 4mL cyanobacterial culture aliquot (Microcystis 
aeruginosa or Anabaena) was sonicated for 5 minutes. Then, 100  L MC-LR 
aqueous solution (500  L/mL) was spiked to the cyanobacterial culture 
aliquot. Silica particles (NanoCym Inc., USA) were also employed to 
investigate the impact of aerosol media on the degradation of MC-LR. 
The 6 mg dry silica particles and the 100  L MC-LR aqueous solution 
(500 g/mL) were added into 5 mL water. Silica particles were 
polydisperse particles with a mean diameter of 500 nm and a BET surface 
area of 5.9  0.3 m\2\ g-1. The MC-LR spiked 
cyanobacterial aqueous solution or silica particle aqueous suspension 
was atomized into the chamber using a nebulizer (LC STAR, Pari 
Respiratory Equipment) with clean air flow. The nebulization of aerosol 
took 5-7 minutes. For the ozone experiment, ozone was produced using an 
ozone generator (Waterzone 500, Amherst, NH) and introduced into the 
chamber prior to cyanobacterial aerosol injection at nighttime. To 
measure the initial concentration of MC-LR in cyanobacterial aerosol 
for the ozonolysis experiment, the controlled dual chamber experiments 
were performed: the MCLR-spiked cyanobacterial aerosol with ozone in 
the East chamber and the without ozone in the West chamber.
    Aerosol sampling with PILS. A particle-into-liquid sampler (PILS, 
Applikon, ADI 2081) was used to collect cyanobacterial aerosol 
particles.4-7 Particles inside PILS quickly grow due to the 
condensation of water vapor, which is efficiently collected on 
impaction. The PILS collection efficiency is larger than 95% for 
particles.\4\ In the modified protocol, impacted particles were 
collected within a small amount of deionized water \6\ with a flow rate 
of 20-40 L/min. A carbon denuder was located upstream the PILS to 
remove the gas chemical species in chamber air. The PILS samples were 
subsequently applied to LC-MS/MS and ELISA.
    Instrument. The instruments used for chamber operation are shown in 
Figure S2. Agilent 7820A Gas Chromatography-Flame Ionization Detector 
was employed with an oven temperature of 100 +C to measure 
CCl4 concentrations. Gas phase concentrations of 
NOx and O3 were measured using a Teledyne Model 
200E Chemiluminescence NO-NOx Analyzer and Model 400E 
Photometric O3 Analyzer, respectively. The particle 
distribution and number concentrations of submicron particles were 
measured with a scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) (TSI, Model 
3025A, MN) coupled with a condensation nuclei counter (TSI, Model 3022, 
MN). The concentrations of the particle ranging between 0.5  m and 10  
m in particle diameter were also measured using the Optical Particle 
Counter (OPC 3330, TSI, MN). No particle was larger than 1  m. Non-
refractory species (sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, chloride and organics) 
in submicron aerosol were measured in situ by using an Aerosol Chemical 
Speciation Monitor (ACSM, Aerodyne, MA). ACSM spectra analysis was 
performed by using the standard ACSM analysis software (version: 
ACSM_local_1.6.0.0) provided by Aerodyne which was written within 
Wavemetrics Igor Pro. Both SMPS data and ACSM were utilized to estimate 
cyanobacteria aerosol mass.
    LC-MS/MS operation condition: The concentrations of MC-LR in the 
collected aerosol samples were also analyzed by high-performance liquid 
chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS\2\) using a 6500 QTRAP 
(Sciex, Palo alto, Cal.) coupled to a Nexera 2 UPLC (Shimadzu, Japan) 
system. Chromatographic separation was achieved on an Eclipse plus C18 
column, 2.1x100 mm, 3.5 mm (Agilent, CA) using 0.5 % formic acid in 
water as phase A and 0.5% formic acid in acetonitrile as phase B. The 
flow rate was set as 0.2 mL/min. The gradient started at 5% of B for 2 
min; ramped to 60% B in 2 min, 95% B in 0.5 min, 96% B in 3.5 min, 100 
% B in 0.5 min; and then held for 0.5 min. Data were acquired in 
positive mode using the following parameters: 35 psi curtain gas, 5000 
V ion spray voltage, 350 +C source temperature, 12 psi collision gas, 
50 psi nebulizer gas, and 60psi heater gas. Two transitions were used 
for MC-LR:


         [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


Data were acquired using Analyst v.1.7 software and analyzed using 
Analyst v.1.6.2 software. A MC-LR standard (Abraxis; Cat. No. 300632, 
CAS No. 101043-37-2) was solubilized in 5% acetonitrile + 0.5% formic 
acid to build a standard curve from 0.5 nm\3\m-3 to 100 
nm\3\m-3. The limit of detection and limit of quantitation 
were determined as 3 or 10 times the standard deviation of the response 
of the curve and the slope of the calibration curve, respectively.
Concentrations of MC-LR
    Concentrations of MC-LR in air (ng/m\3\): The concentration of the 
MC-LR in chamber air is calculated using the aerosol mass concentration 
( g/m\3\) and the mass ratio of MC-LR to dried algae (50:8320 for Exps 
A and E; 50:2000 for Exp B; 50:3750 for Exp. C; 50: 6000 for Exp. D). 
SMPS data and the density of aerosol (assuming to be one) will provide 
the aerosol mass concentration. In order to determine the dry algae 
mass concentration in cyanobacterial aqueous solution, a 100  L 
homogeneous cyanobacterial aqueous solution was dried on a preweighed 
Teflon-coated, glass-fiber filter (Emfab TX40 HI20 WW; Pallflex Corp., 
Putnam, CT) using a dry air tank. The dried cyanobacterial biomass on 
the filter was weighed using an analytical balance (MX5; Mettler-Toledo 
Ltd., England). The cyanobacterial concentration was determined by the 
filter mass with and without cyanobacteria and the volume of the 
cyanobacterial solution. The dry cyanobacterial mass concentrations of 
Exps. (A), (B), and (C) were 3.3 mg/mL, 0.8 mg/mL and 0.75 mg/mL, 
respectively.
    MC-LR mass concentration (ng/ g algae aerosol) and cyanobacterial 
aerosol: The mass concentrations of MC-LR were calculated using LC-MS/
MS data (ng/mL) (or ELISA) in the PILS samples (mL/m\3\) and the 
aerosol mass concentrations ( g/m\3\, SMPS data and the density of 
aerosol) in chamber air. For the calculation of the kinetic rate 
constant, the MC-LR concentration associated with aerosol 
concentrations were corrected for chamber dilution (CCl4 
data). The MCLR concentration (ng/ g) at time = t ([MC-LR]t) 
was normalized with the initial MC-LR concentration ([MC-
LR]0) at time = 0 in Figure 1 of the manuscript. The 
relative concentrations were applied to determine the rate constant for 
the reaction of aerosolized MC-LR with ozone.


         [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


 Figure S3. Time profiles of temperature (T), %relative humidity (%RH) 
and TUVR sunlight irradiance over the course of the chamber experiment 
                               (Table 1).

References
    1.  Im, Y.; Jang, M.; Beardsley, R., Simulation of Aromatic SOA 
Formation Using the Lumping Model Integrated with Explicit Gas-Phase 
Kinetic Mechanisms and Aerosol Phase Reactions. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 
2014, 13, 5843-5870.
    2.  Beardsley, L. R.; Jang, M., Simulating the SOA formation of 
isoprene from partitioning and aerosol phase reactions in the presence 
of inorganics. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 2016, 16, 5993-6009.
    3.  Zhou, C.; Jang, M.; Yu, Z., Simulation of SOA Formation from 
the Photooxidation of Monoalkylbenzenes in the Presence of Aqueous 
Aerosols Containing Electrolytes under Various NOx Levels. Atmos. Chem. 
Phys. 2019, 19, 5719-5735.
    4.  Orsini, D. A.; Ma, Y.; Sullivan, A.; Sierau, B.; Baumann, K.; 
Weber, R. J., Refinements to the particle-into-liquid sampler (PILS) 
for ground and airborne measurements of water soluble aerosol 
composition. Atmos. Environ. 2003, 37, (9), 1243-1259.
    5.  Jiang, H.; Jang, M., Dynamic Oxidative Potential of Atmospheric 
Organic Aerosol Under Ambient Sunlight. Environmental Science and 
Technology 2018, 52 (13), 7496-7504.
    6.  Jiang, H.; Jang, M.; Sabo-Attwood, T.; Robinson, S. E., 
Oxidative Potential of Secondary Organic Aerosols Produced from 
Photooxidation of Different Hydrocarbons Using Outdoor Chamber under 
Ambient Sunlight. Atmos. Environ. 2016, 131, 382-389.
    7.  Jiang, H.; Yu, Z.; Jang, M., Dithiothreitol Activity by 
Particulate Oxidizers of SOA Produced from Photooxidation of 
Hydrocarbons under Varied NOx Levels Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 
2017, 17, 9965-9977.

    Mr. Mast [continuing]. And General Spellmon--thank you, 
Madam.
    Would you say that the people working in this region fall 
within that 10-mile parameter that this University of Florida 
study points to?
    Do your workers fall within that 10-mile parameter, and 
that persistent area that this University of Florida study 
points to?
    Mr. Pinkham. Representative Mast, yes, the site would be 
within the 10 miles. But what I would like to do----
    Mr. Mast. I need to pause you there, I just need to pause 
you there, sir. I appreciate that. I will give you more time.
    That being said, the letter that you wrote me, it said the 
EPA indicates the health risks are very low. Do you have any 
source material that says where the EPA got that? Because I 
have done extensive research on this, and I can't find one EPA 
study on inhalation hazards as it relates to these algal blooms 
that have measured, in some cases, over 100 times too toxic, 
according to the ingestion standard that the EPA put forward. 
So do you know, is there source material for what the EPA 
stated?
    Mr. Pinkham. Representative Mast, I will be happy to follow 
up and go through EPA to get that source material.
    Mr. Mast. I don't believe that there is source material. I 
appreciate you helping me out with that, because I want to read 
it, if there is.
    General Spellmon, I want to go to you quickly here. Given 
the information that I just put out there, this is a picture of 
this Sunday, these toxic algal blooms. Are you aware at what 
level they measured?
    General Spellmon. No. No, I am not.
    Mr. Mast. OK, that is concerning, especially considering 
that I wrote you guys a letter, talking about the fact that you 
have uniformed service personnel working directly on top of 
them, and civilian personnel working directly on top of them. 
That actually measured about 116 parts per billion. That is 16 
times more toxic than what the EPA says is OK.
    And my question to you is simply this: Given that 
information, and that you acknowledged about 1\1/2\ years ago 
that it is toxic water, would you say that your soldiers and 
personnel at Port Mayaca are being poisoned?
    General Spellmon. No, I would not. I would say we are going 
to follow the guidance.
    Mr. Mast. Are you willing to risk your career on the fact 
that your soldiers and civilians are not being poisoned?
    General Spellmon. Sir, we are going to follow the best 
guidance from the Florida Department of Health and the EPA.
    Mr. Mast. Yes. I am just going to say this last sentence. I 
don't take anything more seriously than the safety of the 
people in my community, and the safety of my brothers and 
sisters in arms. I know you are a uniformed servicemember. I 
just gave you pretty damning information about how toxic this 
is, and the fact that your personnel are sitting there, 
breathing it 10 hours a day.
    Would anybody in this room care if I opened this up? 
[Indicating jar containing unidentified substance.]
    Voice. [Inaudible] open it.
    Mr. Mast. Would you care if I opened this up?
    Voice. No.
    Mr. Mast. Why?
    General, would you care if I opened this up in here?
    Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Mast, your time is up, sir.
    Mr. Mast. I will open it up, then, thanks.
    Mrs. Napolitano. OK. You make a valid point. That is 
unconscionable to have that happen. When was that picture 
taken, Mr. Mast?
    Mr. Mast. No, I will get it open, eventually.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Mast?
    Mr. Mast. Yes, ma'am?
    Mrs. Napolitano. When was that picture taken?
    Mr. Mast. Sunday.
    Mrs. Napolitano. General, I hope that----
    Mr. Mast. The picture was taken Sunday.
    Mrs. Napolitano [continuing]. That the results of his 
questioning are available to all the committee. This is an 
important issue for the health of the people that are involved.
    Mr. Garamendi, you are next.
    Mr. Garamendi. Madam Chair, you are really, really 
fortunate that you are not here in the hearing room. That man 
is about to open that toxic algae bloom, and we are within 10 
feet here.
    Stop it, Mr. Mast.
    Mr. Mast. A lot of people have to breathe this every day. I 
can't even get this thing open. Thank God. Somebody on my staff 
has got a strong grip.
    Mr. Garamendi. Well, we appreciate whoever closed that and 
sealed it. We don't need that.
    Incidentally, there is a law that we passed. It is called 
the OATH Act. It requires that every medical record for anybody 
in the military--and we are now going to amend it to include 
civilian personnel--that in their medical record, exposure to 
toxics be in that medical record for the rest of their lives, 
so that any subsequent illness might be traced back to that 
toxic.
    Mr. Mast. As I requested----
    Mr. Garamendi. And you were one of the coauthors of that 
piece of legislation.
    Mrs. Napolitano. That is great.
    Mr. Garamendi. Very good, thank you.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Mast, would you mute yourself?
    Mr. Garamendi. I am consuming my time here. Please excuse 
me. And Mr. Mast is on to a very, very important issue.
    And thank you, Mr. Mast, for raising that. We also have 
algae blooms in California.
    My questions go to General Spellmon and Secretary Pinkham. 
I want to talk about restoration programs. California has some 
of the most affected rivers. The Sacramento River system, there 
are two major restoration projects on the Sacramento River. I 
want to bring to the attention of General Spellmon the Yuba 
River Goldfields restoration project, a project that has been 
authorized, but is now in abeyance, and may very well stop, as 
a result of a specific ruling by the Corps of Engineers.
    General Spellmon, your predecessor wrote--in the final 
authorization for this from the Corps of Engineers, General 
Semonite wrote, ``Great project, proud to contribute to the 
restoration of critical fish habitat for nationally significant 
aquatic species,'' meaning salmon.
    Unfortunately, the final contract between the Corps of 
Engineers and the local agencies, the Yuba County Water Agency, 
did not limit the future liability of the local agency to 
restore the project to the completed program, which made no 
sense in two ways. One, unlimited liability could be several 
tens of millions of dollars at any time. And secondly, the 
project was specifically designed--well, the initial 
restoration would be to try to restore as much as humans know 
what the river might have looked like before the Yuba 
Goldfields totally destroyed a 10-mile stretch of the river.
    The project was designed so that the river would run free, 
and restore itself over time. That is one thing. I bring that 
to your attention, and ask for your consideration on this 
liability issue.
    The second is a new project that actually would be 
authorized under the Yolo Bypass Systems Improvement. The 2016 
WRDA legislation would authorize it. This is a 300,000-acre 
restoration project that would include two of the major flood 
bypasses, the Sutter Bypass and the Yolo Bypass, that work in 
coordination with the nearby and adjacent rice fields to 
provide 300,000 acres of restored salmon habitat in those 
bypasses, using the return flows from the rice fields to 
provide nutrients for the salmon. It has been shown in pilot 
programs on the Yolo Bypass that the salmon are somewhere 
between two and four times more successful in such a project.
    I bring this to your attention, would ask for you to 
consider joining the Secretary of the Interior in a visit to 
this program. The program is supported by the American Rivers, 
the Audubon, California Rice Commission, California Trout, 
California Waterfowl, Conaway Preservation, Ducks Unlimited, 
Ecosystems, Glenn-Colusa, on and on, and the Northern 
California Water Association.
    This is a 300,000-acre win-win program that is available. I 
don't expect a response on either of these now. But for sure, 
we are going to get back together again to talk about it, and 
how we can actually move these two projects forward. We need to 
have a better contract from the Corps of Engineers for the Yuba 
River Goldfields program. And we need your engagement on the 
California flood plain restoration project.
    With that, I yield back my remaining 3 seconds. Thank you.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Well, thank you, Mr. Garamendi, for being 
so generous with your time.
    Mr. LaMalfa, you may proceed.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to echo 
some of what Mr. Garamendi was saying on how successful that 
restoration is in the rice lands up there in the area, too. It 
is not far from my neighborhood. So it is looking good.
    I want to address General Spellmon and Mr. Pinkham, as 
well, in my thoughts here. We have a situation in the far north 
part of my district. There are four hydroelectric dams. Three 
are on the California side, one is on the Oregon side, up on 
the Klamath River. And at a time when we are facing power 
shutoffs because of heat, because of a grid that is not keeping 
up, underway is the process of removing these dams that--just 
recently, FERC has approved a transfer of the license on these 
four dams to an entity called the KRC, as well as the State of 
California and Oregon, because KRC is just a shell corporation 
that has really no assets to back it up. So now the taxpayers 
of California and Oregon will be on the hook for the possible 
cost overruns on dam removal.
    So FERC sent to Army Corps in the San Francisco District a 
memo for the NEPA process. It will direct Army Corps to partner 
with FERC, and perform the environmental review functions under 
section 404 we are very familiar with, and also section 10 of 
the Rivers and Harbors Act. So there are a lot of issues with 
the dam removal.
    What we saw--what was called the Condit Dam up in the State 
of Washington, they breached a dam a while back, it ended up 
smothering the spawning grounds with silt. It had about 2.4 
million cubic yards of sediment there that ended up going 
downstream and smothering spawning grounds. So the number on 
the Klamath is not 2.4, but 20 million cubic yards is one 
estimate. It could be as high as 60 million, because it is hard 
to estimate this behind dams.
    So what we are looking at is that, under section 404, the 
permits are required to dispose of dredged or fill material in 
the Nation's waterways.
    So does the Army Corps have any idea--General Spellmon, how 
are we going to mitigate 20 million cubic yards of silt and 
sediment behind this set of dams, given that the sediment 
really hasn't been dealt with in this kind of volume before?
    What can we be looking at, as far as a true--when you are 
doing your NEPA on this, how do you account for that much 
sediment?
    General Spellmon. Yes, sir, the answer may be that we can't 
account for it, right? And it might not be a good disposal 
option. So I won't know the answer to that, sir, until we get 
further down the NEPA process, and do the math, and do the 
analysis, and do the modeling. But I cannot answer that today.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Does the Army Corps have any plans under 
this memo to do an expedited or accelerated NEPA review process 
here, as I seem to be hearing?
    General Spellmon. Congressman, I am not familiar with an 
expedited process on these three hydroelectric dams. I have not 
heard that.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK, yes--there is four.
    Mr. Pinkham, do you have anything on that?
    Mr. Pinkham. Like General Spellmon, I have not heard 
anything about an expedited process on NEPA.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK. So is there any idea how long the review 
itself might take on something like this, either of you 
gentlemen?
    General Spellmon. Sir, I will follow up with our Sacramento 
District, Commander Colonel Handura, and get a better estimate 
of timeline for you.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK, I think it is based in the San Francisco 
District, though, OK? So you guys will figure that out.
    Do you have any idea how long the environmental review of 
the Condit Dam took, up in the State of Washington?
    General Spellmon. Sir, this is General Spellmon. I do not.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Please let us know on that, as you get the 
chance.
    On flood control now, obviously, that is a cornerstone of 
Army Corps' work in the United States. Is the Army Corps 
allowed or are they going to consider flood control to be a 
primary purpose of these dams, as it has shown to be?
    But is that--in the memo that you are going to be working 
on, the MOU, is Army Corps' responsibility and work on flood 
control, is that going to be given weight as to whether it 
agrees in this NEPA process that the dam removal is a good idea 
or not?
    General Spellmon. Yes, sir, it will. That will be a 
component.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Is that a pretty key component, or is it 
secondary to a perceived environmental benefits, or--what are 
you looking at, do you think?
    General Spellmon. So sir, I will dig into these four dams 
that you mentioned. I am not familiar with the authorized 
purposes for which they were originally designed and built. 
That will be a large function of the answer to that question, 
and I will have to follow up with you once I know more.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK. They do serve a flood control function, in 
addition, as well as they are actually a source of water supply 
in firefighting, too, for aircraft that can scoop the water 
out, or withdraw the water from the lakes. And so that is 
important, as well. But it has been shown to be an important 
firefighting tool, as well as the flood control. And with the 
removal of these dams, it is fully expected that there is--
further down in Siskiyou County we will have flood problems 
that they haven't had since the existence of these dams.
    Under section----
    Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. LaMalfa, your time is up.
    Mr. LaMalfa [continuing]. 404, and also section 10----
    Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. LaMalfa?
    Mr. LaMalfa. Ma'am?
    Mrs. Napolitano. Your time is up.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Oh, that flew by. OK.
    Please look into the C. shasta virus aspects, too, where 
the river situation causes a virus that affects the salmon on 
there, and see if section 404 covers the cause of C. shasta to 
be made worse by this dam removal, and the flushing that may or 
may not happen.
    So thank you, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
    Mr. Lowenthal, you may proceed.
    Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank all the 
panelists. This is a fascinating hearing, and I would like to 
also ask a question of General Spellmon.
    And again, it is going to relate to my own district. There 
has been more and more attention, since the pandemic, on ports, 
particularly the San Pedro Bay port complex. Half of the Port 
of Long Beach is in my district.
    Since the pandemic, first the drop-off, then tremendous 
growth and congestion, difficulty in backlog, and getting ships 
in and out. And not a day goes by that people do not ask me, 
``What more is Congress doing for port infrastructure?''
    In the case of the Port of Long Beach, which is the port 
that I represent, the port is making massive investments in 
their rail network. As their executive director, Mario Cordero, 
has stated in congressional testimony, the future is in rail. I 
agree with him, but I also know that water investments go hand 
in hand with rail investments, and I am hoping you can give me 
a status update on the Port of Long Beach's deep draft 
navigation study.
    The purpose of this feasibility study is to identify, 
evaluate, improve existing navigation channels within the Port 
of Long Beach, to improve conditions for current and future 
container and liquid bulk vessels operating safely, and 
especially in the event of vessel malfunction----
    [Audio malfunction.]
    Mr. Lowenthal [continuing]. Study is on track to receive a 
Chief's Report this fall. Is that true?
    And can you tell me when we can expect your signature on 
this critical project document?
    General Spellmon. So, Congressman Lowenthal, I had the 
opportunity to visit the Port of Long Beach in January of 2019, 
so I acknowledge the importance of this report to the region.
    The Chief's Report is scheduled to be on my desk in 90 
days. I intend to sign that in September. And that will make 
that project eligible for Congress' consideration in WRDA 2022.
    Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, and I think that is a wonderful 
answer, and I yield back.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal, and I would now 
like Mr. Babin to go proceed.
    Dr. Babin. Yes, ma'am. Thank you so very much, Madam 
Chairwoman and Ranking Member Rouzer. Thank you to our 
witnesses for being here with us today.
    General Spellmon, thank you for your service to our 
country, and I would like to commend you on your personal 
attention that you have given to my district and the State of 
Texas. Your leadership has not gone unnoticed, I promise you.
    And Acting Assistant Secretary Pinkham, welcome to the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. 
I look very much forward to working with you and your staff 
before and after you are confirmed. I would also like to 
personally extend an invitation to the Greater Houston area to 
you to view some of the great Corps projects that we have going 
on in southeast Texas, like the Port of Houston Channel 
improvement project in Galveston Bay, the Sabine coastal storm 
risk management ecosystem restoration project. I was proud to 
work with Assistant Secretary R.D. James on several Texas 
issues, and look forward to now working with you on improving 
our port and water infrastructure.
    I have the privilege of representing southeast Texas, from 
Houston over to Louisiana, which, in my district, includes four 
ports. And this past December I was honored to have helped lead 
the effort, alongside other Houston delegation members, to see 
through to the end the successful authorization and 
appropriation to dredge and widen the Houston Ship Channel in 
the Water Resources Development Act.
    And to go even further, a few weeks later we were able to 
secure $19 million and a New Start designation to begin 
construction of this project, which is a timeline very, very 
unusual to achieve. This was a very large, huge win, I think, 
for the country itself, considering that the Port of Houston is 
the number-one-ranked port in the Nation in total of waterborne 
tonnage, sustaining 3 million American jobs, $802 million in 
U.S. economic value, and generating $38 billion in Federal, 
State, and local tax revenues.
    But before the Corps could begin construction, a project 
partnership agreement must be executed. It is my understanding 
that both parties are extremely close to finalizing that 
agreement. So, Secretary Pinkham, can you provide me an 
estimated date on when the project partnership agreement will 
be finalized?
    And if there are any delays, will you commit to expediting 
the finalization of that agreement?
    Expanding and enhancing all our ports here in Texas is a 
critical investment that is key to our global competitiveness.
    [Pause.]
    Dr. Babin. Secretary Pinkham?
    Mr. Pinkham. Yes, thank you, Representative Babin. I am not 
that familiar with the project. We are happy to look into it, 
and look at what the timeline is ahead, and get back to you.
    Also, thank you for your invitation to visit the Greater 
Houston area. I would like to take you up on your offer. And 
just for the record, I am the Acting Assistant Secretary of the 
Army, and we are working on the confirmation of Mr. Connor, who 
will come in, we hope, as the ASACW.
    Dr. Babin. Got you.
    Mr. Pinkham. But in the meantime, I would be happy----
    Dr. Babin. Got you. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    And General Spellmon, it is my understanding that the Port 
of Corpus Christi's ongoing channel improvement project did not 
meet the required benefit-to-cost ratio for inclusion in the 
fiscal year 2022 President's budget. However, they could have 
been included in the budget, if the remaining funds of the $154 
million had been provided.
    Was the Port of Corpus Christi's channel improvement 
project considered for inclusion in the fiscal year 2022 
President's budget?
    And if the port was considered, why was it not included in 
the budget?
    Were there any other factors besides their benefit-to-cost 
ratio that led to the project's exclusion in the President's 
budget?
    General Spellmon. Sir, I can say, from a technical 
perspective, we report capabilities to the administration on 
work that we can do on the upcoming fiscal year. The Corpus 
Christi project had a capability on the order of about $155 
million.
    We acknowledge the importance of this port to the people of 
Texas and, frankly, to the Nation. And we want to finish 
everything that we start.
    I will tell you that we will continue to make our strongest 
technical recommendations to continue this work.
    Dr. Babin. Absolutely. Thank you. And the Port of Corpus 
Christi, although not in my district, is extremely important, 
in terms of energy being brought out of our great State.
    So with that, Madam Chair, I will yield back. Thank you 
very much.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mr. Babin. I 
appreciate you returning your time. Next we have Mr. 
Malinowski.
    You may proceed.
    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to our 
witnesses.
    So Acting Assistant Secretary Pinkham, I wanted to start by 
just thanking you for the response that you sent to the letter 
that I sent you in late May, along with Senators Menendez and 
Booker, and Congressman Payne regarding our Rahway River flood 
risk mitigation study in my district in New Jersey. I think you 
probably know at this point how important this is to me and to 
my constituents, that we address the persistent flood risks in 
that area, and find a solution that will ultimately get this 
project into a Chief's Report.
    And Lieutenant General Spellmon, you will remember, I 
think, that you and I discussed this at a Water Resources and 
Environment Subcommittee hearing way back in July of 2019. You 
and your colleagues have been hearing from my staff and from me 
regularly since then. And I know you are a Jersey native, so 
you know the area well, and understand the need. My 
constituents and I, as you know, we were disappointed that the 
Corps moved to terminate the study in 2019. We, of course, 
nullified that termination in the 2020 WRDA bill.
    And, as you acknowledged in your letter, Assistant 
Secretary, the Corps confirmed its intention to resume the 
study, and we are very grateful for that.
    So a couple of questions for Mr. Pinkham, and feel free to 
weigh in, if you like, General Spellmon, as well.
    Just to put a finer point on your response to me earlier 
this week, can you reaffirm here your commitment to work 
closely and collaboratively with both the non-Federal sponsor 
and the local affected communities on a suitable path forward 
for this project, and to stay engaged until we have developed a 
solution?
    Mr. Pinkham. That is correct. And as I said in my opening 
statements, the foundations of our work are really built around 
partnerships. So I look forward to collaboration on this 
project.
    Mr. Malinowski. Good. And you noted in the letter that you 
sent on June 18th that, in accordance with WRDA, the Corps 
intends to resume the study. Can you offer us any more clarity 
today as to when?
    WRDA was signed, I think, on December 27th of last year, so 
6 months ago. And our communities are, naturally, quite anxious 
about this.
    Mr. Pinkham. Yes. Currently, we are working on the 
implementation guidance of the WRDA provisions, which we hope 
to be done by this August.
    Mr. Malinowski. OK, and can you confirm, finally, that the 
Corps has the necessary resources to proceed with the 
resumption of the study?
    Mr. Pinkham. I really don't know the particulars of that, 
but I will be happy to look into it.
    Mr. Malinowski. Good. If you can, get back to us.
    And then, finally, broadening the discussion out from my 
district and my State, as you know, the committee, we recently 
advanced a very ambitious water infrastructure bill that, among 
other things, would invest $40 billion over 5 years in the 
Clean Water State Revolving Fund, millions more in grants to 
municipalities for water projects around the country. I think 
there is bipartisan consensus that we have underinvested in our 
water infrastructure over many years, so it is a lot of money 
that we are proposing.
    But I would note that the Corps has its own backlog of 
projects that have been authorized, but not funded. And I 
understand that backlog is around $100 billion. Is that 
correct?
    General Spellmon. Sir, this is General Spellmon. That is 
correct, on the order of $109 billion, across 963 projects.
    Mr. Malinowski. Good. And would you be able to enumerate 
for us--maybe not today, in our back and forth, but 
afterwards--the dollar amount that the Corps could execute for 
water resource development projects and studies over the next 5 
to 8 years, if you had the funding, what your actual capacity 
would be?
    General Spellmon. Yes, sir. We can outline that for you, 
geographically and over time.
    Mr. Malinowski. That would be helpful.
    And I will just close with the point we are authorizing a 
lot of money, and I strongly support the bill, but I think it 
is important for all of us and every American to understand 
that, even with the very generous amounts that we will 
hopefully be appropriating this year, there will still be deep, 
deep needs in our communities that may not be satisfied. And so 
let's be ambitious with this opportunity we have this year to 
pass a good bill.
    Thank you so much. I yield back.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Malinowski. You make a 
great point. And I have always said we need to stop using Band-
Aid approaches, and be able to give enough funding to be able 
to get things done.
    Mr. Westerman, you may proceed.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to 
General Spellmon and Acting Secretary Pinkham for being here 
today to discuss the proposed budget.
    And before I begin questioning, I would like to acknowledge 
that the proposed budget does include $149 million for the New 
Start construction for the Three Rivers project. And, as you 
all are aware, that project that is at the confluence of the 
Arkansas and Mississippi Rivers affects the whole MKARNS 
system, and all the States and groups that depend upon the 
MKARNS for navigation, as well as the flood control component 
of that. Another critical component that affects my State, as 
well as other States, is the MKARNS project, and the 
President's budget includes $56.1 million in operations and 
maintenance funding for the MKARNS. I believe this is low, but 
it is a start.
    Congress made clear in the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2020 that I was--you know, enjoyed working with Chairwoman 
Napolitano on that. I thought we had a good bill, and we 
specified in there that the MKARNS does not require a New Start 
through the annual funding process. And I understand that the 
districts are updating the economic feasibility of the project, 
but what is the Corps' plan to resume construction of this 
project that, unbelievably, began in 2005?
    General Spellmon. Sir, this is General Spellmon. So I will 
tell you I have had the opportunity to visit this project in 
Three Rivers earlier this year, and we acknowledge it is 
important.
    So we appreciate the support Congress gave us in the fiscal 
year 2021 work plan, that $559,000. What we are doing with 
those funds, sir, we are investing them and ensuring our design 
is up to date, and our cost estimate is up to date. And once we 
have those two products, that will help us support our 
budgetary submission for consideration by the Secretary. And we 
are working on these actions now.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you. We will, obviously, be monitoring 
that closely, and we are here to help with it however we can.
    As I said previously, the President's budget proposal did 
include O&M funds above the fiscal year 2021 enacted level for 
the entire MKARNS. Arkansas projects are proposed to receive 
approximately $1 million less in the proposed budget. And 
noting that MKARNS faces an approximately $230 million critical 
infrastructure and maintenance backlog, and that this system 
has a responsibility to be maintained by the Federal 
Government, what is the plan to address the critical 
maintenance backlog on the MKARNS?
    General Spellmon. Sir, this is General Spellmon, I will 
start.
    So my latest numbers show we have a $245 million backlog on 
the system. And so, just for context, across the Nation on 
Corps projects, our O&M backlog is about $4\1/4\ billion.
    I will say we appreciate the President's budget request, a 
record high for operations and maintenance funding, over $4 
billion. And that will help us immensely, both on the MKARNS 
and on other important projects that we have to bring down that 
backlog number.
    Mr. Westerman. Yes, so it is $15 million more than the 
numbers we had. I think that shows how quickly this maintenance 
backlog is piling up.
    So, General, what is the annual capacity for operations and 
maintenance on the MKARNS?
    How much work could be done if the funding were available?
    General Spellmon. Sir, I don't have that number with me, 
but I can get that and follow up with you shortly after the 
hearing.
    Mr. Westerman. I appreciate that. My sources tell me that 
the capability is much higher than the amount of funding that 
is there, and we know that the longer we delay critical 
maintenance, that it increases the cost even more. So, coming 
from an engineering background, it just makes sense to me that 
we would spend money wisely, that we would take care of 
maintenance issues before they became emergency issues.
    I know this isn't unique just to the MKARNS, it is unique 
to the whole system. I think it is something that we need to 
focus more on in Congress. I think Chairwoman Napolitano and 
many others on the committee would agree to that, that it is a 
shame that we don't have the--it almost seems like we don't 
have the moxie to do the required maintenance that we need to 
do, whether that is funding, or getting projects approved, or 
actually getting execution on these projects.
    So I wish you all the best. And again, this is a very 
important part of the President's budget. And I look to see 
good results coming from it.
    I yield back.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Westerman. And I sure miss 
you, sir.
    The order next is Mr. Carbajal, Miss Gonzalez-Colon, Mr. 
Stanton, Mrs. Steel, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Nehls, Mr. Brown, Ms. 
Norton.
    Mr. Carbajal, you are next.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you----
    Mrs. Napolitano. You may proceed.
    Mr. Carbajal [continuing]. Chairwoman. Thank you, 
Chairwoman Napolitano.
    And thank you, Lieutenant General Spellmon and Acting 
Secretary Pinkham, for being here. As you know, I represent the 
central coast of California, and we are all too familiar with 
the increased threats of climate change from increased 
wildfires, prolonged droughts, more severe flooding, and 
devastating debris flows. The central coast is all too familiar 
with this new reality.
    Currently, we have various Army Corps projects that might 
bring some relief to my constituents as we deal with these new 
risks. San Luis Obispo County is having ongoing conversations 
with the L.A. District about potentially taking on ownership of 
the Salinas Dam. My understanding, from discussions with 
Colonel Julie Balten, overseeing the Los Angeles District, is 
that the dam is currently a military asset.
    So a couple of questions. Do you see any obstacles to the 
transfer of the dam to the county of San Luis Obispo?
    And two, is there legislation that I should consider in 
order to accomplish the goal of delegating authority and 
transferring the dam to San Luis Obispo County?
    General Spellmon. Congressman, my understanding on this 
process is the Corps would request to do a disposition study on 
this project. Again, this dam was built in 1942, over a 6-month 
period, and then transferred to the Corps 7 months later.
    The purpose of the disposition study is to make sure that 
all parties have eyes wide open on the structural integrity of 
the dam, any seismic concerns, any environmental concerns, and 
let's have all that on the table, and then have that 
discussion.
    Regarding legislative drafting services, sir, we have done 
this before on other parts of our infrastructure, and we would 
be happy to work with you after we get started on the 
disposition study, on what that legislative language might look 
like.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. I don't know, Acting Secretary 
Pinkham, if you have anything else to add.
    Mr. Pinkham. I have nothing to add, sir.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Moving on, the Lower Mission Creek 
flood control project began as a partnership between the county 
of Santa Barbara and the Corps in the late 1960s. I am glad to 
see that the Corps is working with Santa Barbara County on a 
Post-Authorization Change Report to account for post-fire 
hazards and current construction performed by the county of 
Santa Barbara.
    Would you be able to provide an update on where this 
project stands at this point?
    General Spellmon. Congressman, I can. Again, we appreciate 
Congress' support in the 2021 work plan. That $500,000 allowed 
us to initiate the Post-Authorization Change Report that you 
just mentioned. We are in the President's fiscal year 2022 
budget for $600,000. That will allow us to complete the PACR 
report, and we estimate that will be an 18-month effort.
    Again, we are here to update the economics, the benefits, 
and the costs, and then we would welcome the opportunity to 
keep you informed as we progress on that report.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, General, I appreciate your 
attention to this particular project in my district, and I look 
forward to continuing to work with your staff on this important 
project.
    Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Carbajal, very much 
appreciated.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon, you may proceed.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Madam Chair, I am happy to 
be here. And thank you, as well, to the ranking member, and the 
witnesses and the work they do, and the information they 
provide to us.
    I need to say that, in the case of the Army Corps of 
Engineers, it is an agency very close to me. The Army Corps 
team has been outstanding in Puerto Rico, and their leaders 
should be proud of them. They have truly delivered during the 
last 5 years that I have been working with them, and I need to 
do a shout-out to Mr. Tim Murphy of Jacksonville, and Milan 
Mora, as well, of the Jacksonville office, and Jorge Cruz, 
among many others from the Puerto Rico team, for their 
outstanding job.
    And having said that, I would like to go directly to some 
of the questions.
    One of the reasons that I am very worried is to see 
significantly lower numbers in both the investigations account 
and in the construction account. The investigations are 
essential to know where and how to proceed with construction. 
And construction, as you may know, is essential for the mission 
of protection of life and property. In our letters we had--we 
requested funding for the construction account at no less than 
the $2.69 billion that was in the fiscal year 2021 enacted 
level. So we hope we can better approach that amount to ensure 
the Army Corps' mission capability.
    Having said that, I know there is a strong demand for Army 
Corps construction projects in Puerto Rico, including my two 
priorities, the Cano Martin Pena ecosystem restoration project, 
and the San Juan Harbor navigation project. The first one is 
authorized to address condition, channeling, the health and 
well-being of approximately 26,000 residents in 8 communities, 
the area's economic development, and critical infrastructure 
like the San Juan International Airport.
    I have already called on the appropriators for funds for 
the first contract of the construction phase, which is shovel-
ready, and the non-Federal sponsor has already met the real 
estate requirements, and yet, after 14 years of construction, 
has not commenced, despite repeated extensions of the 
authorizations of ecosystem restoration ``new start.'' So that 
is one of the areas that I want to focus on.
    Also critical for us is the San Juan Harbor navigation 
project, which I also brought up with appropriators, and this 
is our principal port, handling most of Puerto Rico's 
waterborne trade, and most of the cruise passengers to the 
island. It is also a key point of operation for the U.S.-
flagged merchant fleet. And the project has the necessary 
Chief's Report. We are looking for it to be budgeted for a 
start, as well.
    We also have issues with the coastal erosion, and I will 
submit for the record some comments regarding that. I would 
like--there was an initial study for the Rincon area. You know, 
the community doesn't just want to put a wall on those areas. 
It would rather protect the natural shoreline as much as 
possible. So I would like to be updated on those 
communications, and how we can make it easier.
    So my question at this point, although I am going to submit 
some for the record, Madam Chair, is how we can help, from 
Congress, to those two projects, to move it forward, to get it 
included, what you need from us. What do you need from 
Congress? What do you need from the Government of Puerto Rico 
to make that happen?
    And if I can count on reaching out to your office to work 
with the non-Federal sponsor to determine how we can best 
improve the outlook of--to get that started, the Cano Martin 
Pena, and if there are any issues that hinder its inclusion in 
the work plan under the construction account.
    General Spellmon. So, ma'am, this is General Spellmon. I 
will begin.
    First off, I will tell you I will be in Puerto Rico next 
week. I am going to go walk, and see all of these projects 
again, and I will have a more detailed update after I am there.
    I will tell you Congress is doing everything they need to 
be doing to help us. On Cano Martin ecosystem restoration 
project, the President's 2022 budget offers us $2.15 million. 
We are going to use that to conduct preliminary engineering and 
design of the project, and that is an important prerequisite we 
need to have complete before we go back to the administration 
and request construction funding.
    So, again, we want to complete the design, and then we will 
go ask for the construction dollars.
    As you already know, the San Juan Harbor, we already have 
the money from Congress that was given to us in the 2019 work 
plan to complete preliminary engineering and design. That will 
be done next month. And then that will allow us to seek, in our 
next budget proposal to the Secretary, construction funding.
    And ma'am, I just want to say we appreciate your leadership 
and passion for these projects.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. So I know my time expired, Madam 
Chair. I will submit for the record a list of other questions, 
and I hope we can see you next week in Puerto Rico.
    I yield back.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Miss Gonzalez-Colon.
    Mr. Stanton, you are recognized.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    First let me address my questions to General Spellmon. 
General Spellmon, my home State of Arizona has a number of 
critically important ecosystem restoration and flood protection 
projects. But for far too long they haven't received the 
support that they need from the Corps. And as I have reviewed 
the budget proposal and previous work plans, it is clear to me 
that Arizona is not getting its fair share. This current budget 
proposes less than $5 million for the entire State of Arizona, 
one of the most populous States in the country. And all of that 
funding is directed to operation and maintenance.
    Sadly, it includes nothing to advance construction of the 
Little Colorado at Winslow flood protection project, nothing 
for ecosystem restoration projects, including Rio Salado, Tres 
Rios, and Rio Salado Oeste, and nothing to advance critical 
feasibility studies at Cave Buttes Dam and the Agua Fria Trilby 
Wash.
    General Spellmon, will you commit today to working with me 
to address these glaring funding shortfalls, and help advance 
these and other critical Arizona water resource projects?
    General Spellmon. Congressman, yes, we will absolutely work 
with you.
    One of the criteria that we use when we send our proposals 
to the Assistant Secretaries, we want to finish what we start. 
And certainly Tres Rios is a great example of that.
    Mr. Stanton. OK, well, I appreciate that, although, 
unfortunately, the budget presented doesn't reflect that. But 
you are an honorable person. I take you at your word.
    Mr. Pinkham, same question for you. Will you work with me 
and the Arizona delegation to address these glaring funding 
shortfalls for the State of Arizona?
    Mr. Pinkham. You have my commitment, sir.
    Mr. Stanton. We have spoken at length previously about Tres 
Rios, an ecosystem restoration project along the Salt and Gila 
River corridors. That is only partially complete. And I am 
disappointed and frustrated that funds have not been allocated 
to complete the project's Post-Authorization Change Report. The 
2020 WRDA directs the Corps to prioritize this report, and it 
is imperative that the Corps do just that.
    With each passing day, we risk missing the chance, and yet 
another chance to adjust the project's 902 limit, which is 
necessary to complete its construction. General Spellmon, do 
you agree that the Corps should finish this project which it 
has started?
    General Spellmon. I do agree we should finish it. Sir, I am 
going to give you my humble assessment, and I may be wrong----
    Mr. Stanton. Please.
    General Spellmon. I hope I am wrong. I think this project 
has an image problem because I have seen others like it across 
the Nation.
    So first I will tell you that I have two non-Federal 
sponsors, the Gila River Indian Community and the city of 
Phoenix, and they both want different things, moving forward. 
So I told my team in the field, we have got to narrow that gap 
before we take our next proposal to the Secretary. And I have 
dug through this, because this has not seen Federal funding in 
some time. So I have dug through the budgetary documents.
    And I will tell you, we are highlighting too many 
recreation components in this project, where we need to be 
focused on the Corps' mission of aquatic ecosystem restoration. 
I have asked my team to work with the non-Federal sponsors. 
Let's clean all of that up. And then, if we are offered a 
fiscal year 2022 work plan from Congress, we will put forth a 
better proposal to the Secretary.
    Mr. Stanton. It is a critically important project to me, as 
a former mayor of Phoenix. I know, currently, to the city of 
Phoenix, to our nearby Tribal communities. But it has received 
funding and support, and we don't want that money to go to 
waste.
    Mr. Pinkham, I am going ask you the same question. Should 
the Corps complete this critically important restoration 
project in Phoenix?
    Mr. Pinkham. Representative Stanton, like General 
Spellmon--and I am not as familiar with this project as he is, 
but certainly it would be something I will coordinate with him, 
to make sure that something is made possible to address the 
concerns you are raising.
    Mr. Stanton. I appreciate that very much. We have advocated 
this for a long period of time, we have gotten verbal 
assurances. We have done our part to get the right language in 
the various reports, and now it is time for the Corps to do 
their part.
    Another important provision in the 2020 WRDA is section 
162, which ensures the Corps has the authority to review and 
modify the water control manual at Roosevelt Dam. With climate 
change expected to bring increased temperatures and higher 
precipitation variability on the Salt and Verde watersheds, 
both of which provide critically important water to the Greater 
Phoenix metro area, successful management will require existing 
water infrastructure operations to be adaptable. So I 
appreciate your team engaging with us on this, and ask you to 
keep me updated on its implementation.
    And with that Madam Chair, I am about to run out of time, 
so I will yield back and submit my additional questions for the 
record, and hope to get responses in the near future.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, sir.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Mrs. Steel, you are recognized.
    Mrs. Steel. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Napolitano and 
Ranking Member Rouzer, for hosting this hearing, and giving me 
time to speak about an issue that is incredibly important and 
urgent to Orange County.
    Before being elected to Congress, I served on the Orange 
County Board of Supervisors. During my time on the board, I 
worked with the L.A. Army Corps District to fund and complete 
the Surfside-Sunset and Newport Beach replenishment project on 
the Orange County coastline. This issue has a long history, but 
the short version is this: More than 60 years ago, the 
construction off the coast by the Federal Government narrowed 
our beaches. And in the time since, the coastline has eroded.
    Erosion is a major safety issue, not to mention it is 
hurting our wildlife and our Orange County ecosystem. The Army 
Corps started fixing this damage by adding sand back to our 
beaches, but they stopped funding the project in 2000. My 
constituents feel abandoned by Army Corps. Every day this 
project goes unfinished, the taxpayers of Orange County are 
left on the hook to pay more, and are living in a higher risk 
of a natural disaster, causing major destruction and loss of 
life.
    I have local resolutions and support letters from Orange 
County, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Seal Beach, and photos 
from the July 2020 Newport Beach flood I would like to submit 
for the record.
    [The information follows:]

                                 
Local Resolutions from Huntington Beach, Seal Beach, and Newport Beach, 
  California; Support Letters; and Photos from the July 2020 Newport 
      Beach Flood, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Michelle Steel
                         RESOLUTION NO. 2021-10
    A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 
REQUESTING THAT THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FUND AND 
IMMEDIATELY PROCEED WITH SURFSIDE-SUNSET BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT 
STAGE 13 FROM ANAHEIM BAY HARBOR TO NEWPORT BAY IN ORANGE COUNTY, 
CALIFORNIA

    WHEREAS the longshore current carries beach sand southward along 
the California coast, nourishing the beaches of Orange County from 
Anaheim Bay Harbor through Huntington Beach to Newport Beach; and
    Prior to onshore structural development between the San Gabriel 
River outlet and Newport Bay, local beaches received sand from flood 
runoff of the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana Rivers; and
    In 1942, the United States constructed jetties at Anaheim Bay to 
serve the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, adjacent to Surfside Beach. 
Waves reflected off the East Jetty combine with ocean waves, causing 
strong, localized southward-flowing longshore currents near the jetty. 
These currents cause severe down coast erosion at both Surfside Beach 
in Seal Beach, and Sunset Beach in Huntington Beach. In response, and 
without any formal Congressional action, the Army Corps of Engineers 
initiated beach replenishments in 1945, 1946 and 1956; and
    The Army Corps conducted studies and issued a Report (House 
Document 602, October 2, 1962) identifying three causes of Orange 
County beach erosion: (1) the jetties at the entrance to Anaheim Bay; 
(2) flood-control structures constructed on the Los Angeles, San 
Gabriel, and Santa Ana rivers reducing sand delivery; and (3) 
construction of the Los Angeles/Long Beach breakwater system further 
altering and exacerbating the local sediment transport processes. The 
Army Corps acknowledged that all three causes of beach erosion were the 
result of the Federal government's own actions. Accordingly, the Army 
Corps recommended that the Federal Government provide sixty-seven 
percent (67%) of the cost of initial deposition of sand, with periodic 
beach nourishment. Congress authorized the Report's recommendations 
through the 1962 River and Harbor Act, Public Law 87-874, which the 
President signed; and
    From 1964 through 1997, Beach Nourishment Stages 1 through 10 were 
completed. For 32 years, the Army Corps Commander considered beach 
nourishment a mandatory requirement. However, in 1995, the Army Corps 
began a phase-out of nourishment without regard to its past practice 
that nourishment was unique and necessary. Nourishment Stage 11 was 
completed in 2001, and Stage 12 was not completed until 2009; and
    On April 2, 2018, the City of Huntington Beach and the County of 
Orange executed an Agreement For Construction of Periodic Nourishment 
Of the Orange County Beach Erosion Control Project Stage 13, in which 
the City agreed to contribute $281,966 towards Stage 13 construction. 
The State of California, the City of Newport Beach and others will 
provide additional contributions; and
    In September 2018, the Army Corps issued a Draft Environmental 
Assessment for Nourishment Stage 13, indicating the project would begin 
in the winter of 2019, and that Stage 14 would occur in 2023. The 
Environmental Assessment acknowledged that Stages 13 and 14 were 
required pursuant to the 1962 act of Congress, Public Law 87-874, and 
that ``Federal authority directs the Corps to nourish the beaches 
between the Anaheim Bay jetties and the Newport pier;'' and
    If nourishment is discontinued, Orange County beaches will erode, 
reducing recreation opportunities and protection of shoreline 
facilities from of storm damage; and
    Despite the warning that failure to nourish local beaches would not 
only reduce recreation opportunities but also expose property to storm 
damage, the Army Corps has failed to fund the Nourishment Stage 13 for 
11 years, and shows no signs of pursuing it;
    NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach 
does hereby resolve as follows:
    1.  The City Council finds all of the above Recitals true and 
correct.
    2.  The City Council urges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South 
Pacific Division Los Angeles District to immediately fund and proceed 
with Surfside-Sunset Beach Nourishment Project Stage 13.
    3.  The City Council directs the City Clerk to forward this 
Resolution to Lt. Gen. Scott A. Spellmon, Commanding General of the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gen. Paul E. Owen, Commander of the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers South Pacific Division, and Col. Julie Balten, 
Los Angeles District Commander.
    4.  The City Council directs the City Manager and the City Director 
of Public Works, or their designees to meet directly with Colonel 
Balten, and take all other actions reasonable and necessary to ensure 
that Nourishment Stage 13 proceeds immediately in 2021, and Stage 14 
occurs within two years of the completion of Stage 13.
    5.  PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of 
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of 
April, 2021.


         [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE             )  ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH   )

    I, ROBIN ESTANISLAU, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the 
City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of 
said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the 
City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the 
foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of 
at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a 
Regular meeting thereof held on April 19, 2021 by the following vote:

 
AYES:                                       Peterson, Kalmick, Ortiz,
                                             Carr, Posey, Moser,
                                             Delgleize
NOES:                                       None
ABSENT:                                     None
ABSTAIN:                                    None
 


                                          Robin Estanislau,
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of 
                                      Huntington Beach, California.

                               __________
                            RESOLUTION 7144
    A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING THE UNITED 
STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FUND AND PROCEED WITH SURFSIDE-SUNSET 
BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT STAGE 13 FROM ANAHEIM BAY HARBOR TO NEWPORT 
BAY IN ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

    WHEREAS, the longshore current carries beach sand southward along 
the California coast, nourishing the beaches Orange County from Anaheim 
Bay Harbor to Newport Beach; and,
    WHEREAS, prior to onshore structural development between the San 
Gabriel River outlet and Newport Bay, local beaches received sand from 
floor runoff of the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana Rivers; 
and,
    WHEREAS, in 1942, the United States constructed jetties at Anaheim 
Bay to serve the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, adjacent to Surfside 
Beach. Waves reflected off the East Jetty combined with ocean waves, 
causing strong, localized southward-flowing longshore currents near the 
jetty. These currents cause severe down coast erosion. In response, and 
without any formal Congressional action, the Army Corps of Engineers 
(Army Corps) initiated beach replenishment in 1945, 1946, and 1956; 
and,
    WHEREAS, the Army Corps conducted studies and issued a Report 
(House Document 602, October 2, 1962) identifying three causes of 
Orange County beach erosion:
    1.  The jetties at the entrance in Anaheim Bay.
    2.  Flood-control structures constructed on the Los Angeles, San 
Gabriel, and Santa Ana rivers reducing sand delivery.
    3.  Construction of Los Angeles/Long Beach breakwater system.

    The Army Corps acknowledged that all three causes of beach erosion 
were the result of the Federal Government's own action. Accordingly, 
the Army Corps recommended that the Federal Government provide sixty-
seven percent (67%) of the cost of initial deposition of sand, with 
periodic beach nourishment. Congress authorized the Report's 
recommendation through the 1962 Rivers and Harbor Act, Public Law 87-
874, which the President signed; and,
    WHEREAS, from 1964 through 1997, Beach Nourishment Stages 1 through 
10 were completed. For 32 years, the Army Corps Commander considered 
beach nourishment a mandatory requirement. However, in 1995, the Army 
Corps began a phase-out of nourishment without regard to its past 
practice and Congressional declaration that periodic nourishment was 
unique and necessary.
    Nourishment Stage 11 was completed in 2001, and Stage 12 was not 
completed until 2009; and,
    WHEREAS, in September 2018, the Army Corps issued a Draft 
Environmental Assessment Nourishment Stage 13, indicating the project 
would begin in Winter 2019, and that Stage 14 would occur in 2023. The 
Environmental Assessment acknowledged that Stages 13 and 14 were 
required pursuant to the 1962 Act of Congress, Public Law 87-874, and 
that ``Federal authority directs the Corps to nourish the beaches 
between the Anaheim Bay jetties and the Newport Pier;'' and,
    WHEREAS, if the nourishment is discontinued, Orange County beaches 
will continue to erode as a result of federal actions, reducing 
recreation opportunities and protection of shoreline facilities from 
storm damage; and,
    WHEREAS, despite the warning that failure to nourish local beaches 
would not only reduce recreation opportunities but also expose property 
to storm damage, the Army Corps has failed to fund Stage 13 for 11 
years.
    NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES 
HEREBY RESOLVE:
    Section 1.  The City Council finds all of the above Recitals true 
and correct.
    Section 2.  The City Council urges the United States Army Corps of 
Engineers, South Pacific Division Los Angeles District to immediately 
fund and proceed with Surfside-Sunset Beach Nourishment Project Stage 
13.
    Section 3.  The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to 
forward this Resolution to the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
    Section 4.  The City Council hereby directs the City Manager to 
take all other reasonable actions necessary to ensure Surfside-Sunset 
Beach Nourishment Project Stage 13 proceeds immediately after the Army 
Corps of Engineers acts to fund it.

    PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a 
regular meeting held on the 26th day of April, 2021 by the following 
vote:

 
AYES:                                       Council Members: Kalmick,
                                             Massa-Lavitt, Moore,
                                             Sustarsic, Varipapa
NOES:                                       Council Members: None
ABSENT:                                     Council Members: None
ABSTAIN:                                    Council Members: None
 


                                               Joe Kalmick,
                                                             Mayor.

                                                            ATTEST:
                                          Gloria D. Harper,
                                                        City Clerk.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA     )
COUNTY OF ORANGE       )  SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH      )

    I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do 
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of 
Resolution 7144 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, 
approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on 
the 26th day of April, 2021.

                                          Gloria D. Harper,
                                                        City Clerk.

                               __________
                         RESOLUTION NO. 2021-33
    A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, 
CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THAT THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 
FUND AND IMMEDIATELY PROCEED WITH SURFSIDE-SUNSET BEACH NOURISHMENT 
PROJECT STAGE 13 AND PRIORITIZE ALL FUTURE BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECTS 
FROM ANAHEIM BAY HARBOR TO NEWPORT BAY IN ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

    WHEREAS, the longshore current carries beach sand southward along 
the California coast, nourishing the beaches of Orange County from 
Anaheim Bay Harbor through Huntington Beach to Newport Beach;
    WHEREAS, the construction of engineered flood control structures 
between the San Gabriel River and Newport Bay have prevented the 
natural transportation of sediment and sand from the Los Angeles, San 
Gabriel and Santa Ana rivers, which would otherwise, naturally 
replenish sand depleted by winter storms and other naturally occurring 
sand depletion actions;
    WHEREAS, in 1962, the United States Congress passed the Rivers and 
Harbors Act, Public Law 87-874, which required the Army Corps of 
Engineers (``Army Corps'') to address the impacts of flood control 
structures on natural sand deposits;
    WHEREAS, the Army Corps studied and issued House Document 602, 
October 2, 1962 which led to beach nourishment projects wherein sand 
was imported onto beaches where sand depletion was occurring;
    WHEREAS, from 1964 through 1997, Nourishment Stages 1 through 10 
were completed, however, since 1995 the Army Corps began a phase-out of 
nourishment projects;
    WHEREAS, Nourishment Stages 11 and 12 were completed in 2001 and 
2009, respectively;
    WHEREAS, on December 13, 2016, the City of Newport Beach (``City'') 
and County of Orange entered into an Agreement for Periodic Nourishment 
of the Orange County Beach Erosion Control Project Stage 13, in which 
the City agreed to contribute $158,601 towards Nourishment Stage 13 
with additional funding from the State of California, City of 
Huntington Beach and others contributors;
    WHEREAS, in September 2018, the Army Corps prepared a Draft 
Environmental Assessment for Nourishment Stage 13 which acknowledged 
that Nourishment Stages 13 was required pursuant to the Rivers and 
Harbors Act, Public Law 87-874 and projected Nourishment Stages 13 and 
14 would begin in 2019 and 2023, respectively;
    WHEREAS, despite the warning that failure to nourish local beaches 
would not only reduce recreation opportunities but also expose property 
to storm damage, the Army Corps has not funded the Nourishment Stage 13 
for 11 years, and shows no signs of pursuing future nourishment 
projects; and
    WHEREAS, if Nourishment Stages 13 and other future nourishment 
projects are discontinued, Orange County beaches will erode and, 
consequently, reduce recreation opportunities and protection of 
shoreline facilities from storm damage.
    NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach 
resolves as follows:
    Section 1: The City Council does hereby urge the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, South Pacific Division Los Angeles District to immediately 
fund and proceed with Surfside-Sunset Beach Nourishment Project Stage 
13.
    Section 2: The City Clerk shall forward this resolution to 
Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lieutenant 
General Scott A. Spellmon, Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers South Pacific Division General Paul E. Owen, and Los Angeles 
District Commander Colonel Julie Balten.
    Section 3: The City Manager and the Public Works Director, or their 
designees, may meet directly with Colonel Balten or her designee and 
take all other actions reasonable and necessary to ensure that 
Nourishment Stage 13 proceeds immediately in 2021, and for Nourishment 
Stage 14 to occur within two years of completion of Nourishment Stage 
13.
    Section 4: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and 
correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this 
resolution.
    Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase 
of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or 
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or 
constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The 
City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, 
and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, 
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, 
sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
    Section 6: The City Council finds the adoption of this resolution 
is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (``CEQA'') 
pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a 
direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the 
environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined 
in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of 
Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no 
potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly 
or indirectly.
    Section 7: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its 
adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote 
adopting the resolution.
    ADOPTED this 27th day of April, 2021.

                                                Brad Avery,
                                                             Mayor.

                                                            ATTEST:
                                          Leilani I. Brown,
                                                        City Clerk.

                                               APPROVED AS TO FORM:
                                             CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
                                             Aaron C. Harp,
                                                     City Attorney.

                               __________
                            Support Letters
                                                    April 22, 2021.
The Honorable Michelle Steel,
United States House of Representatives,
1113 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.

Re:  Surfside Sunset Beach Nourishment Project Stage 13 Funding 
Request--SUPPORT

    Dear Congresswoman Steel,
    On behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, I write to 
express my strong support for the Surfside Sunset Beach Nourishment 
Project Stage 13 to receive community project funding. This 
collaborative project will directly serve the residents of the County 
of Orange by reducing severe beach erosion and allowing for habitat and 
wildlife preservation along our coast.
    This sand nourishment project will alleviate the beach erosion 
problem caused by flood control and water conservation along the Los 
Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana Rivers, general navigation 
improvements in Long Beach and federal jetties that are constructed at 
the entrance to Anaheim Bay.
    The project consists of periodic beach nourishment through 
construction of a feeder beach at Surfside/Sunset and includes back-
passing of sand to fill in the cells of the Newport Beach groin field 
which was constructed during the earlier stages of this project. These 
beach nourishment projects were authorized by Section 101 of the Rivers 
and Harbors Act of 1962 and were slated to be conducted every five 
years. To date, there have been 12 stages of beach nourishment projects 
since 1964, with the latest Stage conducted in 2010. The impacted 
cities and the County have been prepared to provide our share of the 
local matching funds since this project was scheduled to commence in 
2018.
    Thank you for continuing to advocate for the Surfside Sunset Beach 
Nourishment Project as a project to receive community project funding. 
This project impacts the entire region and has strong benefits to the 
taxpayers of Orange County and for these reasons, the Orange County 
Board of Supervisors enthusiastically supports this budget request. If 
you have any questions, or would like more information, please contact 
Peter DeMarco, Director of Legislative Affairs.
        Sincerely,
                                                 Andrew Do,
   Chairman, Orange County Board of Supervisors, Supervisor, First 
                                                          District.

cc:   Members, Orange County Board of Supervisors
     Frank Kim, County Executive Officer
     James Treadaway, PE & SE, Director-OC Public Works

                               __________
                                                      May 13, 2021.
Hon. Representative Michelle Steel,
17011 Beach Boulevard, Suite 570,
Huntington Beach, CA 92647.

Re.:   Stage 13 Surfside-Sunset Beach Sand Replenishment Project--
SUPPORT

    The Independent Special Districts Association of Orange County 
(ISDOC) writes to express its full support for the federal funding and 
scheduling of the crucial Stage 13 Surfside-Sunset Beach Sand 
Replenishment Project, with work to be conducted, per prior precedent, 
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (``USACE'').
    As a nonprofit membership association, ISDOC represents the 
interests of and provides advocacy for Orange County's 27 independent 
special districts, including the Surfside Colony Storm Water Protection 
District, that provide essential government services to Orange County's 
coastal and other communities.
    Sand replenishment to protect 12 miles of coastline from the 
impacts of currents, sea-level rise, and waves has not happened since 
2010. The area's sand erosion, caused by multiple U.S. Government 
actions and compounded by natural forces, is threatening the area's 
beaches, public health and safety, property values, recreation, and 
tourism so vital to our region's economy. The situation is dire--1.9 
million cubic yards of sand is urgently needed to shield the area's 
beaches from further damage.
    ISDOC would greatly appreciate your assistance in petitioning the 
federal government to immediately fulfill its obligations to the Stage 
13 Surfside-Sunset Beach Sand Replenishment Project by allocating funds 
and scheduling the USACE to conduct this work as soon as possible.
    If you have any questions about this letter, please feel free to 
call me. Thank you for your time and consideration of this request.
        Sincerely,
                                                Mark Monin,
              ISDOC President and Director, El Toro Water District.

c:   City of Huntington Beach Mayor Kim Carr
    City of Newport Beach Mayor Brad Avery
    City of Seal Beach Mayor Joe Kalmick
    County of Orange, 2nd District Supervisor Katrina Foley
    ISDOC Executive Committee and Member Agencies
    Orange County Congressional Delegation
    Orange County State Legislative Delegation
    Orange County Council of Governments Chair Trevor O'Neil
    USACE Los Angeles District Commander Col. Julie Balten

                               __________
                  Newport Beach Flooding--July 4, 2020


         [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    Mrs. Steel. As we speak, my district is bracing for extreme 
high tides that could hit Newport Beach any time. My 
constituents are fearing another flood like last July's that 
inundated streets and drenched homes and businesses along the 
Balboa Peninsula. Newport Beach has already closed the beach 
parking lot to protect its visitors and residents. Last year, 
COVID kept the beaches closed, but now thousands have returned 
to the area, leaving the risk much higher. City workers are 
raising sand berms on the Balboa Peninsula and handing out 
sandbags to residents hoping to avoid flood brought by high 
waves last Fourth of July.
    I requested General Spellmon for a meeting 3 weeks ago, and 
am still waiting patiently, waiting for a reply to set up a 
meeting. I look forward to sharing these documents with you at 
our meeting.
    So you, General Spellmon, you will continue to hear a lot 
from me about this project. In your testimony today you said 
the Corps focuses on work that provides the highest economic, 
environmental, and public safety returns to the Nation, and 
helps communities respond to and recover from flood and other 
natural disasters.
    In 2018, an estimated 3.74 million tourists spent $565 
million while visiting Huntington Beach. Newport Beach had 7.3 
million visitors who spent $1.2 billion, which supported 16,828 
jobs in Orange County. In July 2020, Newport Beach saw strong 
ocean waves overpower the coastline, and flood surrounding 
areas including neighborhoods and automobiles. Officials had to 
rescue over 100 people.
    So my question is, with a lack of action by Army Corps to 
fund these critical projects, man-made, Government-made erosion 
has continued to reduce the shoreline and create new and 
enhanced liabilities. Are you concerned with the heightened 
risk of safety issues, including loss of life and cost to 
municipalities if these floods continue?
    The extreme high tides are coming now. As we speak, the 
local officers have shut down the parking lots. When a storm 
comes in and business is washed away, who will be held 
responsible?
    General Spellmon. So, ma'am, this is General Spellmon.
    First of all, I will tell you that--thank you for the 
invitation to meet with you, and I will have my team set that 
meeting up as soon as possible. I look forward to discussing 
this with you.
    What you are describing in Orange County is not unique to 
this part of California. We see this coastal erosion across the 
Nation. We see it on the Great Lakes, we see it on our inland 
waterways. And as you heard me say in previous testimony, the 
backlog for the Corps' operation and maintenance program today 
is about $4\1/4\ billion.
    So we are going to continue to make our best 
recommendations to the Secretary to get after these issues. 
Certainly, life safety is the first priority, the first 
criteria we use when we rack and stack these projects and take 
our proposals. But, ma'am, I look forward to working with you 
in more detail on this, and I look forward to our office call.
    Mrs. Steel. I would love to look at the budget, because, 
General Spellmon, I have more questions, and, actually, I have 
more----
    Mrs. Napolitano. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Mrs. Steel. My time has expired, I know. So I am going to 
do everything in writing, and I will submit in writing all of 
these questions.
    Thank you.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Madam.
    Mr. Cohen, you are recognized, 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Firstly, I would like to discuss a strictly local issue, 
the Byhalia pipeline, with Mr. Pinkham.
    Mr. Pinkham, we have talked about this, and I appreciate 
your time, and I look forward to working with you on this. The 
Byhalia crude oil pipeline goes through low-income, African-
American communities that have been burdened with a lot of 
industrial pollutants for years. One of the representatives of 
the pipeline company called this the ``point of least 
resistance,'' and the city of Memphis, many, many people in the 
city of Memphis are up in arms about it, feeling that this is 
wrong, to put another potentially hazardous facility project, 
which could leak into our aquifer, through this community, and 
jeopardize the drinking water from the well field that goes 
through this community.
    The Army Corps permitted the construction through the 2017 
version of a nationwide permit, NWP 12. The Corps is committed 
to an environmental policy and being a good partner in the 
environment, and yet this project has not taken into 
consideration community issues.
    As the Corps is committed to securing environmental 
justice----
    [Inadvertent interruption by unmuted committee member.]
    Mr. Cohen [continuing]. The Corps has an obligation to 
consider those effects now for this community.
    [Inadvertent interruption by unmuted committee member.]
    Mr. Brown. Representative Steel, please mute your mic, 
Representative Steel.
    Mr. Cohen. Mr. Pinkham, are you there?
    Mr. Pinkham. I am here, Representative Cohen.
    Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Pinkham. OK. Well, thank you for your letter, and also 
thank you for taking a call from me to discuss this project. 
And you are right. And I have shared with the Corps leadership 
that I would be working on taking a review of the Byhalia 
project. And you are right, there are some concerns about the 
environmental justice, what are the impacts to the groundwater, 
the water that the community relies on. And those are two 
concerns that I don't take lightly.
    I am still taking a look at the project. I got a briefing 
from the Corps of Engineers, and I would like to arrange an 
opportunity for a followup conversation as we look at what our 
options are ahead.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you very much. This is an important issue, 
and I appreciate your interest. And the people in Memphis 
[inaudible] they did their job, but they didn't necessarily 
look at the environmental justice that the Corps looks at.
    Another issue in Memphis is Tom Lee Park, and the Corps 
helped create Tom Lee Park in the 1980s, with work on the 
bluff. Now we are looking at making it into one of the finest 
urban parks in the country, and giving a lot of low-income 
people access to a park where they can enjoy the river, and get 
outside, and enjoy the nature.
    We have applied for a--we have got a section 408 permit 
which has been submitted, and I would like to offer my strong 
support for the issuance of that permit as soon as possible, so 
construction can begin. And you can help us with that project.
    Got your support?
    General Spellmon. Sir, this is General Spellmon. First, I 
have been to Tom Lee Park, and acknowledge--and had a great 
briefing from our team out there. But yes, absolutely, we look 
forward to working with the community on this 408 permission.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Lyash, I have got a few questions for you. And I 
appreciate your service and your earlier remarks.
    You emphasized in your written material TVA's interest in 
helping work on the environment, and how much nuclear is a part 
of that, and how much nuclear is a part of TVA. Modular nuclear 
can help, but we have got this big plant, which we have talked 
about at length, down in Alabama and Bellefonte, that if we 
allow it to be--attempt to be reconstructed and put back into 
use, we can take $10 billion of TVA assets and put them to use, 
and really help the economy in Alabama, and help Memphis 
citizens with the utility rates.
    Can you give me any hope that you will work with Nuclear 
Development to try to come up with a solution that helps both 
the people of Alabama who need that economic incentive, and the 
people of Memphis who need lower utility rates, and the whole 
people and the TVA and the country that need more energy 
sources that are not pollutants, like the coal plants have been 
in the past?
    Mr. Lyash. Yes, thank you, Congressman. As you have pointed 
out, TVA is committed to driving down our greenhouse gas 
emissions, while at the same time maintaining low prices, high 
reliability, and high resiliency. And there are many facets of 
doing that, including integration of a significant amount of 
renewable storage and other technologies.
    But you are correct. We believe preservation and extension 
of our existing nuclear fleet, and construction in the near 
term, and construction of new nuclear in the long term--2030s 
into 2040s--has got to be a part of that solution.
    Our strategy in nuclear focus is on extending the lives of 
our current fleet, upgrading them to get more from them, 
building whitewater small modular reactors and advanced modular 
reactors that can be replicated across TVA, and perhaps across 
the country or the world.
    We evaluated completing the Bellefonte plant. And our 
decision, as an entity, was that it was neither cost effective 
nor in the interests of our customers to do so, to invest in 
that 60-year-old technology. Rather, more cost effective to 
invest in new nuclear technologies.
    We are, as you know, we are currently in litigation with 
Nuclear Development, who had a contract to purchase that plant, 
but didn't meet the conditions to close. And it would have been 
illegal for us to close. That lawsuit is pending, so I need to 
refrain from commenting on it, but I----
    Mr. Cohen. Let me interrupt you just a second, which I hate 
to do, because you were so kind to me in your earlier remarks, 
but I have limited time. Hopefully, you can resolve that. It 
does seem like Bellefonte is a place that could be really 
important for everything you stand for.
    But another thing is the coal ash in Memphis. We talked 
about that, too. And you promised me you are going to do what 
you can to remove the coal ash at the Allen Steam Plant, which 
caused, by the way, a lot of the problems with people in 
Boxtown, in that district I talked about, Byhalia. They have 
Valero Oil and the TVA coal plant. They have four times the 
cancer of people, other people in similar conditions. It is 
partly because of that.
    Can you not expedite the removal of that coal ash? Because 
it affects our Memphis aquifer, as well, and it affects the 
people in that neighborhood.
    Mrs. Napolitano. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Cohen. Can he answer the question?
    Mrs. Napolitano. Yes.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, ma'am.
    Mr. Lyash. Thank you, ma'am.
    Yes, Congressman. It is a top priority for us to safely and 
effectively dispose of that coal ash by removing it and moving 
it to a licensed landfill. And we are committed to mitigate 
groundwater contamination that may be there as a result of the 
coal ash, and restore that site to a good purpose, economic 
development for that community.
    Beginning in late July, after we finish our permitting 
process with TDEC and EPA, we will begin moving that ash out of 
there by truck. We will be transporting 120 trucks a day, and 
moving that out as quickly as we can safely do so. And you have 
my commitment that we will work that project until it is 
acceptably complete.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
    And thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Mrs. Napolitano. You are very welcome, sir.
    Mr. Nehls is followed by Mr. Huffman, Ms. Norton, and Mr. 
Brown.
    Mr. Nehls, you may proceed.
    Mr. Nehls. Thank you, ma'am. I would like to thank General 
Spellmon and Secretary Pinkham for being here.
    I know that you have heard from many of my colleagues, many 
of them sharing with you stories, issues that need to be 
addressed. And I feel certain that you are taking each and 
every one of their concerns very seriously.
    I represent Southwest Houston in the great State of Texas, 
and if you--I feel certain both you gentlemen are familiar with 
a storm we had reach our shores in Texas called Harvey, just a 
few years ago. I was then the county sheriff for Fort Bend 
County, and I spent an enormous amount of time, several days, 
addressing issues related to homes that had water up to their 
cupboards. We lost life. We had people that were just 
devastated by Hurricane Harvey.
    I don't feel I need to have any type of static displays 
behind me, pictures of Harvey. I am sure that you are very 
familiar with the devastation, the devastation that that storm 
caused Southwest Houston and really, quite honestly, most of 
the State of Texas.
    So now it is my job, as a Member of Congress, to try to 
help those people, the people that have been flooded. I can 
assure you that the water in the streets have receded today, 
but I will guarantee that the floodwaters are still in the 
minds of many of those that lost everything.
    So now it is my time. It is an attempt for me to work with 
you all, work with the local county officials and everyone 
else, to find a solution to make sure it doesn't happen again. 
So I am working with the Willow Fork Drainage District and Fort 
Bend County Drainage District to prevent upstream flooding of 
my constituents, so that the devastation of Hurricane Harvey 
does not repeat itself. Because we need both improved storage 
capacity in Barker and Addicks Reservoirs, and greater 
conveyance out of the reservoirs. I am closely following the 
solutions that will provide these flood mitigation 
improvements, and help finish the job of the Corps' 1940 Flood 
Protection Plan for Houston.
    I am a big proponent of Willow Fork Drainage District's 
pilot program--again, this is a pilot program--otherwise known 
as the Barker Reservoir flood risk reduction and park project, 
which begins the process of creating the much-needed additional 
storage in Barker Reservoir. But we cannot stop with this one 
project. Other areas within Barker and Addicks need to be 
scoped for similar projects in order to affect the regional 
flood management benefit.
    So my question for the good general here is has the Corps 
commenced an amendment to the master plan for the Barker and 
Addicks Reservoirs that would identify locations where more 
storage can be created to increase capacity for the purpose of 
protecting upstream property owners?
    General Spellmon. Yes, Mr. Nehls, I will get an answer for 
you. I am not sure. I don't know the answer to that.
    I am familiar with the pilot. I was just down at Addicks 
and Barker here in the last couple of months. So I do 
understand the approach that we want to take here.
    I would just tell you that we are going back to the 
Secretary for some more time on this particular investigation. 
We could not reach agreement with our non-Federal sponsors on 
an upstream approach, nor a downstream approach. We have been 
asked to take a look at the feasibility of a tunneling option 
to improve conveyance from the reservoir out to the Galveston 
Bay. So that work is ongoing. The technical analysis here is 
ongoing, and we are going to go to the Secretary once we know a 
bit more from our partners, and ask for a bit more time, and do 
some additional analysis on this other conveyance option.
    Mr. Nehls. Well, thank you, General. I just want to let you 
know that I know that there are a lot of discussions, and I 
have to tell you the people want to see action. They want to 
see their Government do everything they can to help protect 
them. God forbid we ever have another rain event like we had 
with Harvey.
    So I am just saying that there has got to be some solutions 
to this. I am going to continue to reach out to you and your 
team to try to find some answers and at least get the ball 
rolling. We can't sit on our hands. We are one storm away from 
devastation again, and we have to do everything we can to find 
a way to reduce some of this flood mitigation. And I would 
appreciate your support. So thank you again----
    General Spellmon. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Nehls [continuing]. For being here.
    General Spellmon. I assure you, no one is sitting on their 
hands, sir.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Do you yield back, sir?
    Mr. Nehls. That I do. Thank you, ma'am.
    Mrs. Napolitano. You are very welcome, and thank you very 
much.
    The order of speakers: Huffman, Norton, and Brown.
    Mr. Huffman, you are recognized.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And Secretary Pinkham and General Spellmon, let me just say 
I appreciate the amount of preparation that surely both of you 
had to undertake to get ready for this hearing, because every 
member of this committee is going to take you on a deep dive on 
the high-priority, critical infrastructure projects in their 
district. And I am in awe of your ability to keep up with all 
of that, and have thoughtful, in many cases, quite responsive 
things to say in response to each of us. So thank you for that.
    This budget request, in my view, is a real win for the 
American people. And I think it is up to Congress now to 
deliver on the ambition of this budget request. We are talking 
about the largest ever request by any administration for the 
Army Corps of Engineers, the largest ever proposed transfer 
from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. These are things that, 
not only represent a historic investment in our Nation's ports, 
harbors, and waterways.
    This isn't just an abstract amount. In many cases, this 
determines whether, certainly, small ports, like the ones in my 
district, are even going to be ports, because if we don't get 
our critical maintenance dredging, you don't have ports in 
places like this. So I am talking about facilities like the San 
Rafael Canal, which I am going to ask you about in a moment.
    But I am also hopeful, in spite of the things I certainly 
liked in this budget, that the Corps will move ahead with the 
second phase of the Hamilton Wetlands restoration project, 
another priority in my district. Restoring wetlands and 
creating a natural habitat for endangered species, these are 
investments that are going to help modernize--that are 
definitely needed in my district.
    And then another one is investments in modernizing the 
operations of Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma to conserve more 
water, because you know about the critical drought conditions 
that we are facing.
    Anyway, it is a long list, and these budget items are not 
abstract numbers. They make a huge difference for communities, 
and for the people that many of us represent.
    So, Secretary Pinkham, let me take you to San Rafael and 
ask you about the San Rafael Canal. This channel was last fully 
dredged in 2002. Today we have incidents of boaters becoming 
stuck in sediment that are just increasingly common. Marina 
operators can't even rent slips anymore because access is 
totally dependent on tides.
    Now, the President's budget does request $6.75 million for 
this project. That is really important. But some of the 
estimates for a full dredge are significantly higher than that. 
So I want to just ask you about whether you believe that that 
amount is sufficient to completely dredge the San Rafael Canal 
and, if there are any shortfalls, whether you will commit to 
working with Congress on additional funding, as needed, to make 
sure we get the job done.
    Mr. Pinkham. Representative Huffman, I am not familiar with 
San Rafael and the issues that you are facing, and certainly, 
if there are additional resources, and it is within the Corps' 
capacity, I would be happy to work with General Spellmon on--if 
we can get additional resources to do the work, to do it right.
    Mr. Huffman. All right. I appreciate that. I will now ask 
you about Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma. Their operations are 
really important for the entire Russian River Basin, which is 
in critical drought conditions right now.
    Over the last few years the Corps has worked with a range 
of stakeholders, including Sonoma Water, to look at updating 
operations of these reservoirs with forecast-informed reservoir 
operations, something I have been supporting for many, many 
years. And I am very pleased to see that the Corps is finally 
moving ahead with updating the water control manuals necessary 
to change operations, and ensure that we are operating these 
reservoirs with the best available science.
    In the budget justifications, though, the Corps outlined 
completing the update of the manual at Dry Creek, which is Lake 
Sonoma. There is an $800,000 request for that. However, it was 
silent on Lake Mendocino, Coyote Valley Dam, which is, frankly, 
well ahead of most other projects, in terms of incorporating 
FIRO. And I just wanted to ask if you could confirm that, 
notwithstanding the absence of a specific justification for 
that, that the intent of the Corps is to finish and update both 
sets of manuals.
    General Spellmon. Sir, if that question is to me, we are in 
the President's budget for 2022 for $860,000 to complete the 
Lake Sonoma water control manual. And, as you said, that should 
be complete within a year. And we are going to apply everything 
we learned through the FIRO pilot, as you said, a great 
program.
    And we have what we need to do the Lake Sonoma water 
control manual in the President's budget request, as well.
    Mr. Huffman. Terrific. That is great to hear. Thank you, 
General.
    And lastly, I just want to talk about an exciting project 
in my district, Hamilton Wetlands restoration. I see that my 
time has expired, but the Corps has come a long way with this 
project. It is time now to move on to the next phase. And I 
hope I can have a conversation with you, General, about 
matching this significant State and local funding that has been 
made available to complete that phase. It is a really 
wonderful, multibenefit project that I think we will all be 
very proud of.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Yield back?
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, yield back.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Huffman.
    Ms. Norton, you are recognized.
    [No response.]
    Mrs. Napolitano. Ms. Norton, you are recognized.
    Ms. Norton. Did you call on me?
    Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, I did. You are recognized, Ms. 
Norton.
    Ms. Norton. I can't hear you.
    Mrs. Napolitano. I don't know, but----
    Ms. Norton. Wait a minute.
    Mrs. Napolitano. We can hear you.
    Ms. Norton. Wait a minute, I am sorry.
    Mrs. Napolitano. You are now recognized. You may speak.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for 
Lieutenant General Spellmon. It concerns the Corps' proposed 
rule to restrict the Southwest Waterfront. And that is the--I 
am sorry, the Washington Channel next to the Southwest 
Waterfront. It is the Washington Channel near Fort McNair. Now, 
the reason I raise the Southwest Waterfront is that that is a 
major bill of mine. It is still ongoing, which was supported by 
the Congress. It has reinvigorated the community around that 
area.
    I hosted a public meeting with the Army, the Corps, and DC 
residents and officials to discuss the proposed rule. And DC 
residents overwhelmingly oppose restrictions on recreational 
and commercial access to the channel. At the meeting, you may 
remember, your agency could not provide a security rationale, 
or address whether less restrictive measures would provide the 
same security for Fort McNair.
    So then I wrote the Secretary of Defense, the new 
Secretary, Lloyd Austin, to direct the U.S. Army Military 
District of Washington and the Army Corps of Engineers to 
withdraw the proposed rule, and to bar these agencies from 
proposing a similar one.
    In response, the Army indicated the proposed rule would be 
paused. And that is where my question comes in, that it would 
not be finalized until an appointee of President Biden can 
review it.
    So now we are 6 months into the Biden administration. Can 
you provide an update on the pause? Is there an appointee yet?
    General Spellmon. Ma'am, I can't give you an update.
    First, there is not an appointee. Mr. Connor has been 
nominated, and is going through the confirmation process right 
now.
    Ma'am, just very quickly, any security concerns at the 
public meeting would have come from the commander of the 
Military District of Washington, not the Army Corps of 
Engineers. We are involved because this is a Federal navigation 
channel.
    As you know, the President elevated this decision by an 
Executive order to a political appointee, Mr. Connor, once he 
is confirmed. And this action, the details, are now here in my 
headquarters from our Baltimore District. If Mr. Connor asks me 
for my military advice, I will dive into the details, get 
familiar, and I will give him my best recommendation.
    Ms. Norton. I certainly would appreciate that. We are still 
waiting.
    Now, I have another question, as well. The Washington 
aqueduct, that has been an issue for me, I think, ever since I 
have been in Congress, because it is owned and operated by the 
Corps, but it provides public water not only for Washington, 
DC, but for the Virginia suburbs. So it is very important to 
us.
    Now, I recognize that the Corps does not receive 
appropriations here. It is paid for only by taxpayers. Your 
agency has highlighted to me the need for an appropriation to 
continue to maintain the aqueduct without passing on the costs 
to users. So I understand the difficulty.
    Now, let me pose two alternatives. Former President Trump 
and the Secretary of the Army supported selling the aqueduct to 
the private sector, but I oppose that. This is public water. Or 
to State and local government. I didn't think that was 
practical. It would require funding from them. Alternatively--
and that is my question--a new quasi-governing body, similar to 
the Tennessee Valley Authority, might be a good fit for the 
Washington aqueduct, and help us solve this problem.
    What is your view?
    General Spellmon. Yes. So, ma'am, we have been asked for a 
wide variety of assessments on what is the best way to move 
forward to this, and we have provided those assessments to the 
Secretary. Ma'am, we will keep the communication channels wide 
open with you as this dialogue continues.
    But you are correct, we receive no Federal funding. This 
project is maintained by local--by ratepayers.
    Ms. Norton. And that is the problem. Did you say you have 
already provided recommendations to the Secretary?
    General Spellmon. Ma'am, on the quasi-Federal, local--I am 
not familiar. I will follow up on that. But there have been 
other requests from Members of Congress for different types of 
assessments, and we are going to provide that for you, as well.
    Ms. Norton. I wish you would follow up with the 
administration on this alternative, because I don't think that 
there is any good alternative right now available to us, and 
I----
    Mrs. Napolitano. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Norton. We will proceed to 
the next speaker, and it is Mr. Weber, followed by Mr. Brown, 
followed by Ms. Wilson.
    Mr. Weber.
    Mr. Weber. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate that. These are 
some questions that may have been asked--I had to step out for 
another event, so I apologize if they are.
    This month both the Corps and the EPA agencies announced it 
would redo the Trump administration's navigable waters rule, 
and rewrite the definition of, ``waters of the United States.'' 
We call it WOTUS. I have serious concerns with this action, as 
the Obama administration's rule failed to take into account 
genuine stakeholder feedback, placed burdensome and confusing 
requirements on not only farmers, but small businesses, local 
communities, individuals, and on and on and on.
    So my question is, how does the Biden administration plan 
to solicit and incorporate true feedback from those affected by 
the regulation?
    If you can tell me the plan, and who is going to be in 
charge of it, those would be questions for Acting Secretary 
Pinkham. What is the plan, and who is in charge of it, and how 
do we get feedback on it?
    Mr. Pinkham. Representative Weber, the strategy is still 
under development yet, and I will be working side by side with 
EPA on establishing a series of sessions, listening sessions, 
so that we can gather the input from all the stakeholders, and 
they would be held by stakeholders. Also, we are looking at 
holding regional convenings.
    And you are right, this is going to be about honest 
listening, really looking at what are the concerns from the 
various perspectives, and making the decisions on how can we 
find a good, balanced rule that provides people with a sense of 
durability, so that we can move forward. So we are committing 
to--and it is going to be time-consuming, and it should be 
time-consuming and deliberative, to solicit as much input as we 
can take.
    I perceive this being an exhaustive, but necessary effort.
    Mr. Weber. So right now, Mr. Secretary, we don't--the rule 
has not been canceled. Is that correct or not correct?
    Mr. Pinkham. At this time the rule has not been canceled.
    Mr. Weber. Do you foresee it being canceled in the 
foreseeable future?
    Mr. Pinkham. You know, I am--that is going to take a lot 
more discussions with some of our interagency partners on, you 
know, what are the immediate steps, and no commitment on the 
most immediate steps of whether it is going to be canceled or 
not.
    Mr. Weber. Of course, it is a big thing for me. I am from 
Texas. I am from an agrarian State, and not to mention an 
industrial State. We have a lot of energy and stuff in our 
State. So it is a big concern for my district.
    Would you say, or do you know at this point, is there a 
priority assigned to this ``rule change''?
    What is the number? Number 1, 12, 28?
    Mr. Pinkham. Well, I guess for Army Corps Civil Works, I 
would say it is certainly within my top three priorities to 
work on this----
    Mr. Weber. Top three priorities?
    Mr. Pinkham. Yes.
    Mr. Weber. So is that to say, Mr. Pinkham, that you have 
problems with the rule the way it is currently in place?
    Mr. Pinkham. Well, Congressman Weber, I think everybody has 
concerns with the rule, as it currently exists. And some of the 
concerns even involve kind of interpretation, and how we apply 
it on the ground, kind of misalignment of how do we define what 
is a historic or a formerly converted cropland, and differences 
of interpretation. So certainly, there are some concerns even 
about how we apply it on the ground.
    Mr. Weber. So if this is one of your top three concerns, as 
you stated, going in--actions to take care of, what are the top 
three concerns?
    You just stated one concern. What is your next top concerns 
with the rule?
    Mr. Pinkham. Well, I would say one of my other top concerns 
is working on the budget right now, making sure that we are----
    Mr. Weber. But I mean as a--Mr. Pinkham, I mean as it 
relates to the rule, the WOTUS rule. What are the top three 
issues with the rule?
    How do you define the cropland that has been previously 
designated?
    And what is your number 2 and number 3 concern with the 
rule?
    Mr. Pinkham. Oh, OK, I am sorry, Congressman Weber. I must 
have misunderstood your question, but----
    Mr. Weber. All good.
    Mr. Pinkham. Yes, you know, well, I think the--my biggest 
concern is the fact that there is a lot of divisiveness over 
the interpretation of the rule. And you are hearing both sides 
of the spectrum. You know, how can we kind of mediate the 
differences, to make sure that people continue to practice 
good, sound agriculture, and know that their farms will be 
productive, and stay within the family?
    And at the same time, how do we prepare for the changing 
climate conditions? We have got drought in some areas.
    So one is finding a rule that everybody agrees on, or as 
much agreement as possible. So that is number 1.
    Number 2 is to make sure that we find ways that we can 
avoid kind of the complications of applying it on the ground.
    And I guess the third one is, just to make sure that we 
have got good community engagement, that we have a strong 
outreach effort, and don't leave any voices left unheard.
    Mr. Weber. Have you ever heard the saying----
    Mrs. Napolitano. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Weber. Well, thank you, ma'am, and I will yield back. 
Thank you.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
    Mr. Brown, you are on the list now. You may speak.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you and 
your colleagues on the Water Resources and Environment 
Subcommittee for allowing me to waive on this morning.
    General Spellmon, as you know, the Anacostia watershed is 
one of the most urbanized watersheds within the Chesapeake Bay 
region. And 86 square miles are located in Prince George's 
County, Maryland, the greater part of which I have the 
privilege to represent. I don't represent the land, I represent 
the people around the watershed.
    In 2018 the Chief of Engineers, and your immediate 
predecessor, signed the Chief's Report for the Anacostia 
watershed study in Prince George's County, and this report 
allowed for the authorization of the project in the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2020.
    The continued enhancement of the Anacostia watershed is 
critical to the environmental health of my district and the 
State of Maryland. Protecting and restoring the Anacostia River 
will benefit all of the residents living in its watershed, as 
well as future generations. And I am very pleased to see that 
President Biden included $30 billion in construction funds in 
his budget request. These funds will be used to restore 
degraded in-stream habitat, and create opportunities for fish 
passage as part of the Anacostia watershed restoration project. 
And I believe it is imperative that the Appropriations 
Committee fund this project at the level in the budget 
presented or requested by the President.
    So, General Spellmon, the President's budget request 
provides for robust funding for this project. Can you speak to 
the local and regional benefits of this project, and why it is 
a good investment of Federal dollars?
    And also, from your perspective, what are the next steps 
for this project?
    General Spellmon. Yes, Congressman Brown. First I will tell 
you we are very excited about this project. We appreciate 
Congress authorizing this in WRDA 2020, and we certainly 
appreciate the President's budget request of $30 million.
    We believe we are on a path that we could get--if dollars 
are appropriated to start this work in October of 2022--and 
this will be less than a 2-year effort--it is going to restore 
7 miles of river habitat at six locations, and restore fish 
passage at 4 miles. Again, sir, those are the highlights. We 
are very much looking forward to working with the State and our 
partners there in moving this project forward.
    Mr. Brown. Right. Well, look, I really appreciate it. I 
appreciate you, your leadership team, everyone at the Corps of 
Engineers for what you do, not only in my district and the 
National Capital region, but around the Nation. So thank you.
    And thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the opportunity 
to pop in on your subcommittee hearing.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
    Ms. Wilson, you are recognized.
    Ms. Wilson. Thank you so much, Chair Napolitano and Ranking 
Member Rouzer, for calling this important hearing. And thank 
you to today's witnesses for illuminating President Biden's 
budget priorities to protect our waterways, increase 
infrastructure resiliency, and fund critical projects.
    As the founder and cochair of the Florida Ports Caucus and 
a Representative of Miami-Dade County, today's discussion is of 
critical importance to me and my fellow Floridians. Florida's 
top two industries--tourism and agriculture--largely depend on 
our waterways. As a result, a robust water infrastructure 
system and effective flood mitigation efforts are critical to 
Florida's economy and public health. I look forward to working 
with the Army Corps of Engineers and local Miami leaders to 
find effective solutions to mitigate destructive storm surges 
along the south Florida coast.
    Now, more than ever, it is imperative to provide increased 
funding for critical programs such as the Clean Water State 
Revolving Fund programs that address water pollution, and 
funding to preserve the Everglades.
    Mr. Pinkham, I am glad to see that the funding level has 
increased to $350 million for the south Florida Everglades 
restoration program. However, I am concerned about the ability 
to fund the $7 billion needed to complete all of the Everglades 
restoration projects. In your opinion, with the current funding 
levels, are we still on schedule to meet the 2030 deadline?
    If not, what are your plans to meet it?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Wilson. This is for Mr. Pinkham.
    Mr. Pinkham. Representative Wilson, I----
    [Audio malfunction.]
    Mr. Pinkham [continuing]. And if I could defer to whether 
we are on time or on--if I could defer that question to General 
Spellmon, who has a deeper history and understanding of the 
project.
    Ms. Wilson. No problem.
    General Spellmon. Ma'am, I would be happy to take that on.
    Currently, the south Florida ecosystem restoration program 
receives--this year will receive 70 percent of our aquatic 
ecosystem restoration budget, nationally, 70 percent. At that 
funding level, it would take us about 17 years to complete the 
68 projects in the SFER program. Even if Florida received 100 
percent of my aquatic ecosystem restoration project, it would 
take over 13 years to complete that program.
    So I think we have got to think about this differently. I 
have some ideas that I am working and pushing my team on. For 
example, the wetland attenuation feature associated with the 
Lake Okeechobee water restoration project, this is water supply 
north of the lake. That is about a $1 billion additional 
reservoir. I have challenged my team to come back to me: Can we 
add additional aquifer storage recharge wells at $5 million 
apiece, and get the same water supply benefit?
    I have challenged my team to look harder at research and 
development. Are there other ways that we can get after these 
harmful algal blooms that are plaguing the State, not just 
around Lake Okeechobee, but everywhere, to come up with more 
meaningful solutions, aside from billion-dollar projects? So we 
are taking that on, as well.
    And last, I will tell you I am trying to accelerate this 
schedule by the use of a rare tool that the administration has 
and offers us, and that is a continuing contract authority. So 
I would like to apply that in fiscal year 2023 to the 
Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir. We know, we can prove 
it mathematically, that on projects of that size and scope, we 
can save years and hundreds of billions of dollars in project 
execution by just having that authority. It brings down risk 
for our contractors, there is less contingency, and we are just 
more effective.
    Ms. Wilson. OK, thank you. I hope I don't run out of time, 
but last year, Lieutenant General Spellmon, the Army Corps of 
Engineers released its first proposal for the Miami-Dade County 
Back Bay study to find solutions to protect the vulnerable 
south Florida coast from storm surges. This proposal included 
constructing a 20-foot-high seawall along 6 miles of coastline, 
which would bisect neighborhoods, lower property values, and 
impact tourism. Local leaders voiced their concerns about this 
proposal.
    Can you commit today that the Corps will work with local 
leaders to ensure that alternative, nature-based solutions are 
incorporated into future proposals?
    General Spellmon. Ma'am, absolutely. This was one of 
several proposals that we put on the table, and that is why we 
do that [inaudible] critical feedback from the public.
    But as I said in my opening statement, we absolutely want 
to do more engineering with nature everywhere we work across 
the Corps. You have my commitment.
    Ms. Wilson. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Wilson. We appreciate that. 
And that wraps up all the Members on queue to ask questions.
    But, General, I understand that the Corps mission has the 
three missions, but I would like to submit that we support the 
study that you are doing on the water storage and delivery. I 
sure am--I am--well, somehow we need to add the water storage 
and delivery to your mission, because it is so important. You 
have so many dams, you have so much water that you can help 
ease the drought sections in many areas.
    General Spellmon. Ma'am, I would just say there are over 
1,500 dams in the State of California. A small percentage of 
those are the Corps'. Some are from the Bureau, but many are 
State.
    In a perfect world, I would recommend we would have a 
forecast-informed reservoir operations validation done on all 
of those, just because of the greatness that we saw at Lake 
Mendocino. I think we are going to repeat that at Prado. I 
think we are going to have a similar effect up at Howard Hanson 
Dam in the State of Washington. I think we need to do more of 
that type of research and development.
    Mrs. Napolitano. May we follow up with you on that, sir?
    [No response.]
    Mrs. Napolitano. May we follow up with you on that, sir?
    General Spellmon. Yes, ma'am.
    Mrs. Napolitano. All right, sir. As you heard from many of 
the Members, both sides, your budget is not enough to take care 
of all the backlog. Is there any way of actually assessing the 
backlog that you have, so that we have an idea of how much more 
we need to infuse into Army Corps to get the job done?
    General Spellmon. Ma'am, that is----
    Mrs. Napolitano. Because it----
    General Spellmon. I am sorry.
    Mrs. Napolitano. It is a security issue. It is an 
environmental issue. It is a Congress issue, especially 
dredging.
    General Spellmon. Ma'am, I would--that is a long answer. I 
would love the opportunity to have my team sit down with you 
and your staff, and walk you through how we see our current 
backlog.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate 
that. I look forward to it.
    We will not have a second round. Sorry, Mr. Mast and Mr. 
Graves. Please submit the questions in writing for the 
committee to follow up with you.
    And I do ask unanimous consent that the record of today's 
hearing remain open until such a time as our witnesses have 
provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them 
in writing.
    And also, please forward a copy to the subcommittee, so we 
are able to understand the issues.
    And unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 
days for any additional comments and information submitted by 
Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's 
hearing.
    And without objection, so ordered.
    I would like to thank all our witnesses. General, you have 
been great; Mr. Pinkham, you have been very helpful. Mr. Lyash 
and Mr. Avila, I am sorry for the delay and ask forgiveness for 
the indulgence you have been put through.
    Thank you very much.
    General Spellmon, our gratitude to the men and women of the 
Corps for the fine job in always performing for our Members. As 
you can see, some of them are very grateful.
    And I would like to make sure that we thank our staff on 
both sides for the great job they have done.
    If no other Members have anything to add, the committee 
does stand adjourned. Thank you, and goodbye.
    [Whereupon, at 2:02 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]



                       Submissions for the Record

                              ----------                              


  Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress 
     from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure
    Thank you, Chair Napolitano, for holding this hearing, and thank 
you to our witnesses.
    It is important that we learn the views and priorities of the 
agencies represented here.
    Out of these agencies, the Corps plays a significant role in 
promoting waterborne transportation and providing flood protection.
    America's inland waterway and flood protection infrastructure is 
especially important to Missouri, where we experienced devastating 
floods in 2019--dangers that continue to threaten many of the same 
areas.
    As such, I look forward to hearing about the Corps' plans when it 
comes to improving flood control and navigation, on the Missouri and 
Mississippi Rivers.
    I am extremely concerned, however, about the Corps' plans to re-
write the Trump Administration's Navigable Waters Protection Rule and 
the definition of ``Waters of the United States''.
    The current rule provided much needed clarification for farmers, 
homeowners, small businesses, and local governments on the extent of 
waters covered by the Clean Water Act.
    We will be watching this process closely, but it's hard to imagine 
the administration's decision to initiate a new rulemaking is anything 
other than a plan to bring back burdensome regulations for our 
agriculture and business sectors, state and local governments, and 
private citizens.
    I want to remind the Corps that the Obama administration utterly 
failed to properly incorporate feedback from those stakeholders who 
would have to live and work under the regulation, and the result was 
the deeply flawed WOTUS rule.
    I look forward to learning how the Corps plans to proceed on this 
and to hear from the panel about their agency priorities.
    I yield back.



                               Appendix

                              ----------                              


 Questions from Hon. David Rouzer to both Lieutenant General Scott A. 
Spellmon, Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers and Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army 
                for Civil Works, Department of the Army

    Question 1. The Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) 
of 2014 (P.L. 113-121) Section 7001 requires the Army Corps of 
Engineers (Corps) to submit an annual report to Congress by February 1 
of each year. However, Congress has yet to receive this year's report.
    Question 1.a. When can we expect to receive the report?
    Answer. The report is under review and will be transmitted to 
Congress when that review is completed.

    Question 1.b. What is the cause for delay?
    Answer. The report is under review and will be transmitted to 
Congress when that review is completed.

    Question 2. Can you please give us an update on the status of 
implementing guidance on the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 
2020 (P.L. 116-260)?
    Answer. There are 32 sections of WRDA 2020 that require written 
guidance. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 
Works and Corps staff are working expeditiously to complete the 
drafting of that guidance. I have approved 20 guidance documents so far 
and we are making great progress on the remaining sections. I expect to 
approve and make the remaining the guidance publicly available in the 
near future.

    Question 3. How is the Corps engaging stakeholders and Congress as 
it works to implement WRDA 2020? How can the Corps and stakeholders 
work together for more efficient, timely, and less costly project 
development and implementation?
    Answer. We conducted a 60-day public comment period during which 
the public and stakeholders were encouraged to provide written comments 
on any section of WRDA 2020. Additionally, the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and the Corps co-hosted five 
virtual stakeholder meetings in which stakeholders discussed concerns 
with specific sections of WRDA 2020. Stakeholders who contacted our 
point of contact were able to discuss their concerns with the 
provision.

    Question 4. If Congress adopted the President's proposed budget 
reduction for the Corps, would this require the Corps to cancel any 
contracts? If so, please supply the Committee with a list of project 
terminations proposed by the President's budget request and their 
associated remaining-benefit to remaining-cost ratios and their 
associated termination costs. Does the President's proposal presume 
Congress will continue to fund these projects?
    Answer. No, if Congress enacts the President's budget for the 
Corps, it would not require the cancellation of any contracts.

    Question 5. What was the basis for deciding which on-going 
projects, studies, and new construction starts would be supported in 
the President's budget request?
    Question 5.a. The President's budget request for the Corps 
describes the objectives utilized to develop the request:

        ``In developing the Budget, consideration was given to 
        advancing three key objectives including: 1) increasing 
        infrastructure and ecosystem resilience to climate change and 
        decreasing climate risk for communities based on the best 
        available science; 2) promoting environmental justice in 
        disadvantaged communities in line with Justice40 and creating 
        good paying jobs that promote a chance to join a union; and 3) 
        not funding work that directly subsidizes fossil fuels 
        including work that lowers the cost of production, lowers the 
        cost of consumption, or raises the revenues retained by 
        producers of fossil fuels.''
    Answer. The FY 2022 Budget press book includes performance 
guidelines for both the Construction and Operation and Maintenance 
accounts.

    Question 5.b. Can you please explain the third objective of ``not 
funding work that directly subsidizes fossil fuels including work that 
lowers the cost of production, lowers the cost of consumption, or 
raises the revenues retained by producers of fossil fuels''?
    Answer. Consistent with Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate 
Crisis at Home and Abroad, the Budget begins the process of no longer 
directly subsidizing fossil fuel subsides, helping to transition to a 
low carbon economy, while also supporting efforts to help fossil fuel 
workers transition to good-paying, cleaner, greener jobs. The President 
asked all Federal agencies, including the Corps, to begin the process 
of identifying and eliminating direct fossil fuel subsidies within 
their programs. Agencies are working to identify appropriate actions 
that they can take to support this policy objective.

    Question 5.c. What types of work under the purview of the Corps 
would be considered to directly subsidize fossil fuels?
    Answer. The Army Corps is working with OMB on this issue.

    Question 5.d. How will the Corps determine if an activity ``lowers 
cost of production, lowers the cost of consumption, or raises the 
revenues retained by fossil fuels''?
    Answer. The details of implementation are under development.

    Question 5.e. What staffing expertise does the Corps currently have 
to determine these considerations?
    Answer. The Army retains economists and experts in commercial 
navigation, including the Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center 
responsible for capturing information on vessels, tonnage, commodity, 
origin, and destination from vessel operating companies. These data and 
information are intended to assist the Corps commercial navigation 
mission by providing statistics used to analyze the feasibility of new 
projects, and to set priorities for new investments and for the 
operation, rehabilitation, and maintenance of existing projects. Users 
of the data include government agencies, private industry, academia, 
and the general public.

    Question 5.f. Would work that ``lowers the cost of consumption'' 
include the cost for consumers who purchase fossil fuels for home and 
transportation-related energy? Would this include lowered costs of 
gasoline, diesel, home heating oil or natural gas purchased by 
consumers?
    Answer. The details of implementation are under development.

    Question 6. In your testimony, you discussed how the President's 
budget request would support the Corps' essential missions--commercial 
navigation, flood risk reduction, and restoring aquatic ecosystems. 
This budget request includes $8 million for charging infrastructure for 
federally owned vehicles.
    Question 6.a. While this may be included in other areas of the 
President's budget request, how does this proposed expense support, or 
why it is even mentioned within, these essential Corps missions?
    Answer. The Corps leases approximately 4,200 vehicles from the 
General Services Administration to support Civil Works activities. As 
the Corps transitions to electric vehicles for staff use, charging 
station infrastructure will be required at Corps facilities.

    Question 6.b. Can you please explain the justification for this 
request and how it fits within these Corps mission areas?
    Answer. Vehicles are needed for staff to support the Corps' 
mission. See attached FY22 Justification Sheet for more details.

    Question 6.c. Is the Corps looking to use mission area funds to pay 
for internal operating expenses?
    Answer. The Electric Vehicle Fleet and Charging Infrastructure is 
its own line item as an operation expense in the Operation and 
Maintenance account.

    Question 7. How many Chief's Reports are expected to be signed by 
the end of 2021?
    Answer. The Commanding General for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
is expected to sign 14 Chief's Reports in calendar year 2021. Six 
Chief's Reports have been signed and 20 are projected for FY 2022.

    Question 8. This month, both the Corps and EPA (the ``Agencies'') 
announced that they plan to rewrite the Navigable Waters Protection 
Rule (NWPR), including the definition of ``Waters of the United 
States'' (WOTUS). There are many concerns that as the Obama 
Administration's rule failed to take into account stakeholder feedback, 
and placed burdensome and confusing requirements on farmers, small 
businesses, local communities, and other regulated entities.
    Question 8.a. How does the Biden Administration plan to solicit and 
incorporate substantive feedback from those affected by this 
regulation?
    Answer. The agencies are committed to meaningful stakeholder 
engagement to ensure that a revised definition of ``waters of the 
United States'' reflects the experience of and input received from 
landowners, the agricultural community, states, Tribes, local 
governments, businesses, community organizations, environmental groups, 
and underserved and overburdened communities with environmental justice 
concerns. This included virtual public listening sessions, as well as 
dedicated stakeholder conversations with agricultural, industry, 
environmental and environmental justice groups, and state, local and 
tribal leaders, from August through October 2021. In addition, the 
agencies intend to hold roundtables in 10 geographically-focused 
regions in early 2022.

    Question 8.b. What specific steps do you intend to take to engage 
the states in substantive consultation to ensure their concerns are 
fully addressed in a final rule?
    Answer. The agencies are committed to meaningful stakeholder 
engagement to ensure that a revised definition of ``waters of the 
United States'' reflects the experience of and input received from all 
stakeholders, and recognize the importance of the role of such input 
from our co-regulators, the states, territories and Tribes. The 
agencies have engaged in and will be engaging in additional stakeholder 
conversations with state, local and tribal leaders. In addition, the 
agencies intend to hold roundtables in 10 geographically-focused 
regions in early 2022.

    Question 8.c. When does the Administration plan to issue a notice 
of proposed rulemaking?
    Answer. The agencies published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register on December 7, 2021, the first step in a two-part rule process 
to restore the regime in place prior to the 2015 implementation of the 
definition, updated to be consistent with relevant Supreme Court 
decisions.

    Question 8.d. Will EPA or Army Corps be doing outreach or both?
    Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of 
the Army will both be doing outreach in a joint manner.

    Question 9. Knowing that there are significant geographic 
variations across the U.S. and that a single set of standards will not 
fit all, how do the Agencies plan to address these differences in any 
new rule? Should there be a role here for state and local governments 
and water districts in identifying regional differences and fashioning 
a workable solution? What are the Agencies going to do to work with 
states and localities to address these concerns?
    Answer. The agencies recognize that there are regional variations 
in precipitation rates and common geomorphologic conditions that affect 
typical stream flow regimes across the country which need to be 
considered in the development of a durable definition of WOTUS. The 
agencies will engage stakeholders and states and Tribes across the 
country to ensure their regional perspectives are considered.

    Question 10. Many States and local governments and their 
representative organizations are concerned that the Agencies will not 
sufficiently consult with them, and that the rulemaking could impinge 
on state authority in water management. Do you consider the states and 
local government a partner in our Nation's intergovernmental system? Or 
just another stakeholder group in this discussion? Will the Agencies 
engage the states and local government in substantive consultation when 
promulgating or revising rules, taking into account and specifically 
addressing the concerns raised by the states and local governments, to 
ensure their concerns are fully addressed in any final rule?
    Answer. The agencies are committed to meaningful engagement with 
states, Tribes, and local governments. This engagement included 
dedicated dialogues with state, territories, local and Tribal leaders; 
formal consultations with intergovernmental partners under E.O. 13132 
(federalism) and E.O. 13175 (Tribal consultation); and government-to-
government consultations with the Tribes. Additional opportunities for 
similar dialogues will occur for the second step of the rule process as 
well as another opportunity for consultation with states and local 
governments, territories, and Tribes. In addition, the agencies intend 
to hold roundtables in 10 geographically-focused regions in spring 
2022.

    Question 11. Do the Agencies plan to prepare a detailed response to 
public comments, which will respond to each issue raised in each 
comment? Will you commit to having the Agencies prepare a detailed 
response to public comments, which will respond to each issue raised in 
the comments, before proceeding to finalize a rulemaking?
    Answer. The agencies remain committed to following the requirements 
of all applicable laws and regulations as we conduct these rulemaking 
efforts and will provide a response to comments as part of any final 
rule.

    Question 12. There is a concern that a new NWPR rule would end up 
having a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
but that the Agencies will fail to conduct a Small Business Advocacy 
Review (SBAR or ``SBREFA'') panel before proceeding with this new 
rulemaking. Will you commit to formally examining the impacts of any 
new proposed rule on small entities? Will you conduct an SBAR panel, as 
required by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(P.L. 104-121) before proceeding any further with this rulemaking?
    Answer. The agencies commit to robust stakeholder engagement, which 
will include small entities (e.g., small businesses) and hosted a 
listening session with small entities in August 2021; presentation 
materials and a recording are available at https://www.epa.gov/wotus/
2021-waters-united-states-public-meeting-materials. The agencies also 
participated in two environmental roundtables hosted by the SBA in 
January 2022. The agencies remain committed to following the 
requirements of all applicable laws and regulations as we conduct these 
rulemaking efforts.

    Question 13. Please provide details and definitions for what the 
Corps considers ``significant environmental damage'' and ``ongoing 
environmental harm'', as cited in the announcement for the decision to 
repeal the current NWPR.
    Answer. The Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR), the 
announcement for the decision to repeal the NWPR, and the proposal to 
repeal the NWPR were issued joint by the EPA and the Army. Upon review 
of the NWPR, the agencies determined that the rule was reducing Clean 
Water Act protections, and this lack of protections is particularly 
significant in arid states, like New Mexico and Arizona, where nearly 
every one of over 1,500 streams assessed has been found to be non-
jurisdictional under the NWPR. The agencies are also aware of 333 
projects that would have required Clean Water Act Section 404 
permitting prior to the NWPR, but would not have done so under that 
rule. After conducting that review, the agencies announced their intent 
to revise the definition of ``waters of the United States'' to better 
protect our nation's vital water resources that support public health, 
environmental protection, agricultural activity, and economic growth. 
As described in the proposed repeal of the NWPR, a broad array of 
stakeholders--including states, Tribes, local governments, scientists, 
and non-governmental organizations--saw significant impacts to critical 
water bodies under the NWPR. The agencies provide more detail about 
their concerns about the NWPR, and information that supported their 
analysis, in their proposed revision of the definition of ``waters of 
the United States'' and supporting documents, available at https://
www.epa.gov/wotus/revising-definition-waters-united-states.

    Question 14. The Agencies have been inconsistent when describing 
their plans for the NWPR. In the press release announcing 
reconsideration, the Agencies suggested they will first repeal the NWPR 
and reinstate the pre-2015 definitions, followed by a second rulemaking 
to redefine WOTUS. But in litigation filings, the Agencies said they 
have ``decided to commence a new rulemaking to revise or replace the 
rule.'' Which of these paths do the Agencies intend to take? Have the 
Agencies already determined that they will repeal the NWPR? Can the 
Agencies commit to maintaining an open mind on whether it may be 
appropriate to merely revise the NWPR, as opposed to outright repealing 
or replacing the rule?
    Answer. The agencies initiated a new rulemaking process that 
proposes to put back into place the pre-2015 definition of ``waters of 
the United States,'' updated to reflect consideration of Supreme Court 
decisions. The proposed rule was published in the federal register on 
December 7, 2021. The agencies will also consider changes through a 
second rulemaking that they anticipate proposing in the future, which 
would build upon the foundation of the proposed rule. The agencies are 
committed to meaningful state, Tribal, and stakeholder engagement 
throughout the process so that we can incorporate experience of and 
input received from all stakeholders.

    Question 15. You recently stated that the NWPR ``resulted in a 25 
percentage point reduction in determinations of waters that would 
otherwise be afforded protection.'' \1\ But that figure does not seem 
to align with the data analysis that the Agencies disclosed upon 
announcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ EPA, Army Announce Intent to Revise Definition of WOTUS (June 
9, 2021), https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-army-announce-intent-
revise-definition-wotus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question 15.a. What methodology did the Agencies use to arrive at 
this 25% figure?
    Answer. The agencies' remand motion and declarations filed in the 
litigation, as well as the documents reviewed and other supporting 
information can be found at https://www.epa.gov/wotus/request-remand-
and-supporting-documentation which includes the data sources and 
analysis. The analysis provided in the technical support document and 
supporting materials for the current proposed rule constitute the most 
up to date and comprehensive analysis. This secondary analysis included 
a full year of data. This information is available in the technical 
support document and supporting materials for the current proposed rule 
found at: https://www.epa.gov/wotus/revising-definition-waters-united-
states.

    Question 15.b. What data or database did the agencies use as the 
baseline for comparison to the NWPR?
    Answer. This information is available in the technical support 
document and supporting materials for the current proposed rule, found 
at: https://www.epa.gov/wotus/revising-definition-waters-united-states. 
The data is sourced from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Operation 
and Maintenance Business Information Link, Regulatory Module (ORM2) 
database.

    Question 15.c. What is the geographic distribution of this 
reduction in jurisdiction (nationwide or isolated to certain regions)?
    Answer. Upon review of the NWPR, the agencies determined that the 
rule reduced Clean Water Act protections. This lack of protections was 
particularly significant in arid states. As described in the agencies' 
proposed replacement rule, a broad array of stakeholders--including 
states, tribes, local governments, scientists, and non-governmental 
organizations--saw significant impacts to critical water bodies under 
the NWPR. This data was nationwide in scope, although data is not 
available within ORM2 for the states of Michigan and New Jersey, which 
have assumed the 404 permitting program.
    The agencies provide more detail about their concerns about the 
NWPR, and information that supported their analysis, in their proposed 
revision of the definition of ``waters of the United States'' and 
supporting documents, available at https://www.epa.gov/wotus/revising-
definition-waters-united-states.

    Question 16. The Agencies have expressed ``substantial concerns 
about the lawfulness of aspects of the NWPR.'' \2\ Yet courts like the 
Northern District of California ruled that petitioners are unlikely to 
succeed on the merits of its claims that the NWPR violates either the 
Clean Water Act (CWA) or the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This 
is in stark contrast to the extremely poor track record of the 2015 
Rule, which was preliminarily enjoined in numerous courts and 
invalidated after full merits adjudication by two courts. What precise 
``aspects'' of the NWPR are unlawful in the Agencies' views? How does 
that justify wholesale replacement or repeal (as opposed to targeted 
revisions)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Declaration of Jaime A. Pinkham, Conservation Law Foundation v. 
EPA, (D. Mass) Case No. 20-cv-10820-DPW, available at https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-06/documents/
2_conservation_law_found._d._mass._-_jaime_pinkham_declaration_
final_signed_508c.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. The NWPR has been vacated by two courts on the grounds that 
it was unlawful, and remanded to the agencies by six additional courts. 
On August 30, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona 
remanded the NWPR and vacated the rule, finding that ``[t]he 
seriousness of the Agencies' errors in enacting the NWPR, the 
likelihood that the Agencies will alter the NWPR's definition of 
`waters of the United States,' and the possibility of serious 
environmental harm if the NWPR remains in place upon remand, all weigh 
in favor of remand with vacatur.'' Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. EPA, No. 4:20-
cv-00266, 2021 WL 3855977 at *5 (D. Ariz. Aug. 30, 2021). On September 
27, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. also 
issued an order vacating and remanding the NWPR. Navajo Nation v. 
Regan, No. 2:20-cv-00602 (D.N.M. Sept. 27, 2021). In vacating the rule, 
the court agreed with the reasoning of the Pascua Yaqui court that the 
NWPR suffers from ``fundamental, substantive flaws that cannot be cured 
without revising or replacing the NWPR's definition of `waters of the 
United States.' '' Slip. op. at 6. Six other courts also remanded the 
NWPR without vacatur or without addressing vacatur. As described in the 
agencies' declarations requesting remand of the NWPR, the agencies have 
concerns about the lawfulness of aspects of the NWPR and the harmful 
effects of the NWPR on the nation's waters. The agencies provide more 
detail about their concerns about the NWPR, and information that 
supported their analysis, in their proposed revision of the definition 
of ``waters of the United States'' and supporting documents, available 
at https://www.epa.gov/wotus/revising-definition-waters-united-states.

    Question 17. The Agencies have represented to a federal court that 
they ``have noted on-the-ground effects of the NWPR since the rule went 
into effect,'' \3\ citing vague and speculative ``concerns'' \4\ raised 
by stakeholders that the NWPR ``is resulting in significant, actual 
environmental harms.'' \5\ What, if anything, have the Agencies done to 
evaluate and verify whether any of the claimed activities are occurring 
or whether any activities involve discharges into ``newly deemed non-
jurisdictional'' wetlands and streams?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for 
Voluntary Remand without Vacatur, Conservation Law Foundation v. EPA, 
(D. Mass) Case No. 20-cv-10820-DPW, available at https://
www.eenews.net/assets/2021/06/09/document_pm_01.pdf.
    \4\ Supra n.2.
    \5\ Supra n.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. Upon review of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, the 
agencies determined that the rule is reducing Clean Water Act 
protections, and this lack of protections is particularly significant 
in arid states, like New Mexico and Arizona, where nearly every one of 
over 1,500 streams assessed has been found to be non-jurisdictional. 
The agencies are also aware of 333 projects that would have required 
Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting prior to the Navigable Waters 
Protection Rule, but no longer do. The agencies provide more detail 
about their concerns about the NWPR, and information that supported 
their analysis, in their proposed revision of the definition of 
``waters of the United States'' and supporting documents, available at 
https://www.epa.gov/wotus/revising-definition-waters-united-states.

    Question 18. Declarations you and Assistant Administrator Radhika 
Fox submitted refer to 333 projects ``that would have required Section 
404 permitting prior to the NWPR, but no longer do under the NWPR.'' 
\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Supra n.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question 18.a. Have the agencies verified that each project has 
moved forward?
    Answer. The agencies do not perform inspections or compliance 
checks on work which they determine do not require authorization under 
the Clean Water Act. However, the fact that such landowners requested 
authorization does signal an intent to perform work.

    Question 18.b. For those projects that have moved forward:
    Question 18.b.i. Did the Agencies confirm that each involves an 
actual discharge to ``newly deemed non-jurisdictional'' waters?
    Answer. The agencies do not perform inspections or compliance 
checks on work which they determine do not require authorization under 
the Clean Water Act. However, the fact that such landowners requested 
authorization does signal an intent to perform work.

    Question 18.b.ii. Did the Agencies confirm that no state agency 
regulated the project?
    Answer. The agencies do not perform inspections or compliance 
checks on work which they determine do not require authorization under 
the Clean Water Act. However, the fact that such landowners requested 
authorization does signal an intent to perform work.

    Question 18.b.iii. What findings have the Agencies made concerning 
water quality impacts of these projects?
    Answer. The agencies do not perform inspections or compliance 
checks on work which they determine do not require authorization under 
the Clean Water Act. However, the fact that such landowners requested 
authorization does signal an intent to perform work. In addition, the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates the discharge of dredged and/or 
fill material under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and does not 
regulate water quality under Section 401 of the Act.

    Question 18.b.iv. When will the Agencies disclose those findings?
    Answer. The agencies do not perform inspections or compliance 
checks on work which they determine do not require authorization under 
the Clean Water Act. However, the fact that such landowners requested 
authorization does signal an intent to perform work. In addition, the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates the discharge of dredged and/or 
fill material under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and does not 
regulate water quality under Section 401 of the Act.

    Question 19. You and Assistant Administrator Fox have asserted in 
sworn declarations that ``[p]rojects are proceeding in newly non-
jurisdictional waters in states and tribal lands where regulation of 
waters beyond those covered by the CWA are not authorized.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Supra n.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question 19.a. What factual support do you have for this claim?
    Answer. The agencies' remand motion and declarations filed in the 
litigation, as well as the documents reviewed and other supporting 
information, can be found at https://www.epa.gov/wotus/request-remand-
and-supporting-documentation. The agencies provide more detail about 
their concerns about the NWPR, and information that supported their 
analysis, in their proposed revision of the definition of ``waters of 
the United States'' and supporting documents, available at https://
www.epa.gov/wotus/revising-definition-waters-united-states.

    Question 19.b. What projects are proceeding and in which states?
    Answer. The agencies' remand motion and declarations filed in the 
litigation, as well as the documents reviewed and other supporting 
information, can be found https://www.epa.gov/wotus/request-remand-and-
supporting-documentation. The agencies provide more detail about their 
concerns about the NWPR, and information that supported their analysis, 
in their proposed revision of the definition of ``waters of the United 
States'' and supporting documents, available at https://www.epa.gov/
wotus/revising-definition-waters-united-states.

    Question 19.c. Have the Agencies confirmed that each of these 
states do not have laws in place that address discharges to ephemeral 
streams or wetlands that are not jurisdictional under the NWPR?
    Answer. The agencies' remand motion and declarations filed in the 
litigation, as well as the documents reviewed and other supporting 
information, can be found at https://www.epa.gov/wotus/request-remand-
and-supporting-documentation. The agencies provide more detail about 
their concerns about the NWPR, and information that supported their 
analysis, in their proposed revision of the definition of ``waters of 
the United States'' and supporting documents, available at https://
www.epa.gov/wotus/revising-definition-waters-united-states.

    Question 19.d. Have the Agencies confirmed that any of these 
unnamed projects involve discharges to newly non-jurisdictional waters?
    Answer. The agencies' remand motion and declarations filed in the 
litigation, as well as the documents reviewed and other supporting 
information, can be found at https://www.epa.gov/wotus/request-remand-
and-supporting-documentation. The agencies provide more detail about 
their concerns about the NWPR, and information that supported their 
analysis, in their proposed revision of the definition of ``waters of 
the United States'' and supporting documents, available at https://
www.epa.gov/wotus/revising-definition-waters-united-states.

    Question 20. The Agencies have found that in New Mexico and 
Arizona, nearly all of the more than 1,500 streams has been deemed a 
non-jurisdictional ephemeral resource, ``which is very different from 
the status of the streams as assessed under both the Clean Water Rule 
and the pre-2015 regulatory regime.'' \8\ Under the pre-2015 regime, 
however, ephemeral resources were not per se jurisdictional, but 
instead had to undergo case-by-case determinations to see if there was 
a ``significant nexus.'' What data do the Agencies have to show that 
any of these streams would have been jurisdictional under a case-by-
case determination for ``significant nexus''?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Supra n.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. The agencies' remand motion and declarations filed in the 
litigation, as well as the documents reviewed and other supporting 
information, can be found at https://www.epa.gov/wotus/request-remand-
and-supporting-documentation. The agencies provide more detail about 
their concerns about the NWPR, and information that supported their 
analysis, in their proposed revision of the definition of ``waters of 
the United States'' and supporting documents, available at https://
www.epa.gov/wotus/revising-definition-waters-united-states.

    Question 21. If there is a hurricane and it floods a section of 
farmland in my district, which then drains into the Cape Fear River and 
then the Atlantic Ocean, would that constitute a ``Water of the United 
States''?
    Answer. ``Waters of the United States'' are defined in regulation 
at 33 C.F.R. 328.3. An approved jurisdictional determination (AJD) is 
the tool used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to help implement 
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Sections 9 and 10 of the 
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA). An AJD makes a definitive 
determination of whether aquatic resources within a parcel meet the 
definition of ``waters of the United States.'' AJDs are completed on a 
case by case basis and are based on accurate and reliable, site 
specific information. Only an AJD can provide such determination as 
presented in the question. The agencies do not regulate land, but 
rather ``waters of the U.S.''

 Questions from Hon. Greg Stanton to both Lieutenant General Scott A. 
Spellmon, Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers and Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army 
                for Civil Works, Department of the Army

    Question 1. As I understand, construction of the Rio de Flag 
project in Flagstaff, Arizona, is delayed because BNSF Railway and the 
City of Flagstaff have not completed the construction and maintenance 
agreement that fully defines how to project will cross BNSF's existing 
railroad tracks and the real estate acquisition is not complete.
    Question 1.a. Assuming the City of Flagstaff is able to acquire the 
real estate, could the Corps proceed with downstream phases of the 
project while the City and BNSF continue to work out a plan for 
crossing the railroad tracks?
    Answer. Two Construction Maintenance Agreements (CMAs) are required 
to successfully implement the project. BNSF has made the execution of 
both CMAs contingent on the construction of other track improvements to 
be constructed by the City separate from the Federal project; including 
approximately six miles for a third main track that would run through 
the City of Flagstaff. The Corps could proceed with construction of the 
downstream phases of the project using the funds appropriated in FY 
2020 to complete those phases of the project once the City acquires the 
necessary real estate and BNSF signs the first of the two CMAs.

    Question 1.b. Will you commit to maintaining the Rio de Flag 
project in an active, continuing status to ensure the funding Congress 
has provided will be available when it is needed for construction?
    Answer. Yes. The Corps is committed to maintaining the project in 
an active status in accordance with law and policy. We will continue to 
work with the City of Flagstaff and assist them in their efforts to 
obtain the necessary real estate easements and instruments including 
the two Construction Maintenance Agreements with BNSF.

    Question 2. Congress had previously provided the Corps an authority 
for a pilot program which allowed the Corps to advance funds for 
sponsors to implement construction (Section 1043(b) of WRRDA 2014).
    Question 2.a. Did the pilot program help accelerate any Corps 
projects, and if so, could a similar authority help accelerate the Rio 
de Flag project if the City of Flagstaff wanted to investigate that 
program?
    Answer. An examination of 1043(b) pilot program, to assess impacts 
on the delivery of Corps projects, has not yet been undertaken.
    Use of Section 1043(b) is not expected to accelerate completion of 
the Rio de Flag project. The primary factor affecting the schedule and 
timeline to initiate physical construction of remaining features is the 
ability of the non-Federal sponsor to obtain the necessary real estate 
easements and instruments including the two Construction Maintenance 
Agreements.

Questions from Hon. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon to both Lieutenant General 
Scott A. Spellmon, Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers and Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting Assistant Secretary of 
            the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army

    Question 1. There is a strong demand for USACE construction in 
Puerto Rico, including my two priorities, the Cano Martin Pena 
Ecosystem Restoration Project and the San Juan Harbor Navigation 
project.
    Question 1.a. What can you tell us about the status and prospects 
of this project?
    Answer. With respect to the Cano Martin Pena Ecosystem Restoration 
Project, funding for the completion of plans and specifications for the 
first construction contract is included in the Administration's Fiscal 
Year 2022 budget request. Should FY 2022 funds be appropriated and 
received, it is estimated that pre-construction, engineering and design 
(PED) could be complete within 10 months. San Juan Harbor has been 
fully funded for PED and design is scheduled for completion in Spring 
2022. Both projects will be considered by the Administration in future 
Budgets and Work Plans for new start Construction funding. The Cano 
Martin Pena Ecosystem Restoration Project received $163,287,000 
(Construction) in IIJA funding in January 2022. The funding will be 
used to physically complete and fiscally closeout the project. The 
project did not receive DRSSA or FY2022 Work Plan funding. San Juan 
Harbor received $45,561,000 (Construction) in IIJA funding in January 
2022. The funding will be used to initiate, complete and fiscally 
closeout the project. The project did not receive DRSSA or FY2022 Work 
Plan funding.

    Question 1.b. Have you identified any issues that hinder its 
inclusion in the Work Plan under the construction account, how do we 
overcome that?
    Answer. The Army and the Corps are working to gain clarity on this.

    Question 1.c. Could I count on reaching out to your office work 
with mine and with the non-federal sponsor to determine how we can best 
improve the outlook to get the start?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 2. Also critical is the San Juan Harbor Navigation 
Project, which I have also brought up with appropriators. This is our 
principal port, handling most of Puerto Rico's waterborne trade and 
most of its cruise passengers, a key point of operation for the U.S.-
flagged merchant fleet. The project has the necessary Chief's Report 
and we are looking for it to be budgeted for a start as well.
    Question 2.a. What is the outlook for this project? Is it an agency 
priority?
    Answer. The San Juan Harbor Improvement project was fully funded 
for construction in the FY2022 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. 
Pre-construction, engineering and design is essentially complete and a 
Project Partnership Agreement will be executed in the 4th quarter of 
FY2022.

    Question 2.b. What can we do to help move it forward and be 
budgeted and included in the work plan? What do you need from the 
Congress?
    Answer. No action from Congress is required at this time.

    Question 3. In areas like coastal erosion or river channeling there 
is a strong call from communities for solutions that preserve as much 
of the natural shoreline as possible rather than just walling it. In 
the Rincon coast, after an initial study recommendation of a full 
revetment, the Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources has proposed 
a review of alternatives, including a modified version of the limited 
offshore breakwater. I did exchange correspondence with the prior 
Acting Assistant Secretary on the matter.
    I would like to be updated to the communications between USACE and 
the Department on this, and to encourage looking favorably at that 
alternative that protects the value of the shore as well as controlling 
erosion. Let me know how we can enable the Corps to do this.
    Question 3.a. How do we make it easier for the agency to consider 
these alternatives?
    Answer. The Corps will coordinate with your office regarding the 
status of the Puerto Rico Coastal Storm Risk Management (CSRM) Study.

    Question 3.b. How is the Corps approaching the community interest 
in preserving shores and riverbanks with more natural or nonstructural 
measures?
    Answer. The Jacksonville District, in collaboration with the non-
Federal partner, is looking at the natural feature and nature-based 
feature alternatives along with their long term costs and benefits. The 
Jacksonville District and the non-Federal partners also are 
collaborating with the public and stakeholders to ensure all benefit 
types are assessed and receive equal consideration.

    Question 4. Under the Investigations Account, already finished the 
study phase and pending moving to the construction are the Rio 
Guayanilla and Rio Grande de Manati at Ciales projects pointed out for 
expedited attention last year, and still pending for investigations Rio 
Inabon/Ponce, Yauco and Aibonito, among others.
    Many of these projects are often reported as ``being in the 
Congressional queue'' but many in the local leadership do not quite 
understand what that means. They ask if that means that I have a say in 
their going forward, or if it means it comes up in the next budget.
    Question 4.a. How can we best communicate to local leaders the 
status of the projects in the so-called ``queue''?
    Answer. The Executive Branch does not have such a ``queue.'' The 
Budget includes which studies the Executive Branch proposes to fund 
each year based on a myriad of factors, including economic performance.

    Question 4.b. Would it be viable to have our office keep advised of 
what makes the ``queue'' and what moves in it?
    Answer. The Corps maintains lists of projects that are included in 
the Budget and/or receive funding through regular or supplemental 
appropriations at https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/
Budget/.

    Question 5. What can you advise us about the possibility or need 
for assumption of maintenance of harbors in Guayama, Yabucoa and 
Guayanilla in Southern Puerto Rico--harbors that were first built by 
private entities but that are now important and necessary for future 
economic activity? Would this require administrative or legislative 
action? If the latter, would you work with our office to help create 
the necessary measures?
    Answer. Maintenance of private harbors is typically a non-Federal 
responsibility. Assumption of maintenance of the harbors in Guayama, 
Yabucoa and Guayanilla in Southern Puerto Rico would require 
legislative action.

    Question 6. Section 1156 of WRDA of 1986, as amended by WRRDA of 
2014, provided a waiver of the local match for projects originally of 
$200,000 and then adjusted the limit to $430,000. Is it the Corps' 
estimation that this is still a reasonable waiver amount? Should this 
be made a continuous inflation adjustment?
    Answer. Section 135 of WRDA 2020 amended Section 1156 of WRDA 1986 
and directs the Secretary to adjust the dollar amount on an annual 
basis for inflation.

    Question 7. Of any other Puerto Rico Projects, what is the latest 
status of those that are already ongoing, or have been approved for 
start?
    Answer. The published plans for the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 
and the Disaster Response Assistance Act of 2019 included over $2.5 
billion of emergency supplemental funds to accomplish work in Puerto 
Rico for six large construction projects, two small construction 
projects, five studies, two Operation and Maintenance projects, and two 
projects that received Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE) 
funds. The Corps has obligated approximately $192 million of the funds 
provided.
    The Army Corps has completed the following work:
      Four flood and storm damage reduction studies: Rio 
Culebrinas, PR; Rio Grande de Manati, PR (Ciales); Rio Guayanilla, PR; 
and the San Juan Metro Area Coastal Storm Risk Management Study, PR;
      construction of two small streambank stabilization 
projects (Section 14 of the Continuing Authorities Program): Rio Grande 
de Loiza, PR and Salud Creek at San German, PR;
      operation and maintenance of two projects: Arecibo 
Harbor, PR and Mayaguez Harbor, PR; and
      repairs to one FCCE projects: Rio Puerto Nuevo, PR.

    Remaining work includes one flood and storm damage reduction 
study--Puerto Rico Coastal Storm Risk Management Study, PR, which is 
scheduled to complete in May 2024 and construction of six large flood 
and storm damage reduction projects:
      Rio de La Plata, PR
      Rio Grande de Arecibo, PR
      Rio Grande de Loiza, PR
      Rio Guanajibo at Mayaguez, PR
      Rio Nigua at Salinas, PR
      Rio Puerto Nuevo, PR

    The Corps has also recently completed work at another FCCE project: 
Rio Grande de Manati, PR.

    Question 8. In the case of those that are still pending approval, 
pending funding, pending New Start or ``in the queue'', could the Corps 
identify what needs to be done to facilitate, expedite or obtain the 
necessary approvals?
    Answer. Potential non-Federal sponsors are encouraged to work with 
local Corps District offices to discuss any water resources challenges 
with which the Corps might assist.

 Questions from Hon. Michael Guest to both Lieutenant General Scott A. 
Spellmon, Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers and Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army 
                for Civil Works, Department of the Army

    Question 1. Southwest Mississippi has continued to experience 
annual flooding that has left the batture lands in Jefferson, Adams, 
and Wilkinson Counties under water for a majority of the year. In 
conversations with the Vicksburg District of the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, I understand that much of this is caused by continued 
sediment rising in the channel along the Old River Control (ORC) 
Structure. Although there is a large bend in the river where the ORC is 
that may contribute to this sediment, there are also multiple sediment-
heavy waters, including the Homochitto River and Bayou Pierre, that 
empty into the river near this point. Previous projects, such as the 
Delta Headwaters Project, have been used to address sedimentation of 
the river in order to curtail flooding.
    Question 1.a. Has the Army Corps explored the possibility of 
expanding the Delta Headwaters Project to areas outside of the 
Mississippi Delta in order to prevent sedimentation of the river where 
continual flooding is occurring as a result of MR&T structures?
    Answer. No. While the cause of sedimentation in specific locations 
of the river is due to many variables, the Mississippi River Valley as 
a whole has seen increased flooding mostly due to unprecedented amount 
of rainfall in recent years.

    Question 2. The batture land of Mississippi has enjoyed centuries-
long prosperity in terms of agricultural productivity. However, that 
has reversed in the last decade, where fields have been unable to be 
planted, mature trees harvested, and petroleum extraction halted due to 
months of high water. The economic strain this has put on an already 
distressed population is troublesome. Citizens within the Morganza 
Spillway, which has rarely received the high water that Mississippi 
has, have USACE easements that pay them for use of their land for 
flooding purposes. However, citizens in Southwest Mississippi must 
instead incur losses from unplanted fields and rotted trees, which 
impacts counties' tax revenues.
    Question 2.a. What are some ways that the Army Corps of Engineers 
is looking to address this long-term annual flooding and the economic 
impact it is putting on Mississippians and the communities?
    Answer. In order to assess annual long-term flooding impacts, a 
comprehensive study of the Lower Mississippi River basin, from Cape 
Girardeau, Missouri, to the Gulf of Mexico has been funded and 
initiated.

    Question 2.b. Will you commit to working with me, my colleagues, 
and the Mississippi Delegation to try to find a long-term solution to 
annual flooding in the batture land of Mississippi?
    Answer. Yes.

 Questions from Hon. Garret Graves to both Lieutenant General Scott A. 
Spellmon, Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers and Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army 
                for Civil Works, Department of the Army

    Question 1. Congress funded a number of Louisiana projects in the 
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2020, including the Comite Diversion and West 
Shore Lake Pontchartrain:
    Question 1.a. What is the status of these efforts?
    Answer. Both Comite Diversion and West Shore Lake Pontchartrain are 
BBA-18 projects. The Comite Diversion Project consists of construction 
of a 12-mile canal in East Baton Rouge Parish to divert Comite River 
floodwaters to the Mississippi River. The project is being advanced in 
close partnership with the Louisiana Department of Transportation and 
Development (LaDOTD), with construction complete or ongoing on eight of 
the project's 16 construction contracts. As the non-Federal sponsor, 
LaDOTD is responsible for providing all Lands, Easements, Rights of 
way, Relocations, and Disposal sites (LERRDs), the delivery of which is 
a major focus of the project effort. It is anticipated that LaDOTD will 
provide all project LERRDs by the end of calendar year 2021, with the 
exception of the relocation of the Florida Gas Company pipeline 
(Channel Segment 3 construction contract). Delivery of LERRDs in this 
timeframe will allow USACE to award five of the eight remaining 
construction contracts by the end of calendar year 2021, and two more 
construction contracts in the first quarter of calendar year 2022 
(these seven contracts are scheduled to be completed by the end of 
calendar year 2022). The timeline for award and completion of the 
Channel Segment 3 construction contract is currently unknown as it is 
dependent on LaDOTD successfully negotiating the relocation of the 
Florida Gas pipeline.
    The West Shore Lake Pontchartrain Project includes construction of 
an 18-mile levee system spanning two parishes, and ring levees/non-
structural measures in a third parish. The project is being advanced in 
close partnership with the non-Federal sponsors, Coastal Protection and 
Restoration Authority and Pontchartrain Levee District, with seven of 
the project's 24 construction contracts either completed or ongoing. 
The non-Federal sponsors have acquired most of the real estate along 
the main project alignment and continue negotiations to acquire access 
along utility corridors. The remaining construction contract awards are 
scheduled for FY 2022. Planning is ongoing to address the required 
mitigation for unavoidable impacts to the human environment that will 
result from the construction of this project.

    Question 1.b. How is the Corps addressing any delays?
    Answer. With regards to the Comite Diversion Project, delays on 
this large infrastructure project have been reduced by breaking project 
reaches into additional segments where provision of LERRDs have been 
completed and awarding contracts for approximately half of the 
diversion footprint. The issue that could cause future delays is the 
relocation of the Florida Gas Company pipeline, which is the 
responsibility of the non-Federal sponsor (LaDOTD).
    With regards to the West Shore Lake Pontchartrain Project, the 
Corps continues to work with the non-Federal sponsors on real estate 
acquisition and mitigation to move the project forward.

    Question 1.c. What is the most recent update on milestone goals and 
completion for the projects?
    Answer. Comite Diversion: The six ongoing construction contracts 
are on schedule for completion by the end of calendar year 2022. 
Subject to LaDOTD granting full and clear authorization for entry, 
USACE is scheduled to award five of the remaining eight construction 
contracts by the end of calendar year 2021, and two more construction 
contracts in the first quarter of calendar year 2022 (these seven 
contracts are scheduled to be completed by the end of calendar year 
2022). The timeline for award and completion of the final contract 
(Channel Segment 3) is currently unknown as LaDOTD continues to 
negotiate the relocation of the Florida Gas pipeline.
    West Shore Lake Pontchartrain: The remaining 17 construction 
contracts are scheduled to be awarded by the end of FY2022, with 
project completion scheduled for December 2024.

    Question 2. What is the status of the WRDA 2020 authorized 
feasibility studies for the following projects:
    Question 2.a. Amite River, flood control;
    Answer. This study is being conducted using Bipartisan Budget Act 
of 2018 funding at full Federal expense and in close coordination with 
the state of Louisiana. Based on recent communication from the state, 
the Corps and the state are actively working on the next steps of the 
study.

    Question 2.b. Grand Isle, modification of project for erosion and 
hurricane protection;
    Answer. Section 204 of WRDA 2020 authorizes, subject to the 
availability of appropriations, the Secretary to provide assistance to 
a non-Federal interest developing a proposal for modification of the 
project for beach erosion and hurricane protection, Grand Isle, 
Louisiana, to include periodic beach nourishment, for consideration in 
the annual Section 7001 report. As of the date of this hearing, the 
Corps has not undertaken a study to evaluate options for such 
assistance.

    Question 2.c. Tangipahoa, flood risk management.
    Answer. As of the date of this hearing, the Corps has not 
undertaken this study.

    Question 3. The Morganza to the Gulf Project in Terrebonne and 
Lafourche Parishes in Louisiana has been, to date, entirely constructed 
with local funds, providing significant flood protection to the 
community which has already been tested by a number of weather events.
    In 2005, Hurricane Rita resulted in 11,000 flooded homes in 
Terrebonne Parish. However in 2019, a similar event, Hurricane Barry, 
resulted in only 11 flooded homes. This dramatic decrease is directly 
because of the quality of the infrastructure our local agencies have 
been able to implement on their own over the past 15 years.
    Louisiana's Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority recently 
sent a letter to your office requesting that Morganza be considered for 
inclusion in the 1043 pilot program.
    Question 3.a. Now that this project has received a new start for 
construction, is the Morganza project being considered for inclusion in 
the 1043 program?
    Answer. As of the date of this hearing, the State of Louisiana, 
Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority has not submitted a letter 
to USACE requesting that the Morganza to the Gulf Project be considered 
for inclusion in the Section 1043(b) pilot program.

    Question 3.b. The Corps is authorized to move forward with up to 20 
projects as part of the pilot program. What other projects are being 
considered for construction under Section 1043?
    Answer. Prior to the enactment of WRDA 2020, the USACE executed two 
PPAs for implementation of projects under Section 1043(b): McCook 
Reservoir, IL Flood Risk Management Project and Clear Creek, TX Floor 
Risk Management project. USACE has not received any formal requests to 
advance other specific projects at this time.

    Question 4. Section 351 of WRDA 2020 included a provision which 
provides for renegotiation of interest and prepayment without interest 
for the SELA, WBV, and LPV Projects. The provision also included 
additional crediting for work performed on the Louisiana Coastal Area. 
A letter was sent to both Mr. Pinkham and General Spellmon on this 
subject by the LA delegation earlier this month.
    Question 4.a. Where is the Corps on providing guidance on the 
payback provision of Section 351 of WRDA 2020?
    Answer. No implementation guidance is required to implement Section 
351 of WRDA 2020. As stated in my response letter to the Louisiana 
Congressional delegation, in accordance with Section 351, which amends 
Section 103(k) of WRDA 1986, if the State of Louisiana pays at least 
$200 million for the LPV, WBV, or SELA project on or before September 
30, 2021 and pays the remaining cash contribution under the deferred 
payment agreement for that project, respectively, by September 30, 
2023, the U.S. Army is required to accept those amounts as payment in 
full, without any interest required on the deferred cash contribution, 
for that project. The State of Louisiana made the necessary payments 
for the LPV and WBV Projects before September 30, 2021. No payment was 
made for the SELA Project prior to September 30, 2021.

    Question 4.b. Where is the Corps on providing guidance on the 
crediting provision?
    Answer. No guidance is required.

    Question 5. The Lower Mississippi Comprehensive Management Study 
(Section 213 of WRDA 20) seeks to gain a science-based understanding of 
today's river, and requires the Corps to make actionable 
recommendations to Congress including structural or operational 
modifications to existing water resources development projects, 
construction of new projects, and changes to operation and maintenance 
practices. This approach anticipates that the Corps will be empowered 
to utilize its multiple mission sets (i.e. hurricane and storm damage 
reduction, flood risk management, navigation, and ecosystem 
restoration) to dynamically manage its structures and assets for 
multiple mission benefits.
    Question 5.a. Where is the Corps in moving forward with this study?
    Answer. The implementation guidance for this study is posted at 
https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll5/
id/35898. Per that guidance, the study must be selected as a MR&T new 
start investigation and compete for funding in the MR&T account for 
study initiation. The project was selected as a new start in the FY2022 
Work Plan.

    Question 5.b. Has the Corps engaged the States along the river 
where the study is to be conducted?
    Answer. The Corps would engage with interested parties and 
stakeholders, as well as the states along the Lower Mississippi River, 
as part of this study.

    Question 5.c. Is the Corps contemplating the cost share structure 
for this study?
    Answer. The authorized cost-share for this study is 50% Federal and 
50% non-Federal.

    Question 5.d. How would a multi-state cost-share on the study work?
    Answer. The Corps would execute an agreement with multiple sponsors 
specifying that each sponsor is jointly and severally liable for the 
non-Federal obligations for the study.

    Question 5.e. Is the Corps concerned that a multi-state costs share 
detract from the exigency of efforts to improve conditions on the 
river?
    Answer. No. The Corps acknowledges the challenges in identifying 
non-Federal cost share partners and negotiating a cost share agreement 
with partners from up to seven states, but does not expect multi-state 
costs sharing will detract from the exigency of efforts to improve 
conditions.

    Question 6. The Corps previously indicated it was revising the E.R. 
405-1-12, Chapter 12 Real Estate Guidance, last modified in May of 
1998. In comments regarding the implementation of Section 125 of WRDA 
2020 on the BUDMAT program, multiple commenters noted that the Corps 
should reconsider its policy of mandating fee acquisition for ecosystem 
restoration projects, specifically including beneficial use projects.
    This mandating of fee / full ownership estates for ecosystem 
restoration has been a hindrance to projects in Louisiana, California 
(Sacramento River), and the Upper Mississippi River, including 
preventing non-federal sponsors from working with landowners in 
cooperative and potentially economically beneficial endeavors. The 
inflexible policy has nationwide negative impacts and delays efforts to 
restore rapidly deteriorating areas.
    Question 6.a. When is the Corps expecting to release the drafts of 
that guidance for vetting by the public, including non-federal 
sponsors?
    Answer. Section 125 (a) of WRDA 2020 implementation guidance is 
under review.

    Question 6.b. Has any effort been made to revise the Chapter 12 
Guidance to bring into conformity with Section 1115 of WRDA 2018 which 
mandates consideration of state laws and acquisitions procedures in 
developing estates for Corps projects?
    Answer. Section 1115 of WRDA 2018 says that state laws and 
acquisition procedures shall be considered ``to the extent that such 
procedures are generally consistent with the goals of a project or 
action.'' As part of our real estate acquisition process all applicable 
state laws are considered. My office issued updated guidance in April 
2019 in response to this legislation. The guidance established that 
Corps districts would obtain the minimum real estate interest needed to 
protect the federal investment. Fee simple, easements, etc. will be 
analyzed on a project-by-project basis by the Corps to determine the 
appropriate real estate interest required. The guidance notes that 
``[s]tate or local statutory restrictions on a non-Federal sponsor's 
capability alone will not be sufficient to justify deviation from the 
interests identified in paragraph 12-9 of ER 405-1-12.''

    Question 6.c. Is an effort being made to revise the procedure by 
which non-standard estates can be approved, including delegating such 
authority to the district commanders and real estate staff who best 
understand local conditions?
    Answer. This issue is being reviewed to determine if changes are 
warranted.

    Question 7. Section 125 of WRDA 2020--Beneficial Use of Dredged 
Material
    Question 7.a. What efforts is the Corps making to revise the 
federal standard to better consider the ecosystem restoration benefits 
of beneficial use of dredged material as part of the USACE analysis 
into whether the cost-benefits of beneficial use meets the federal 
standard least-cost alternative?
    Answer. WRDA 2020, Section 125 requires consideration of the Corps 
to include economic and environmental benefits when calculating the 
federal standard and requires more regular stakeholder engagement. My 
staff, in consultation with the Corps, is investigating the courses of 
action available regarding how the federal standard is calculated.

    Question 7.b. What specific efforts are being made to modify the 
federal standard to apply the directives under Section 125 to develop 
and apply methodologies that better evaluate, calculate and factor the 
ecosystem restoration benefits of beneficial use into the federal 
standard in determining the least cost alternative for dredge disposal?
    Answer. My staff, in consultation with the Corps, is investigating 
the courses of action available regarding how the federal standard is 
calculated.

    Question 7.c. How does the Corp intend to better develop mechanisms 
to calculate the tangible value in the intangible benefits of 
beneficial use project, including the ecosystem services and hurricane 
storm damage risk reduction and flood protection benefits provide by 
such projects?
    Answer. The Corps has established methodologies for evaluating 
flood and coastal storm damage and aquatic ecosystem restoration 
benefits.

    Question 8. Section 212--Report on Status of Restoration in the 
Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA)
    Question 8.a. What is the status of this report? It is due by the 
end of the year.
    Answer. No activities have occurred, nor have any reports or 
recommendations been made available to date.

    Questions from Hon. John Garamendi to Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army

    Question 1. Assistant Secretary Pinkham, does the Army Corps of 
Engineers now have a reasonably accurate National Levee Database of the 
levees and their condition?
    Answer. The majority of levees across the Nation have been located 
and identified, with some limited gaps in unmapped areas. The National 
Levee Database contains detailed information on 2,000 levees with ties 
to Corps authorities. It includes the condition of each levee and the 
risks to the levee system. Other levee information has been collected 
from various sources such as states and other federal agencies and has 
been included where applicable. The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA), the largest contributor of levee locations to the National 
Levee Database, added 5,000 levee locations that were captured through 
its production of flood hazard maps.

    Question 2. As the Corps continues to update the National Levee 
Database, do you have a refined estimate for what it would cost to do 
the necessary maintenance and repairs for every deficient levee in the 
United States? The most recent estimate I have indicates $80 billion in 
need, from the American Society of Civil Engineers.
    Answer. No. The Corps does not have an estimate of the cost to do 
the necessary maintenance and repairs for every deficient levee in the 
United States. In 2018, the Corps developed a cost estimate to address 
performance deficiencies that could lead to a levee breach (i.e. 
overtopping, seepage, slope stability, erosion, or malfunctioning 
closure) for 1,600 federally authorized and locally maintained levee 
systems. The cost estimate also included non-structural factors related 
to evacuation planning. The total cost estimate was developed by 
analyzing performance issues for portions of 350 federal levees ranging 
from very high to moderate risk and developing specific cost estimates. 
The resulting cost estimates were then extrapolated to the 1,600 levee 
systems for a total estimated cost of $21 billion. The cost estimates 
did not include routine maintenance. More information on the cost 
estimate published in 2018 can be found in the USACE Levee Portfolio 
Report 2018 at https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/
collection/p266001coll1/id/6922. The Corps intends to update this cost 
estimate with the best information, including any changed conditions or 
levee improvements that have been accomplished.

    Questions from Hon. Michelle Steel to Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army

    Question 1. Before being elected to Congress, I served on the 
Orange County Board of Supervisors. During my time on the Board, I 
worked with the LA Army Corps District to fund and complete the 
Surfside-Sunset & Newport Beach Replenishment Project on the Orange 
County coastline.
    This issue has a long history more than 60 years ago, the 
construction off the coast by the federal government narrowed our 
beaches, and in the time since, the coastline has eroded. Erosion is a 
major safety issue, not to mention it's hurting our wildlife and our 
Orange County ecosystem. The Army Corps started fixing this damage by 
adding sand back to our beaches, but they stopped funding the project 
in 2000.
    In 1962, the Department of the Army conducted a study and presented 
their finding to Congress on October 2nd. In that study, there was a 
proposed measures to ``mitigate adverse effects of previously 
constructed projects'' and ``its views concerning responsibility for 
such mitigating measures.'' House Document 602 acknowledged that the 
Federal government was responsible for the disruption to the naturally 
occurring replenishment process. On October 23rd, 1962, Congress 
accepted the findings from the study and passed Public Law 87-874 which 
approved and authorized the Orange County replenishment. The law also 
declares that there will be ``periodic beach nourishment with no time 
limit on Federal aid authorized.'' This project was last modified by 
Chief of Engineers on September 1963. The Army of Civil Works 
acknowledged that this ``project is a periodic continuing construction 
project.''
    Mr. Pinkham, you mentioned that ``this Budget relies on a 
foundation of strong relationships between the Corps and local 
communities, which allow us to work together to help develop, manage, 
restore, and protect the Nation's water resources.''
    Question 1.a. From 1962 through today, the tangible benefits of 
this project have exceeded the estimated annual cost. Why do you feel 
justified in not funding this authorized project that your own office 
acknowledged is a ``periodic continuing construction project''? What do 
I report back to my constituents and local governments who feel 
forgotten by the Federal government?
    Answer. The Army will continue to consider this project for funding 
along with other programs, projects and activities across the Nation 
that are competing for available Federal resources.

    Question 1.b. Every day this project goes unfinished, the taxpayers 
of Orange County are left on the hook to pay more and are living with a 
higher risk of a natural disaster. Congress passed a law declaring 
``periodic beach nourishment with no time limit on Federal aid 
authorized'' for this project. Why is your office no longer budgeting 
for future stages despite its recognition that this is an important 
ongoing concern?
    Answer. The Army will continue to consider this project for funding 
along with other projects, projects and activities across the Nation 
that are competing for available Federal resources.

    Question 1.c. Are you concerned with the heightened risk of safety 
issues including loss of life and cost to municipalities if these 
floods continue? The extreme hide tides are coming in, as we speak, 
local officials have worked on emergency procedures. When storms come 
in and businesses wash away, who will be held responsible?
    Answer. The Army Corps considers potential risk to public safety 
and storm damage impacts in it evaluation of projects for future 
funding.

Question from Hon. Michael Guest to Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting Assistant 
     Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army

    Question 1. The US Army Corps of Engineers' Engineer Research and 
Development Center provides crucial civil works research that impacts 
our nation's waterways and surface transportation systems. A robust and 
sustained U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works research, 
development, testing, and evaluation program could play a key role in 
addressing some of today's biggest civil works challenges and in laying 
the groundwork for future technologies critical for American 
competitiveness. President Biden has indicated a desire to reinvest in 
American science, and an investment in a robust and sustained U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers Civil Works R&D program would align with these 
goals. Consolidation of ongoing research efforts into a dedicated 
Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation account would increase 
transparency about these critical efforts and provide a strong 
foundation to meet future civil works needs.
    Question 1.a. Will you commit to working with the Administration 
and the Office of Management and Budget to stand up a dedicated 
Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation account within the next 
President's budget to work to address our country's civil works needs?
    Answer. I will continue to give full consideration to research and 
development needs.

Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, on behalf of Hon. Conor Lamb, 
    to Lieutenant General Scott A. Spellmon, Chief of Engineers and 
            Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

    Question 1. Lieutenant General Spellmon, on May 13, 2021, 
Congressman Lamb sent a letter to the Office of Management and Budget's 
Acting Director, as well as to you at the U.S. Army Corps (Corps) of 
Engineers outlining strong, bipartisan Congressional support for the 
Upper Ohio Navigation Project in Pennsylvania's 17th Congressional 
District. My understanding is that Rep. Lamb has mentioned this project 
to you before and he remains grateful for your previous visit to see 
the project firsthand.
    The Upper Ohio Navigation Project has received approximately $40 
million in funding to date. The Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Subcommittee included seven new starts for construction 
in the FY2021 appropriations bill, H.R. 133, including one for an 
inland waterways lock and dam modernization project. The Upper Ohio 
Navigation Project fortunately received this new start for construction 
in January 2021.
    However, Congressman Lamb was disappointed to see that the project 
was not included in the President's Budget Request. As you may recall, 
the three locks included in the Upper Ohio Navigation Project are the 
oldest of the entire Ohio River system--all more than 70 years old. The 
current condition of these locks, especially the Montgomery Lock, is a 
state of critical structural and operational degradation. They are 
increasingly at risk of structural or operational failure that could 
halt navigation for a year or longer. In addition to impacting 
commercial freight, pool loss from a failure would affect municipal and 
industrial water intakes, recreation, and wildlife habitats.
    It is Rep. Lamb's understanding that the Corps primarily uses 
transportation rate savings when computing benefits for navigation 
projects and does not consider water supply, recreation, or potential 
future private sector investments. He would argue these aspects should 
also factor into consideration.
    Question 1.a. The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2018 
(P.L. 115-270) directed the Corps to enter into an agreement with the 
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study the economic principles and 
analytical methodologies currently used by the Corps to formulate, 
evaluate, and budget for water resources development projects and 
report to Congress on the results of the study. Could you provide an 
update on the progress the Corps has made with respect to this 
Congressional directive?
    Answer. As of the date of this hearing, the Corps has not requested 
the National Academy of Sciences to undertake this study.

    Question 1.b. What is the Corps' plan to recapitalize the 
navigation facilities on the upper Ohio River with the knowledge that 
it may not be budgetable, based on the Office of Management and 
Budget's (OMB) budgeting processes, which I would argue fail to 
consider the full costs and benefits associated with the Upper Ohio 
Navigation Project outlined above?
    Answer. The Army will consider this project for Construction 
funding, along with other programs, projects and activities across the 
Nation that are competing for the available Federal resources.

    Question 1.c. As you put together the FY2022 Corps Work Plan, can 
you commit to giving the Upper Ohio Navigation Project, full and fair 
consideration given the urgent state of the project and its significant 
benefits for my region and our country?
    Answer. Yes.

   Question from Hon. John Garamendi to Lieutenant General Scott A. 
Spellmon, Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of 
                               Engineers

    Question 1. Lieutenant General Spellmon, do you agree that capping 
the post-construction costs--Operations, Maintenance, Repair, 
Replacement, and Rehabilitation (OMRRR)--for aquatic ecosystem 
restoration projects with no physical infrastructure might increase 
willingness for local agencies to partner with the Army Corps on these 
projects?
    Answer. I cannot speculate on a non-Federal sponsor's decision to 
partner on a project.

   Questions from Hon. Michael Guest to Lieutenant General Scott A. 
Spellmon, Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of 
                               Engineers

    Question 1. The US Army Corps of Engineer's Continuing Authorities 
Program (CAP) 205 Flood Damage Reduction fills a critical need 
nationally, supporting projects that are too large for sponsors or 
cannot be funded through emergency funding but are crucial for safety 
and need to be completed in a timely manner. Many of these communities 
and project areas are left to push local divisions to try to prioritize 
their projects, creating a growing backlog.
    Question 1.a. How many pending CAP 205 applications were there 5 
years ago; how many pending applications today?
    Answer. In 2016, there were 110 pending requests and in 2020 there 
were 120 pending requests.

    Question 1.b. How many CAP 205 projects have been completed 
annually over the last 5 years by division and district?
    Answer. There were 23 identified CAP 205 construction completions 
over the last 5 years.
      FY 2016--Six projects: Great Lakes and Ohio River 
Division--Louisville District; Mississippi Valley Division--St. Louis 
and St. Paul Districts; North Atlantic Division--three in New York 
District.
      FY 2017--Three projects: North Atlantic Division--New 
York District; South Atlantic Division--Jacksonville and Charleston 
Districts.
      FY 2018--Three projects: North Atlantic Division--New 
England and Philadelphia Districts; Great Lakes and Ohio River 
Division--Buffalo District.
      FY 2019--Four projects: North Atlantic Division--
Philadelphia District; Northwestern Division--Omaha District; 
Southwestern Division--two in Fort Worth District.
      FY 2020--Seven projects: Great Lakes and Ohio River 
Division--Louisville District; Mississippi Valley Division--Memphis and 
St. Paul Districts; North Atlantic Division--New England District; 
Pacific Ocean Division--Alaska District; South Atlantic Division--
Memphis District; South Pacific Division--Albuquerque District.

    Question 1.c. How many new start CAP 205 projects have been awarded 
for each of the last 5 years, nationally, by division, by district?
    Answer. There were 39 new CAP 205 projects initiated over the last 
five fiscal years using regular appropriations (summarized below). Two 
additional CAP 205 projects were started in North Atlantic Division 
using Hurricane Sandy supplemental funds. There were also 10 projects 
that were small enough to be converted from authorized studies into the 
CAP program (Two projects each district--Philadelphia, Omaha, Seattle, 
Chicago and Honolulu).
      FY 2016--14 projects: Mississippi Valley Division--St. 
Louis, Rock Island and St. Paul Districts; North Atlantic Division--
Baltimore and New England Districts; Great Lakes and Ohio River 
Division--Huntington, Louisville and Chicago Districts; South Atlantic 
Division--Two in Jacksonville District; South Pacific Division--Two in 
Los Angeles District; Southwestern Division--Two in Fort Worth 
District.
      FY 2017--Nine projects: Mississippi Valley Division--Two 
in Rock Island District; North Atlantic Division--Baltimore and 
Philadelphia Districts; Northwestern Division--Walla Walla District; 
Great Lakes and Ohio River Division--Nashville and Chicago Districts; 
Southwestern Division--Two in Fort Worth District.
      FY 2018--No projects.
      FY 2019--Eight projects: Mississippi Valley Division--St. 
Louis District; North Atlantic Division--New England District; 
Northwestern Division--Omaha District; Great Lakes and Ohio River 
Division--Chicago District; Pacific Ocean Division--Alaska District; 
South Atlantic Division--Jacksonville District; South Pacific 
Division--San Francisco District; Southwestern Division--Little Rock 
District.
      FY 2020--Eight projects: Mississippi Valley Division--
Vicksburg District; North Atlantic Division--New England District; 
Northwestern Division--Omaha District; Great Lakes and Ohio River 
Division--Chicago District; Pacific Ocean Division--Honolulu District; 
South Atlantic Division--Wilmington District; South Pacific Division--
Albuquerque District; Southwestern Division--Little Rock District.

    Question 1.d. What criteria does headquarters, and the divisions 
use to prioritize and allocate new start CAP 205 projects annually?
    Answer. Based on direction in the statement of managers for CAP 
included in the annual Appropriations Act, new projects can be 
initiated after all eligible work for on-going projects have been 
allocated funding and an affordability analysis is prepared to evaluate 
the affordability of new projects over the upcoming two years. Once the 
addition of new start projects is affirmed based on the affordability 
analysis, a list of CAP 205 projects with an updated Letter of Intent 
and funding need expressed in the current fiscal year will be ranked 
based on prioritization within a region, timeframe since original 
sponsor request, and external stakeholder interest.

  Question from Hon. David Rouzer to Jeffrey J. Lyash, President and 
          Chief Executive Officer, Tennessee Valley Authority

    Question 1. If the Biden Administration wants to decrease the 
carbon footprint of federal facilities such as the numerous Department 
of Defense (DOD) and Department of Energy (DOE) facilities that TVA 
serves, how important is it to our national security that the 
government support power generation that is reliable and resilient, 
such as small modular reactors (SMRs), which I know you are exploring 
at your Clinch River Site?
    Answer. Reliable, resilient, affordable and clean energy is 
critical to the daily lives and national security of the people of the 
Tennessee Valley and the nation. As TVA and others set goals for 
delivering increasingly cleaner energy, the federal government's 
support for the development and deployment of new technologies is 
essential.
    TVA supplies highly reliable, low-cost energy for a seven-state 
region through one of the nation's most diverse generation portfolios. 
About 60% of our energy supply today comes from carbon-free sources. We 
have reduced our carbon emissions by 63% since benchmark levels in 
2005; we are working to achieve a reduction of 70% by 2030 and have a 
path to achieve about 80% by 2035.
    Nuclear power is TVA's single largest source of carbon-free energy, 
providing more than 40% of all the energy we supply for the 10 million 
people we serve. Nuclear power is the most reliable and least expensive 
form of baseload power generation--energy that is available in large 
quantities to fuel homes, businesses and industries around the clock.
    TVA's aspirational goal is to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 
2050. We recognize that closing the last 20% gap in carbon emissions 
depends on the development of emerging technologies at a commercial 
scale and at a cost that will enable their deployment. These 
technologies include carbon capture and sequestration, long-duration 
energy storage, alternative fuels such as hydrogen, and, importantly, 
advanced nuclear technology.
    TVA's mission of service includes national defense. TVA has proudly 
supported the unique energy needs of the Oak Ridge, Tennessee, national 
defense and research complex since its inception during the early days 
of the Manhattan Project. We currently provide approximately 290 
megawatts of electric power to Department of Energy and Department of 
Defense installations throughout our service region. TVA and the Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) partner in a number of initiatives, 
and we have opportunities to work together to reduce carbon emissions 
through advanced technologies that include small modular reactors 
(SMRs).
    In December 2019, TVA received the nation's first Early Site Permit 
from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a small modular reactor at 
our Clinch River Site in Oak Ridge. An SMR demonstrated at scale at the 
Clinch River site could supply enough carbon-free energy to offset 
emissions from not only ORNL's energy supply--currently approximately 
31% of DOE's total carbon footprint--but also from the energy TVA 
supplies to almost all of the federal government's other facilities 
across our 80,000-square-mile service area.
    Further deployment of SMRs could enhance national security by 
positioning the SMRs with a micro-grid power network that could be 
isolated from the region's main power transmission system in times of 
natural or national emergency. This approach would provide a resilient 
and reliable energy supply dedicated to meeting the energy needs of 
critical federal facilities, such as Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
    As a recognized leader in nuclear technology and as a part of the 
federal government, TVA has the expertise and regulatory approval to 
expand development of advanced nuclear technology to help support our 
nation's energy and security needs.
    However, the costs and risks associated with first-of-a-kind 
demonstration technologies--specifically SMRs--are significant. The 
federal government can play a vital role in supporting technological 
developments that would help ensure a resilient, reliable and cleaner 
energy supply for DOE and DOD facilities in the Tennessee Valley and 
across the country.
    We look forward to future opportunities to work in partnership with 
ORNL, the Department of Energy and other agencies as we strive to help 
develop energy technologies on behalf of the nation.

  Question from Hon. Michael Guest to Jeffrey J. Lyash, President and 
          Chief Executive Officer, Tennessee Valley Authority

    Question 1. The Tennessee Valley Authority provides crucial 
resources to families and businesses across the Tennessee Valley, 
including access to economic development project funding and needed, 
affordable electric resources. Mississippi has the second-largest TVA 
coverage area among all states in the TVA, yet currently holds no 
positions on the TVA board. The absence of representation on the board 
leaves out a huge population of Mississippi stakeholders who use TVA 
resources every day. Additionally, new structure under the TVA groups 
my state into a region with much of Eastern Tennessee, a region with 
different issues and concerns than Mississippi. I am disappointed in 
the President's decision not to fill a board member position from the 
State of Mississippi, as well as the TVA's decision to group the state 
under the new West Region.
    Question 1.a. Does TVA currently have a plan on how to better 
represent the second largest stake-holding state within the Authority's 
board structure?
    Answer. We appreciate your interest in the TVA Board. In compliance 
with the TVA Act, and as a federal agency, TVA does not directly or 
indirectly influence the Executive Branch's choice of nominees or 
influence the confirmation process. The Act also covers eligibility 
qualifications of Board members and outlines the confirmation process 
for nominees, which are to be appointed by the President by and with 
the advice and consent of the Senate.
    Regardless of state representation on TVA's board, our mission of 
service and new organizational structure in the regional model ensure 
that the local needs and interests of the communities TVA serves are 
equitably understood and represented.
    TVA's service area in Mississippi is a vital and valued part of our 
integrated public power model, and we are honored to serve the people 
and communities of the state. TVA provides reliable, affordable 
electricity generation and transmission service to 28 local power 
companies in Mississippi and employs a team of approximately 250 
Mississippi-based professionals (FY20) to help ensure we are meeting 
the needs of local power companies and their residential and business 
customers.
    Of the 28 local power companies, 27 have elected to become long-
term partners with TVA, reflecting their high degree of engagement and 
partnership with TVA on our activities and long-term planning. Local 
power companies within your district, including Starkville Utilities, 
play significant roles in thought leadership and innovative project 
implementation with TVA.
    TVA is also moving to a regional model to provide more value and 
increase our knowledge and responsiveness to the needs of our local 
communities. By increasing TVA's presence locally, we aim to build 
trust with your constituents and deliver solutions for each community's 
unique strengths and challenges.
    Mississippi and western Tennessee comprise TVA's West Region due to 
the service territories of our local power companies, and due to 
similarities in local geography, demographics, and economic 
dependencies.
    Additionally, as we fully develop our regional operating model, we 
intend to create regional community panels of local business, civic, 
and philanthropic leaders to provide local counsel on the best use of 
TVA's resources in their area to maximize impact. We look forward to 
engaging panel members from Mississippi in the near future through this 
new working body, and we are committed to continuing to carrying out 
TVA's mission of service.

    Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano to Daniel Avila, Acting 
   Commissioner, U.S. Sector of the International Boundary and Water 
                               Commission

    Question 1. With respect to the Nogales wastewater treatment plant 
(WTP), your testimony states that effluent exceedances are often noted 
and that at the Nogales WTP, detection of heavy metals sometimes occur. 
Improving the pipeline integrity is necessary but you do not address 
what can be done to treat the heavy metals in the flow that do arrive 
at the WTP from international sources. The heavy metals in the flows 
coming into the United States will not be reduced with improved 
pipelines.
    Can you provide us with your plan on addressing the heavy metal 
flows into the United States?
    Answer. The United States has spent considerable time and money to 
improve the wastewater treatment capacity and pretreatment programs in 
Nogales, Sonora. Under a North American Development Bank/EPA grant, the 
city of Nogales, Sonora was able to construct a wastewater treatment 
plant that reduced wastewater flows to the United States. With funds 
from multiple U.S. entities, a wastewater systems study was conducted 
and determined that three industrial parks in the city of Nogales, 
Sonora are discharging the heavy metals of concern. Due to a lack of 
further funding, it has not been possible to conduct more intensive 
surveys to identify the exact industrial sources of the metals and any 
legal recourse. U.S. officials wrote to U.S. companies located in 
Mexico, asking them to address the discharges.
    Further, the USIBWC holds quarterly meetings with agencies from 
both countries to raise the concern about the metals to regulatory 
bodies and the regulated communities in Nogales. The USIBWC monitors 
the wastewater flow from Mexico and notes any metals levels of concern 
to the Mexican Section of the IBWC and submits formal requests for 
Mexican agencies to address the issue. Heavy metals will likely remain 
a challenge in the medium- to long-term, in light of Mexico's heavy 
industrial presence along the U.S. border. USIBWC will work with the 
U.S. Department of State to press the Mexican government to fund 
regulatory agencies to the levels needed to find, sanction, and/or 
close the discharges.

    Question 2. Your testimony states that 5 of the 6 dams that the 
IBWC and Mexico manage on the Rio Grande are either ``urgent, 
potentially unsafe'' or ``high priority, conditionally unsafe''. Your 
testimony further delineated the efforts you are taking to improve 
flood control levees along the Rio Grande, yet you are not seeking 
funds for the Safety of Dams Program.
    How do you intend to address dam safety at the five dams identified 
as problematic?
    Answer. USIBWC will use $20 million in unobligated carryover funds 
from previous fiscal years to develop and implement risk mitigation 
plans for the dams jointly operated by the U.S. and Mexican Sections. 
The dam of greatest concern--Amistad--has received a Dam Safety Action 
Classification (DSAC) of ``Urgent, Potentially Unsafe.'' The Principal 
Engineers of the U.S. and Mexican Sections have agreed on a risk 
mitigation project for Amistad and the Sections seek to complete the 
necessary IBWC Minute, with a binding binational cost share, in the 
coming months.
    The U.S. Section has received the appropriations needed to fund its 
share of the project and the Mexican Section is obtaining its share. 
Inspections of the other dams--Falcon, Anzaldua's, American, and 
Retamal Dams will continue on schedule (every 5 years) and monitoring/
seepage systems will be evaluated for necessary repairs and upgrades.

    Question 3. In October of 2020, two days before Mexico would be in 
violation of the 1944 Treaty for delivery of water to the United 
States, Minute 325 was signed which allocated 105,000 acre-feet of 
water from Amistad and Falcon International reservoirs from Mexican 
ownership to U.S. ownership. Mexico's delivery of water to the U.S. 
occurs on 5-year cycles and has been problematic.
    Can you please identify if the U.S. and Mexican Sections of the 
IBWC have formulated a plan to move forward to ensure future on-time 
deliveries of water to avoid future water challenges on both the 
Mexican and U.S. sides of the border?
    Answer. The two Sections of the Commission are working in 
partnership with the State of Texas and Mexico's National Water 
Commission to address water challenges on both the Mexican and U.S. 
sides of the border. The Commission's 2020 agreement, Minute No. 325, 
``Measures to End the Current Rio Grande Water Delivery Cycle without a 
Shortfall, to Provide Humanitarian Support for the Municipal Water 
Supply for Mexican Communities, and to Establish Mechanisms for Future 
Cooperation to Improve the Predictability and Reliability of Rio Grande 
Water Deliveries to Users in the United States and Mexico,'' provides 
tools to address these challenges.
    Minute No. 325 formally establishes a binational Rio Grande 
Hydrology Work Group and a binational Rio Grande Policy Work Group. The 
Hydrology Work Group, comprised of technical experts from both 
countries, is developing a binational Rio Grande model that will be 
used as a tool to analyze potential future water management scenarios. 
The Policy Work Group provides policy guidance to the Hydrology Work 
Group and will address legal and policy issues associated with any 
potential future water management scenarios. Minute No. 325 states the 
goal for these work groups is to develop a Minute prior to December 
2023 that would provide increased reliability and predictability in Rio 
Grande water deliveries to users in the United States and Mexico. Both 
of these groups have been meeting regularly this year.

Questions from Hon. David Rouzer to Daniel Avila, Acting Commissioner, 
     U.S. Sector of the International Boundary and Water Commission

    Question 1. It appears that the IBWC has responsibility for a lot 
of severely deteriorated infrastructure, including levees, dams, 
canals, outfall interceptors, and wastewater treatment plants.
    Question 1.a. What are the primary reasons for this infrastructure 
having become so deteriorated?
    Answer. IBWC infrastructure is used heavily, under conditions that 
cause rapid deterioration. The wastewater treatment plants, and outfall 
interceptors receive influent that contains stormwater, sand and debris 
that causes erosion and deterioration at a much faster rate than that 
experienced by a plant that only receives wastewater influent. In 
addition to the official use of USIBWC levees by Customs and Border 
Protection, there is illegal use by off-road vehicles. Both legal and 
illegal use cause wear and tear at a much faster rate than the typical 
levees that are closed off to use by others. Although the canals have 
been maintained, they have reached the end of their lifespan and are 
being rehabilitated as required. The dams are regularly inspected and 
maintained as required.
    USIBWC has performed maintenance on its infrastructure as funding 
becomes available through the budget process. USIBWC focuses on 
mitigating high-risk items to ensure we can continue to complete our 
mission. Low-risk items are deferred, since resources do not allow for 
the performance of all maintenance requirements in the short term.

    Question 1.b. What has the IBWC been doing to maintain its 
infrastructure, so it does not become so deteriorated?
    Answer. USIBWC has taken steps to maintain infrastructure and 
reduce further deterioration by requesting a new appropriation 
specifically for deferred maintenance. USIBWC received a $7 million 
appropriation for deferred maintenance in fiscal year 2019. The agency 
has identified deferred maintenance projects and developed a plan with 
cost estimates and a schedule in order to request future appropriations 
under the Deferred Maintenance Program.
    USIBWC also currently receives between $47 and $49 million in 
appropriations for construction to rehabilitate levees and other 
related infrastructure to improve flood control and water conveyance, 
renovate facilities, provide security to critical infrastructure, 
ensure dam safety and improve wastewater treatment. The agency 
recognized the need for action by increasing our appropriation request 
by $20 million from $29 million a few years ago. In USIBWC's Strategic 
Plan, we formulated an action plan that prioritizes new construction 
within our resource constraints, as well as deferred maintenance to 
address our border infrastructure and wastewater concerns.

    Question 1.c. Please describe the IBWC's asset management program 
for maintaining and improving its infrastructure.
    Answer. The USIBWC asset management program is centered on mission 
fulfillment and risk mitigation. Each field office performs annual risk 
assessments and identifies deficiencies. Annual work plans are created 
to address immediately the highest-risk deficiencies, while projects to 
address low-risk deficiencies are planned for the out-years. 
Opportunities for improving or upgrading our infrastructure are also 
identified annually and captured in the annual updates to our 10-year 
Capital Plans.
    These plans are tied to our agency-wide Strategic Plan to ensure we 
are completing actions identified by the agency as priorities and 
assessing progress through performance metrics.

    Question 2. How much money has the United States spent directly on 
Mexican wastewater infrastructure to combat problems and deterioration?
    Answer. Although the United States Section of the IBWC executes 
critical coordinating and advisory functions with Mexican counterparts 
to improve sewage treatment and address transboundary flows, the USIBWC 
does not spend appropriated federal funds on wastewater infrastructure 
located in Mexico except when specifically authorized. However, the 
U.S. has contributed to several binational wastewater projects that are 
located in the United States and that treat Mexican wastewater at the 
South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Nogales 
International Wastewater Treatment Plant, and the Nuevo Laredo 
International Wastewater Treatment Plant and collection system. These 
IBWC binational projects have served to treat Mexican wastewater and 
prevent the entry of that wastewater into the United States without 
treatment. With continued partnership and authority IBWC will continue 
to address the issue of aging infrastructure and expanding treatment 
capacity to serve the growing population.
    The EPA has the authority to co-fund projects that are located in 
Mexico to improve the wastewater collection and treatment systems in 
that country through the Border Water Infrastructure Program and that 
the EPA and entities like NADBANK and BECC have invested substantially 
in Mexican-side infrastructure. We refer you to EPA for the most up-to-
date figures regarding expenditures on Mexican wastewater 
infrastructure.


PRESIDENT BIDEN'S FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET REQUEST: AGENCY POLICIES AND 
                         PERSPECTIVES (PART 2)

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
   Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:01 a.m., in 
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon. 
Grace F. Napolitano (Chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present in person: Mr. Rouzer.
    Members present remotely: Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Johnson of 
Texas, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. Malinowski, Mr. 
Delgado, Mr. Pappas, Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Stanton, Mr. Webster, 
Dr. Babin, Mr. Bost, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Mast, Miss Gonzalez-
Colon, and Ms. Mace.


         [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                             July 12, 2021
    SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

    TO:       Members, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
    FROM:   Staff, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
    RE:       Subcommittee Hearing on ``President Biden's Fiscal Year 
2022 Budget Request: Agency Policies and Perspectives (Parts I and 
II)''
_______________________________________________________________________

                                PURPOSE
    On Wednesday, July 14, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. EDT, the Subcommittee on 
Water Resources and Environment will hold a hearing in the Rayburn 
House Office Building, Room 2167, and via Zoom, to receive testimony 
related to ``President Biden's Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Request: Agency 
Policies and Perspectives (Part II)''. The subcommittee received 
testimony from the remaining federal agencies under the jurisdiction of 
the subcommittee on Thursday, June 24, 2021.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Accessible at https://transportation.house.gov/committee-
activity/hearings/president-bidens-fiscal-year-2022-budget-request-
agency-policies-and-perspectives-part-i.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The purpose of these hearings is to provide members with an 
opportunity to review the FY 2022 budget request and the 
administration's program priorities for the authorities under the 
jurisdiction of the subcommittee.
    At the July 14th hearing, the subcommittee will hear testimony from 
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Great Lakes St. Lawrence 
Seaway Development Corporation (GLS), the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the 
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) at the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    At its June 24th hearing, the subcommittee received testimony from 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Tennessee Valley 
Authority (TVA), and the U.S. Sector of the International Boundary and 
Water Commission (IBWC) within the Department of State.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

    The administration's FY 2022 budget request for the EPA 
totals $11.241 billion, including $5.130 billion for State and 
Tribal Assistance Grants, $3.427 billion for Environmental 
Programs and Management, and $1.533 billion for the Hazardous 
Substance Superfund program. The FY 2022 budget request is 
$1.968 billion more than the FY 2021 enacted budget for the 
EPA.

                                      Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \2\
                                                  (in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Diff. of FY 2022
                                                                                  FY 2022    Pres. Budget and FY
                Program                    FY 2021       FY 2022 Authorized     President's      2021 Enacted
                                           Enacted                                 Budget   --------------------
                                                                                                 $          %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science and Technology.................      $729.3  No Authorization.........       $830.0     $100.6     13.8%
Environmental Programs and Management..     2,761.6  No Authorization.........      3,427.5      665.9     24.1%
State and Tribal Assistance Grants.....     4,313.9  No Authorization.........      5,130.0      816.1  18.9%631
                                                                                                               2
  Clean Water SRF \1\..................     1,638.8  No Authorization.........      1,870.7      231.9     14.1%
  Drinking Water SRF \1\...............     1,126.1  No Authorization.........      1,357.9      231.8  20.6%660
                                                                                                               4
Water Infrastructure Finance and               65.0  No Authorization.........         80.1       15.1     23.3%
 Innovation Program (WIFIA) Account.
Hazardous Substance Superfund..........     1,205.8  No Authorization.........      1,533.8      328.0     27.2%
EPA Office of Inspector General........        43.5  No Authorization.........         54.3       10.8     24.9%
Other \2\..............................       154.1  No Authorization.........        185.5       31.5     20.4%
                                        ------------                           ---------------------------------
  Total................................    $9,273.1                               $11,241.3   $1,968.2     21.2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) program includes several grant programs other than the SRFs.
\2\ This number is the sum of the following EPA line items:
   Building and Facilities (B&F)--$33.8 million (FY21 enacted) to $62.8 million (FY22 request);
   Inland Oil Spill Program--$20.1 million (FY21 enacted) to $22.4 million (FY22 request);
   Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST)--$92.2 million (FY21 enacted) to $92.4 million (FY22
  request); and
   E-Manifest--$8.0 million (FY21 enacted) & (FY22 request).

CLEAN\\ WATER
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-05/
documents/fy-2022-epa-bib.pdf; see also https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2021-05/documents/fy-2022-congressional-justification-
all-tabs.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has 
jurisdiction over programs aimed at protecting the nation's 
water quality. The EPA, through its own programs and in 
partnership with states and tribes, seeks to improve water 
quality in rivers, lakes, and coastal waters through investment 
in wastewater infrastructure, water quality standards, 
permitting programs, water quality monitoring, wetlands 
protection, and research, among other activities. The EPA's 
Office of Water operates the EPA's water quality protection 
programs.
    Clean Water State Revolving Fund: The FY 2022 budget 
request proposes $1.870 billion in federal capitalization 
grants for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Clean Water 
SRF), which is $231.9 million more than the FY 2021 enacted 
level. The Clean Water SRF is the primary federal program for 
funding wastewater infrastructure projects and activities 
throughout the nation. Clean Water SRF funds are used for 
capitalization grants for state clean water infrastructure 
programs, which, in turn, fund locally developed wastewater 
infrastructure projects and activities.
    In previous Congresses and the current Congress, the 
subcommittee held numerous hearings on financing water 
infrastructure projects. These hearings examined the growing 
funding gap that now exists between wastewater infrastructure 
needs and current levels of spending, the challenges facing 
low-income and rural communities in affording wastewater 
infrastructure investment, and the resiliency needs of our 
nation's water infrastructure. In June 2021, the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure ordered H.R. 1915, the 
bipartisan Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 
2021, as amended, favorably reported to the House of 
Representatives by a vote of 42-25, and this legislation was 
incorporated as Division H of H.R. 3684, the INVEST in America 
Act and approved by the House on July 1, 2021 by a vote of 221-
201. This legislation would reauthorize the Clean Water SRF and 
other wastewater infrastructure grant programs for an 
additional five years.
    Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program 
(WIFIA): Authorized by the Water Resources Reform and 
Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA, P.L. 113-121), the WIFIA 
program provides low-interest federal loans or loan guarantees 
to eligible entities for a wide range of nationally and 
regionally significant water and wastewater projects. The most 
recent authorization level (FY 2021) for the WIFIA program was 
$50 million; however, the WIFIA program is not authorized for 
FY 2022. The President's budget request for FY 2022 is $80.1 
million for the WIFIA program, while the FY 2021 appropriated 
level was $65 million.
    Environmental Programs and Management: (EPM): This account 
provides funds for internal programmatic activities. The 
President's budget request would increase funding for the EPM 
account by $665.9 million (24.1 percent) from the FY 2021 
appropriated level of $2.761 billion to $3.4 billion.
    Geographic (Regional) Programs: The EPA's regional programs 
provide an opportunity to target regionally specific 
environmental problems and to work closely with state and local 
partners. The FY 2022 budget request increases funding for the 
EPA's Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) to $340 million 
(+$10 million), the Chesapeake Bay Program to $90.5 million 
(+$3 million), Gulf of Mexico to $22.4 million (+$2.4 million), 
Lake Champlain to $20 million ($+5 million), San Francisco Bay 
to $12 million (+$3 million), Long Island Sound to $40 million 
($9.6 million), Puget Sound to $35 million (+$1.25 million), 
and Lake Pontchartrain programs to $1.73 million (+$295,000).
    Additionally, the administration proposes a $141,000 
funding increase for the National Estuaries Program from the FY 
2021 enacted level of $31.82 million (section 320 of the Clean 
Water Act) to $31.9 million.
    [NOTE: On June 15, 2021, the House of Representatives 
passed under suspension three Clean Water regional program 
bills from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
including legislation to authorize federal appropriations for 
the Puget Sound (H.R. 1144), the San Francisco Bay (H.R. 610), 
and the Lake Pontchartrain Basin (H.R. 1921) programs. The EPA 
regional programs are funded from the EPA's EPM account.]
    State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG): This account 
provides categorical grants to states and tribes as part of the 
cooperative partnership between federal government, states, and 
tribes. The President's budget request would increase funding 
for the State and Tribal Assistance Grants account from the FY 
2021 appropriated level of $4.313 billion by $816.1 million 
(18.9 percent) to $5.1 billion. [NOTE: On June 15, 2021, the 
House of Representatives passed under suspension H.R. 2008 to 
reauthorize federal appropriations for EPA's non-point source 
pollution grant program (section 319), which is funded from the 
STAG account.]
    The President's FY 2022 budget request would provide $234.6 
million in grants to states to establish and maintain state 
water pollution control programs under section 106 of the Clean 
Water Act. This is a $4.6 million increase from the FY 2021 
appropriated level of $230 million. Section 106 funding is used 
by individual states to carry out state clean water programs, 
including Clean Water Act permitting, monitoring, and 
enforcement.

SUPERFUND AND BROWNFIELDS

    Superfund Program: The Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, P.L. 96-510) 
established the Superfund program in 1980. The EPA's Office of 
Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) runs the Superfund 
program. Superfund is the federal program established to clean 
up the nation's uncontrolled and/or abandoned hazardous waste 
sites. The law makes designated responsible parties pay for the 
hazardous waste cleanups wherever possible and provides for a 
hazardous substances trust fund, commonly referred to as the 
Superfund, to pay for remedial cleanups in cases where 
responsible parties cannot be found or otherwise be held 
accountable. Superfund is also available for responding to 
emergency situations involving the release of hazardous 
substances. The EPA addresses the highest priority sites by 
listing them on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). 
The administration's FY 2022 budget request provides $1,533.8 
billion for the Superfund program, a $328 million increase from 
the FY 2021 appropriated level of $1.205 billion.
    Brownfields: Brownfields consist of properties for which 
the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be complicated by 
the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, 
pollutant, or contaminant. These sites can consist, for 
example, of former industrial properties, gas stations, or dry 
cleaners. The EPA established the Brownfields Initiative in 
1995 to better enable the federal government, states, and 
communities to work together to address, cleanup, and reuse 
brownfields sites. The Small Business Liability Relief and 
Brownfields Revitalization Act (P. L. 107-118) authorized 
funding for the EPA to award brownfields assessment, cleanup, 
and revolving loan fund grants, as well as provided limited 
Superfund liability protections for certain innocent landowners 
and bona fide prospective purchasers. The EPA's OLEM manages 
the Brownfields program.
    The President's FY 2022 budget request would provide 
$201.374 million for the EPA's brownfields program, including 
$130.982 million in site assessment and cleanup grants (STAG 
account); $46.195 million for authorized state brownfields 
programs (STAG account); and $24.197 million for the EPA's 
management of the Brownfields program (EPM account). Of all the 
brownfields-related activity included in the President's 
budget, the account that funds actual, on-the-ground, 
brownfields site assessment and remediation activities proposes 
funding at $130.9 million, which would be a $40.0 million 
increase from the FY 2021 level. In the 115th Congress, the 
Brownfields Utilization, Investment, and Local Development Act 
(P. L. 115-141) included an authorization of $200 million for 
FY 2022 for this specific purpose.

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (CORPS)

    The Corps studies, constructs, operates, and maintains 
water resources development projects for the nation, usually 
through cost-shared partnerships with non-federal sponsors. 
Authorized mission activities include navigation, flood 
control, shoreline protection, hydropower, dam safety, water 
supply, recreation, environmental restoration and protection, 
and disaster response and recovery.

                                      Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \3\
                                                  (in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Diff. of FY 2022
                                                                                  FY 2022    Pres. Budget and FY
                Program                    FY 2021       FY 2022 Authorized     President's      2021 Enacted
                                           Enacted                                 Budget   --------------------
                                                                                                 $          %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigations.........................      $153.0  No Authorization.........       $105.8     -$47.2    -30.8%
Construction...........................     2,692.6  No Authorization.........      1,792.4     -900.3    -33.4%
Operation and Maintenance..............     3,849.7  No Authorization.........      2,502.9   -1,346.8    -35.0%
[Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund] \1\....         n/a  No Authorization.........     $1,625.9          -         -
Regulatory.............................       210.0  No Authorization.........        204.4       -5.6     -2.6%
Expenses...............................       206.0  No Authorization.........        199.3       -6.7     -3.3%
Office of the Assistant Secretary of            5.0  No Authorization.........          5.0        0.0      0.0%
 the Army.
Mississippi River and Tributaries (MRT)       380.0  No Authorization.........       $269.7     -110.3    -29.0%
Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF).....       113.0  No Authorization.........        52.15     -60.85    -53.8%
FUSRAP.................................       250.0  No Authorization.........  [250.0] \2\          -         -
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies          35.0  No Authorization.........         35.0        0.0      0.0%
 (FCCE).
                                        ------------                           ---------------------------------
  Total................................    $7,894.3                             $6,792.5 \3   -1,101.8    -13.9%
                                                                                          \
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The President's budget distinguishes between Operation and Maintenance expenditures for non-navigation
  projects and O&M expenditures utilizing Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund expenditures. When compared with the FY
  2021 appropriated levels for O&M activities ($3.849 billion), the FY 2022 President's budget allocates a total
  of $4.295 billion for O&M activities, for an increase of $446 million (or 11.58 percent).
\2\ Funds for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) program are included in the FY22
  budget request under the Department of Energy's Office of Legacy Management, but would still be performed by
  the Corps). If such funds were included in the FY22 budget request for the Corps, the total request would be
  $7.042 billion, which would be a decrease of $875 million (-10.8%) from the FY21 enacted level.

    The\\ water resources development projects and programs of 
the Corps support vital economic and environmental needs of 
this nation. These projects provide for continued economic 
growth, job creation, and economic stability while protecting 
human lives and property, ensuring reliable waterborne 
transportation of goods, and restoring valuable natural 
resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See Fiscal Year 2022, Civil Works Budget of the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers, accessed at https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/
collection/p16021coll6/id/42
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The administration's FY 2022 request for the Corps of 
$6.793 billion would be a reduction of $1.101 billion from the 
FY 2021 enacted level for the agency.

                 Sources of Appropriations for FY 2022:
General Fund..............................  $5.067 billion
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.............  $1.625 billion
Special Recreation User Fees..............  $47 million
Inland Waterways Trust Fund...............  $52.15 million
 

    Investigations: The President's budget request would 
provide a total of $113 million for the Investigations program, 
consisting of $105.8 million from the Investigations account 
and $7.1 million from the Mississippi River and Tributaries 
account. This program funds studies to determine the need, 
feasibility, and economic and environmental benefits of 
potential water resources projects. The investigations account 
is used to fund the study of potential projects related to 
river and harbor navigation, flood control, shore protection, 
environmental restoration, and related purposes. This account 
also funds the restudy of authorized projects, miscellaneous 
investigations, and plans and specifications of projects prior 
to construction.
    The budget focuses on ongoing work and on promoting efforts 
to provide local communities with technical and planning 
assistance to enable them to reduce their flood risk, with 
emphasis on non-structural approaches. The budget would include 
$29 million for technical and planning assistance programs that 
will help local communities identify and address their risks 
associated with climate change, $17 million for research and 
development, $4 million to complete dredged material management 
plans necessary to enable the disposal of dredged material from 
seven Great Lakes projects and two Mississippi River projects 
over the next 20-25 years, and $1 million to incorporate 
climate resilience into planning and policy guidance for how 
the Corps formulates future projects.
    The budget requests funding to initiate seven new studies: 
Central and Southern Florida Flood Resiliency Study, FL (flood 
and storm damage reduction); Boise River, Garden City, Ada 
County, ID (flood and storm damage reduction); Great Lakes 
Coastal Resiliency Study, IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, PA, NY, & WI 
(flood and storm damage reduction); Spring Creek South, Jamaica 
Bay (Howard Beach), Queens, NY (aquatic ecosystem restoration); 
Little Narragansett Bay, RI (navigation); Waccamaw River, Horry 
County, SC (flood and storm damage reduction); and Little Goose 
Creek, Sheridan, WY (aquatic ecosystem restoration).\4\ The 
budget also requests funding to complete 15 ongoing studies.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See id.
    \5\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Construction: The Construction account would provide $1.889 
billion for the construction of Corps projects, consisting of 
$1.792 from the Construction Account, $63.7 million from the 
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF), and $32.6 million from 
the Mississippi River and Tributaries account. The budget 
includes requests for four construction new starts, including: 
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, Three Rivers, 
AR (navigation); West Sacramento, CA (flood and storm damage 
reduction); Anacostia Watershed Restoration, Prince George's 
County, MD (aquatic ecosystem restoration); and Norfolk Harbor 
and Channels, VA (Deepening) (navigation).\6\ The budget also 
proposes sufficient funding to complete construction of four 
ongoing projects.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ See id.
    \7\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 2022 budget would include $350 million for the South 
Florida Ecosystem Restoration (SFER) (Everglades) program, a 
$100 million increase, or forty percent, from the 2021 enacted 
level. SFER funding was also included in the administration's 
infrastructure proposal, the American Jobs Plan.\8\ Taken 
together, a robust amount of funding is proposed for SFER, 
enabling significant progress on ecosystem restoration. In an 
effort to improve the resilience of the nation's ports and 
waterways, the plan would also include $2 billion over five 
years to cover the federal share of coastal navigation 
construction projects and $780 million to cover 65 percent of 
the cost to complete construction of on-going capital 
improvement projects and major rehabilitation of existing 
inland navigation construction projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/
2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The budget proposes modifying the performance criteria for 
projects funded on the basis of their economic return to the 
nation, by lowering the threshold benefit-to-cost ratio (BCR) 
(previously at 2.5 to 1) to 2.0 to 1 or greater at a seven 
percent discount rate.
    Operation and Maintenance (O&M): The President's budget 
would provide a total of $4.295 billion for the O&M program, 
consisting of $2.503 billion from the O&M account, $1,557 
billion from the HMTF, and $235.3 million from the Mississippi 
River and Tributaries Account.
    The budget would provide $75 million to advance near-term 
climate resilience efforts by specifically targeting operation 
and maintenance activities that are focused on improving 
climate resilience and/or sustainability at existing Corps-
owned projects, $60 million for work needed to mitigate for 
adverse impacts from existing Corps-owned projects, $20 million 
to improve cybersecurity at existing Corps-owned projects, and 
$13 million to complete major rehabilitation studies at six 
inland waterway locks and dams projects. These funds will be 
used in addition to the $2 billion over five years proposed in 
the American Jobs Plan for the maintenance and repair of 
existing navigation channels and navigation locks and dams on 
the nation's inland waterways that support commercial 
navigation.
    Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF): The President's 
budget proposes to spend $1.626 billion from the HMTF for 
eligible projects and activities with an emphasis on operation 
and maintenance, including dredging, of completed projects, the 
highest amount ever proposed in a President's budget since 
enactment of the HMTF in 1986. The budget requests $787 million 
to address the top 50 U.S. coastal ports across the nation, 
which handle around 90 percent of the waterborne cargo that is 
shipped to or from the United States. The budget also requests 
$252 million for operation and maintenance of Great Lakes-
projects, $58 million for projects that support access by 
Native American tribes to their legally recognized historic 
fishing areas, and $63 million for five construction projects 
that will accommodate disposal of material dredged from coastal 
navigation projects. The budget also highlights funding in the 
American Jobs Plan that proposes an additional investment of 
$2.8 billion over five years for activities in coastal ports 
that are HMTF eligible.
    Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T): The President's 
budget request includes a total of $275 million, consisting of 
$269.688 million from the Mississippi River and Tributaries 
account and $5.312 million from the HMTF, for ongoing work in 
the lower Mississippi River and its tributaries, with emphasis 
on the 1,600 miles of levees and related features on the main 
stem of the lower Mississippi River and in the Atchafalaya 
Basin.
    Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE): The 
President's budget request includes $35 million for 
preparedness and training for floods, hurricanes, and other 
natural disasters.
    Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP): 
The President's budget request proposes to transfer financial 
responsibility for FUSRAP sites back to the Department of 
Energy. NOTE: The Department of Energy budget request includes 
$250 million for management of the FUSRAP program.
    Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF): The President's budget 
request proposes to spend $52.150 million from the IWTF to 
begin construction on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River 
navigation system, Three Rivers, AR project, which will reduce 
the risk of a breach between Arkansas and White Rivers during 
high water that would likely result in a loss of navigation on 
the Mississippi River. The budget also includes $420 million in 
funding proposed in the American Jobs Plan over the next five 
years to cover 35 percent of the cost to complete construction 
of on-going capital improvement projects and major 
rehabilitation of existing inland navigation construction 
projects.
    Veteran's Curation Program and Collections Management: The 
President's budget proposal includes $6.5 million for the 
Veteran's Curation Program, which provides rehabilitation and 
training for veterans using the archaeological collections of 
the Corps.

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS)

                                      Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \9\
                                                  (in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Diff. of FY 2022
                                                    FY 2021                       FY 2022    Pres. Budget and FY
                      Program                       Enacted       FY 2022       President's      2021 Enacted
                                                                 Authorized        Budget   --------------------
                                                                                                 $          %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations.........   $175.0   Such Sums as May       $175.0        0.0       0.0
                                                                 be Necessary.
Watershed Rehabilitation Program..................     10.0  No Authorization.         10.0        0.0       0.0
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program.     50.0              $50.0        $50.0        0.0       0.0
                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------
  Total...........................................   $235.0                $50       $235.0        0.0       0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The\\ NRCS authorized to give technical and financial help 
to local organizations planning and carrying out watershed 
projects for flood protection, agricultural water management, 
recreation, municipal and industrial water supply, and wildlife 
enhancement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-budget-
summary.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The President's budget proposes $50 million in mandatory 
funding for the Watershed Protection and Flood Program, which 
was created in the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 
115-334) through amendments to the Watershed Protection and 
Flood Prevention Act (P.L. 83-566).
    In addition, the budget proposes level funding of $175 
million for Watershed and Flood Prevention activities 
authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534) and 
the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (P.L. 
83-566). This program directs NRCS to work with localities to 
plan and install flood prevention improvements and share the 
cost for improvements in flood prevention, agricultural water 
management, recreation, and fish and wildlife development. 
Further, the FY 2022 budget proposes an increase of $10 million 
in funding under this program for small watershed operations 
authorized under P.L. 83-566. This program provides federal 
resources to small watersheds of 250,000 acres or less for both 
for technical and financial assistance of flood prevention and 
watershed projects on private land for the conservation, 
development, utilization, and disposal of water, and for the 
reduction of sediment and erosion damages.
    The President's budget highlights a proposal to increase 
funding for the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations 
program by $100 million per year (totaling $1 billion over ten 
years).
    Lastly, the President's budget proposes level funding for 
the Watershed Rehabilitation Program at $10 million for FY 
2022. This program provides financial and technical assistance 
to communities for planning and financing the rehabilitation of 
federally constructed flood prevention dams that have reached 
the end of their design lives. The program is authorized under 
Section 14 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act 
(16 U.S.C. 1012), as amended.

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)

                                     Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \10\
                                                  (in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Diff. of FY 2022
                                                                                  FY 2022    Pres. Budget and FY
                      Appropriations Account                          FY 2021   President's      2021 Enacted
                                                                      Enacted      Budget   --------------------
                                                                                                 $          %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Ocean Service (NOS)......................................      $628.2       $862.4     $234.2     37.2%
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OOAR).................       614.1        815.7      201.6     32.8%
                                                                   ---------------------------------------------
  Total \1,2\.....................................................    $1,242.3     $1,678.1     $435.8     35.1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table totals the discretionary funding for NOS and OOAR, and does not highlight accounts outside the
  jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
\2\ Total includes funding for both operations, research, and facilities, and procurement, acquisitions, and
  construction accounts.

    The\\ Subcommittee has jurisdiction over various NOAA 
programs and activities, including responsibilities under the 
Clean Water Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act 
Reauthorization Amendments (P.L. 101-508), the Marine 
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (P.L. 100-688), 
Superfund (P.L. 99-499), the Oil Pollution Act (P.L. 101-380), 
the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act 
(P.L. 104-332), the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research 
and Control Act (P.L. 105-383), and the Estuary Habitat 
Restoration and Partnership Act of 2000 (P.L. 105-457). The 
Subcommittee's jurisdictional interest in the NOS includes 
coastal water pollution and natural resource damages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/
NOAA%20FY22%20CJ.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The President's FY 2022 budget requests $815.67 million for 
discretionary funding for the OOAR, $201.58 million more than 
the FY 2021 enacted level of $614.09 million.
    The President's FY 2022 budget requests $862.4 million for 
discretionary funding for the NOS, $234.2 million more than the 
FY 2021 enacted level of $628.2 million. The National Coastal 
Zone Management (CZM) Program is part of the NOS.The FY 2022 
request includes level the following:
     LCoastal Zone Management Grants ($108.5 million) 
within the CZM Program. These grants support actions of states 
and other grantees authorized under the Coastal Zone Management 
Act (CZMA). Some of this work supports section 6217 of the 
Coastal Zone Reauthorization Amendments Act for controlling 
coastal non-point pollution. The CZM Program is a voluntary 
partnership between the federal government and coastal states, 
Great Lakes states, and territories to address coastal issues. 
This is a $30 million increase over the FY 2021 enacted level.
     LNational Centers for Coastal Ocean Science 
(NCCOS) Competitive Research Funding Support for Ecological 
Threats ($22 million). The NCCOS competitive research program 
provides grants to academic institutions to conduct ecological 
research that advances NOAA's missions--including for algal 
blooms.
     LNational Sea Grant Program ($130 M). This program 
funds a network of 34 Sea Grant programs located in coastal 
states and territories, as well as more than 3,000 scientists, 
researchers, students, and outreach experts from more than 300 
institutions. This funding number includes the total of funds 
from the National Sea Grant College Program and Marine 
Aquaculture program.

    The President's FY 2022 budget proposes to increase funding 
for Coral Reef Restoration and Threat Abatement Initiatives by 
$10 million to $43 million. This program funds efforts to 
protect and restore coral reefs, diagnose and treat coral 
reefs, and partners with USGS in support of research and 
epidemiology of coral disease.

GREAT LAKES ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (GLS)

                                     Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \11\
                                                  (in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Diff. of FY 2022
                                                                                  FY 2022    Pres. Budget and FY
                Program                    FY 2021       FY 2022 Authorized     President's      2021 Enacted
                                           Enacted                                 Budget   --------------------
                                                                                                 $          %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................       $38.0  No Authorization.........        $37.7      -$0.3     -0.8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The\\ St. Lawrence Seaway is a 328 nautical-mile deep-draft 
waterway between the Port of Montreal and Lake Erie. It 
connects the Great Lakes with the Atlantic Ocean via the lower 
St. Lawrence River. The Seaway includes a network of 15 locks 
and connecting channels located in Canada and the United 
States. Thirteen of the locks belong to Canada and the 
remaining two locks, located in Massena, New York, belong to 
the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2021-05/
GLS-FY-2022-President-Budget-Request.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The U.S. portion of the Seaway was authorized in 1954, and 
is operated by the GLS, an agency within the DOT. The Canadian 
portion of the Seaway is operated by the Great Lakes St. 
Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, a private corporation 
established in the 1990s and owned by the nine largest Canadian 
users of the Seaway.
    The President's budget request for the GLS from the HMTF is 
$37.7 million. This would fund the daily operations and 
maintenance of the U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway 
($23.2 million) and Seaway infrastructure investment ($14.5 
million).
    Operational, maintenance, and capital asset renewal needs 
for the U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway are derived 
from appropriations from the HMTF and revenues from other 
sources.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA)

                          SUMMARY OF FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See https://www.tva.com/docs/default-source/1-float/
_tva_annual_performance_
report__final_05.21.21853293c8-12c6-43e3-96e6-
5058b2d21607.pdf?sfvrsn=fb9f903_3; see also https://www.whitehouse.gov/
wp-content/uploads/2021/05/oia_fy22.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The TVA is the nation's largest government-owned wholesale 
power producer established by the Tennessee Valley Authority 
Act (16 U.S.C. 831) in 1933. TVA supplies power to nearly ten 
million people over an 80,000 square mile service area covering 
Tennessee, and parts of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North 
Carolina, Virginia, and Kentucky. In addition, TVA's non-power 
program responsibilities include the multi-purpose management 
of land and water resources throughout the Tennessee Valley.
    Initially, federal appropriations funded all TVA 
operations. Direct federal funding for the TVA power program 
ended in 1959, and appropriations for TVA's environmental 
stewardship and economic development activities were phased out 
by 1999. TVA currently receives no federal appropriations but 
operates and maintains its assets through commercial and 
residential rates, and the authority to issue federally secured 
bonds.

UNITED STATES SECTOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION 
                    (IBWC)

                                     Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \13\
                                                  (in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Diff. of FY 2022
                                                                                  FY 2022    Pres. Budget and FY
                      Appropriations Account                          FY 2021   President's          2021
                                                                      Enacted      Budget   --------------------
                                                                                                 $          %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Expenses.............................................       $49.8        $52.0        2.2      4.4%
Construction......................................................       $49.0        $46.8       -2.2     -4.4%
                                                                   ---------------------------------------------
  Total...........................................................       $98.8        $98.8        0.0       0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First\\ established in 1889, the IBWC has responsibility 
for implementing the boundary and water treaties between the 
United States and Mexico and settling issues that may arise 
along the 1,952-mile common border. The IBWC is an 
international body, composed of a United States sector and 
Mexico sector, each headed by an Engineer-Commissioner 
appointed by the respective President. The United States sector 
of the IBWC receives its policy guidance from the U.S. 
Department of State and the Mexico sector of the IBWC receives 
its policy guidance from Mexico's Secretariat of Foreign 
Relations. The U.S. IBWC is headquartered in El Paso, Texas, 
and the Mexico IBWC has its headquarters in Ciudad Juarez, 
Chihuahua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/FY-2022-
State_USAID-Congressional-Budget-Justification.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The President's budget request for U.S. IBWC Salaries and 
Expenses is $51.97 million, which is an increase of $2.2 
million over the FY 2021 enacted amount. The budget request for 
U.S. IBWC construction activities is $46.8 million, which is a 
decrease of $2.2 million from FY 2021 levels.

AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY (ATSDR)

                                     Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \14\
                                                  (in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Diff. of FY 2022
                                                                                  FY 2022    Pres. Budget and FY
                      Appropriations Account                          FY 2021   President's          2021
                                                                      Enacted      Budget   --------------------
                                                                                                 $          %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................................       $78.0        $81.8       $3.6      4.8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The\\ ATSDR is the nation's public health agency for 
chemical safety. The agency's mission is to use the best 
science, take responsive action, and provide trustworthy health 
information to prevent and mitigate harmful exposures and 
related disease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ https://www.cdc.gov/budget/documents/fy2022/FY-2022-CDC-
congressional-justification.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ATSDR was created by the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 
(P.L. 96-510), more commonly known as the Superfund law, and 
was formally organized in 1985.
    Under its CERCLA mandate, the agency's work falls into four 
functional areas: (1) protecting the public from hazardous 
exposures; (2) increasing knowledge about toxic substances; (3) 
educating health care providers and the public about toxic 
chemicals; and (4) maintaining health registries. In recent 
years, ATSDR has focused on pathways of potential exposure to 
toxic chemicals, including food, water, air, and consumer 
goods.
    The administration's FY 2022 budget request for ATSDR is 
$81.75 million, which is $3.75 million more than the FY 2021 
appropriations for the agency.

                          WITNESSES (Part II)

     LThe Honorable Radhika Fox, Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency
     LMs. Nicole R. LeBoeuf, Acting Assistant 
Administrator, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration
     LMr. Terry Cosby, Chief, Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, United Stated Department of Agriculture
     LDr. Patrick Breysse, Director, Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry
     LMr. Craig H. Middlebrook, Deputy Administrator, 
Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
    Mrs. Napolitano. Good morning, everybody. I call this 
hearing to order. All my witnesses are here. I am glad to see 
you all. Thank you very much.
    This hearing will focus on President Biden's fiscal year 
2022 budget request and his administration's priorities for the 
upcoming year, especially the drought.
    This hearing is the second of two hearings on these topics 
in order to hear from multiple agencies in this subcommittee's 
jurisdiction.
    Let me begin by asking unanimous consent that the chair be 
authorized to declare a recess at any time during today's 
hearing.
    And, without objection, so ordered.
    I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the 
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at 
today's hearing and ask questions.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    It is the responsibility of each Member seeking recognition 
to unmute their microphone prior to speaking and to mute it 
when finished. To avoid any inadvertent background noise, I 
request that every Member keep their microphone muted when not 
seeking recognition to speak. Should I hear any inadvertent 
noise in the background, I will request that the Member please 
mute their microphone.
    And, finally, to insert a document into the record, please 
have your staff email it to [email protected].
    Today we will hold our second hearing on the President's 
fiscal year 2022 budget request and the policy goals and 
objectives of the Biden administration.
    Let me begin by commending the Biden administration for 
restoring critical funding and respect to the agencies under 
the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, particularly EPA, 
Environmental Protection Agency, and NOAA, National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration.
    Each of the agencies here today play a critical role in 
management and stewardship of our water resources. Whether 
through regulatory efforts, conservation programs, or treatment 
and research of water contaminants and impacts on human health, 
your work is more important than ever as we face increasing 
threats from climate change, extreme drought, and emerging 
pollutants.
    This budget will help leverage additional funding from the 
State, local, and nonprofit partners as well as make Federal 
knowledge and expertise more accessible to communities. Many of 
the programs provided by your agencies assist State and our 
local governments by providing technical assistance and expert-
level knowledge for conserving land, managing water systems, 
mapping sea level rise, and creating easy-to-use public 
websites to widely share your data. It is important that these 
agencies work together and communicate their work effectively.
    I am very pleased to see that President Biden has proposed 
to reverse the destructive funding cuts and undo the damaging 
regulatory rollbacks of the previous administration. Robust 
funding for these agencies and their programs is important to 
the delivery of clean water, to understanding the potential 
health impacts of emerging contaminants, the conservation and 
the preservation of wetlands and aquatic ecosystems, and the 
movement of goods and economic competitiveness of our regions.
    Additionally, across the country, our communities and 
environment are under unprecedented strain as we deal with the 
effects of climate change. Much of the West is facing extreme 
heat and drought. These are dangerous conditions for humans and 
our whole planet. I am extremely interested in hearing from 
these witnesses how we can better manage our resources today 
and understand and prepare for future needs and challenges. We 
must take swift action to mitigate ongoing and future harm to 
all of our environment.
    Most critically, I fervently hope the administration moves 
quickly to replace the Trump ``dirty water rule,'' which was 
the greatest undermining of the Clean Water Act in its history, 
and I urge its complete and immediate repeal. The longer this 
harmful regulation stays on the books, the more we will forever 
degrade and destroy our rivers and wetlands.
    I am also very pleased that the Biden administration is 
already taking action to make environmental justice a core part 
of every Federal agency's mission. For too long, minority and 
economically disadvantaged communities, the poor communities, 
have borne a disproportionate share of the burden of 
industrialization and pollution and have also been overlooked 
for necessary public health and environmental investment--a 
situation even made worse by the impacts of climate change. 
Addressing this disparity will improve public health, spur 
economic development in these communities, and create a more 
equitable society.
    Today, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on your 
budget priorities and learning how you are planning to restore 
your offices to their sworn duties and mission areas that were 
so neglected over the past 4 years.
    [Mrs. Napolitano's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
  Prepared Statement of Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in 
Congress from the State of California, and Chair, Subcommittee on Water 
                       Resources and Environment
    Today, we will hold our second hearing on the president's fiscal 
year 2022 budget request and other policy goals and objectives of the 
Biden administration.
    Let me start by commending the Biden administration for restoring 
critical funding and respect for the agencies under the jurisdiction of 
this Subcommittee, particularly the Environmental Protection Agency and 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    Each of the agencies here today play a critical role in the 
management and stewardship of our water resources. Whether through 
regulatory efforts, conservation programs, or the treatment and 
research of water contaminants and impacts on human health, your work 
is more important than ever as we face increasing threats from climate 
change, extreme drought, and emerging pollutants.
    This budget will help leverage additional funding from state, 
local, and non-profit partners, as well as make federal knowledge and 
expertise more accessible to communities.
    Many of the programs provided by these agencies assist state and 
local governments by providing technical assistance and expert level 
knowledge for conserving land, managing water systems, mapping sea-
level rise, and creating easy to use public websites to widely share 
data. It is important that these agencies work together and communicate 
their work effectively.
    I am pleased to see that President Biden has proposed to reverse 
the destructive funding cuts and undo the damaging regulatory rollbacks 
of the previous administration.
    Robust funding for these agencies and their programs is important 
to the delivery of clean water, understanding the potential health 
impacts of emerging contaminants, the conservation and preservation of 
wetlands and aquatic ecosystems, and the movement of goods and economic 
competitiveness of regions.
    Additionally, across the country, our communities and environment 
are under unprecedented strain as we deal with the effects of climate 
change. Much of the west is facing extreme heat and drought. These are 
dangerous conditions for humans and our planet. I am interested in 
hearing from these witnesses on how we can better manage our resources 
today and understand and prepare for future needs and challenges.
    We must take swift action to mitigate ongoing and future harm to 
our environment. Most critically, I hope the Administration moves 
quickly to replace the Trump Dirty Water Rule--which was the greatest 
undermining of the Clean Water Act in its history--and I urge its 
complete and immediate repeal. The longer this harmful regulation stays 
on the books, the more we will forever degrade and destroy our rivers 
and wetlands.
    I am also pleased that the Biden administration has already taken 
action to make environmental justice a core part of every federal 
agency's mission. For too long, minority and economically-disadvantaged 
communities have borne a disproportionate share of the burden of 
industrialization and pollution, and have been overlooked for necessary 
public health and environmental investment--a situation made even worse 
by the impacts of climate change. Addressing this disparity will 
improve public health, spur economic development in these communities, 
and create a more equitable society.
    Today, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on your budget 
priorities and learning how you are planning to restore your offices to 
their sworn duties and mission areas that were so neglected over the 
past four years.

    Mrs. Napolitano. I ask unanimous consent to include in the 
record the statement of Chairman DeFazio.
    And, without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]

                                 
   Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in 
      Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure
    Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding today's hearing.
    Today's hearing is another important opportunity to examine 
President Biden's budget request and administration priorities. I am 
pleased to be discussing a budget that finally demonstrates a federal 
commitment to protecting our nation's waters and environment, investing 
in science and research, and maintaining our water infrastructure. It 
is a budget that recognizes the critical role that the federal 
government plays in sustaining our economy, our environment, and our 
quality of life.
    First and foremost, I am glad to see across-the-board increases to 
programs under the Environmental Protection Agency--a total increase of 
21.2 percent over the previous enacted levels. The last administration 
acted with particular malice towards our environment, consistently 
under-funding critical EPA programs and personnel and working to 
dismantle or weaken over 100 environmental laws. It is time to finally 
reverse that pattern.
    Increased funding to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program, 
which the House recently reauthorized through the INVEST in America 
Act, will allow municipalities to upgrade and maintain their wastewater 
infrastructure. In fact, I would argue that wastewater investment needs 
are still greater than the amount included in this request.
    The EPA also receives increased funds for both regulatory and non-
regulatory programs, which work to protect our natural resources and 
improve our water quality across the nation. The EPA has a lot of work 
to do to restore its core mission areas, and these dollars will be 
necessary for that pursuit.
    One of the largest single-program increases is to the Superfund and 
Brownfields program; I hope to hear from the EPA's Office of Land and 
Emergency Management later this year on how the additional funds will 
be spent and directed towards addressing environmental injustices.
    Other agencies before us today are also well-supported in this 
budget. In many cases, these programs have significant community-level 
impacts, such as watershed restoration, flood prevention, coastal 
protection, and measures to increase community resiliency to climate 
change. Additionally, investment in critical research and innovation 
programs will help prepare us for climate change impacts and inform 
decisions on water contaminants and their prevention. Properly funding 
these programs will restore and protect our waterways, will allow our 
local and national economies to thrive, and will help us to meet the 
complex challenges of the 21st century.
    Aside from the specifics of the budget request, I hope to hear from 
the agency officials before us today about their priorities and policy 
objectives for the new administration.
    The Trump administration spent four years trying to make the 
critical missions of the federal government significantly harder or 
impossible to execute.
    This included attacks on bedrock water protections to benefit 
corporations, dismantling climate policies, and weakening other 
environmental laws to the point of obsolescence. Fortunately, the Biden 
administration immediately paused several such rulemakings, but there 
is still work to be done to reverse the worst of them and ensure they 
are not allowed to devastate our natural resources and communities.
    One of the most important, at least for this committee, will be the 
rewrite of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, known as the Trump 
Dirty Water Rule. This rule has removed Clean Water Act protections 
from up to 71 percent of streams, and more than 50 percent of wetlands. 
That is simply unconscionable.
    I was pleased to hear the announcement that the Biden 
administration will overturn the Dirty Water Rule; however, I believe 
this rule must be immediately repealed and then replaced.
    EPA Administrator Regan stated that the Trump Dirty Water Rule ``is 
leading to significant environmental degradation,'' and I agree.
    Every day that the Dirty Water Rule remains in place, countless 
waters and wetlands are polluted, degraded, or destroyed, and American 
families will pay the cost of this destruction through more polluted 
waters, less protected drinking water sources, greater flood risk, and 
a degraded environment.
    This is too high a cost to pay for inaction and I will continue to 
push the president and the administrator for the immediate repeal of 
the Dirty Water Rule.
    I am also deeply concerned with coal-fired power plant regulation 
reversals of the last administration, namely the rollback of pollution 
discharge requirements and the storage of coal-combustion waste. There 
is no such thing as ``clean coal;'' these power plants produce waste 
that includes arsenic, lithium, mercury, and selenium. We know each one 
is detrimental to the health of our waterways and should be prevented 
from entering it either directly or through seeping coal ash ponds into 
our groundwater.
    Madam Chair, one other issue that was uniquely missing from the 
last administration was ensuring agency actions were developed with 
significant community engagement. This means meaningful involvement and 
consultation with tribes, rural communities, economically-disadvantaged 
communities, and minority communities.
    Addressing environmental justice considerations and community 
engagement needs to become the norm again as we address how our 
environmental laws are developed and applied, and how our federal 
agencies communicate and discuss potential impacts of federal actions 
on local communities.
    As we look forward to real federal investment and implementation of 
the policy goals of the Biden administration, I hope to see continued 
support for the protection of our communities and our environment. We 
must be determined in restoring and renewing our federal commitments to 
our vital natural resources, the health of our communities, and 
protection of our waters.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Mrs. Napolitano. At this time, I am pleased to yield to my 
colleague, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Rouzer, 
for any thoughts he may have. Mr. Rouzer, you are recognized.
    Mr. Rouzer. Thank you so much, Chair Napolitano. I 
appreciate your holding this hearing.
    And I would also like to thank our witnesses for being here 
today.
    As noted, today's hearing will focus on the President's 
fiscal year 2022 budget proposal for the Environmental 
Protection Agency, the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway 
Development Corporation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry at the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, as well as the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration.
    I would first like to focus my comments on actions 
involving the EPA. I am appreciative--I am, in fact, very 
appreciative that we have high-level representation from the 
Agency's political leadership here at our hearing. Thank you 
for joining us today, Ms. Fox, and congratulations again on 
your recent Senate confirmation. And I want to share that I 
certainly very much enjoyed our recent visit.
    I am, however, growing increasingly concerned that this 
administration is reversing reasonable policies put in place by 
the previous administration. Now, I certainly understand that 
different administrations will have different policy priorities 
and approaches. That is to be expected. However, it seems as 
though some of these actions have very little merit, 
considering most stakeholders have been very happy with the 
commonsense policy clarifications that were made under the 
Trump administration.
    A few examples include the reversal of the Clean Water Act 
section 401 certification rule and the unprecedented--I might 
add--mass firing of all members of two advisory panels. I am 
not going to go into all the details of that, but I did make 
note of it.
    And then, of course, there is the announced effort underway 
to rewrite the Trump administration's rule defining ``waters of 
the United States,'' or WOTUS, as we call it around here, for 
purposes of the Clean Water Act.
    Three weeks ago, this subcommittee hosted Jaime Pinkham, 
Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. And I 
will say again today what I said about WOTUS when he was here, 
as I certainly think that it bears repeating. While not a 
surprise to hear that the Biden administration is proposing to 
take this action on WOTUS, it is no less a disappointment.
    The system we have in place now, in our opinion, works very 
well. It is fair to our Nation's farmers, ranchers, businesses 
of all types, city planners, et cetera. A return to anything 
close to the 2015 WOTUS rule would be a failure, and the 
regulatory burden placed on average Americans and the effect on 
the economy would be highly detrimental.
    As I said when this rewrite was announced, no bureaucrat in 
Washington should be able to dictate what our farm families, 
small businesses, local governments, and citizens do on their 
property after a significant rainfall. So, outreach to solicit, 
truly listen to, and meaningfully address stakeholder concerns 
is obviously going to be of paramount importance.
    And so, while I certainly appreciated Mr. Pinkham's 
appearance here, I still have a few questions. After that 
hearing, in fact, I wrote a letter to him and to you, Ms. Fox, 
pointing out the concerns many Members of Congress still have 
on this particular issue. I was joined by 125 of my colleagues 
here in the House on that letter.
    Now, I know you believe stakeholder outreach is important, 
and I think we would all like to hear whatever specifics you 
may be able to provide regarding that timeline and other 
details as to how stakeholder engagement will be achieved.
    On another topic, I would like to highlight an issue very 
important to me as well as many others in my home State of 
North Carolina and other States too, which is PFAS. We need a 
rational, scientifically informed approach to address this 
issue. And under the chemical safety laws passed by Congress, 
this responsibility rests with the EPA.
    I understand that EPA is actively moving forward with 
developing important scientific information as part of 
implementing a PFAS action plan. Implementing this plan and 
establishing a safe consumption standard is a difficult, time-
consuming, and expensive process. I look forward to getting a 
progress report on these activities and hearing how this is 
coming along under the guidelines of EPA's scientists and 
chemical safety experts.
    In addition to the EPA, we also have folks here from four 
other important agencies, as I mentioned before. Between them, 
these agencies have a diverse set of missions, including 
maintaining one of North America's most important waterways, 
helping farmers and ranchers with their conservation needs, 
protecting our country's coastal zones, and completing the 
nexus between public health and chemical safety. I look forward 
to hearing how they complete their objectives and what 
challenges they face in carrying out those respective duties.
    Again, thank you to our witnesses.
    [Mr. Rouzer's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Hon. David Rouzer, a Representative in Congress 
 from the State of North Carolina, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
                    Water Resources and Environment
    Thank you, Chair Napolitano. I appreciate your holding this 
hearing, and I would also like to thank our witnesses for being here 
today. As noted, today's hearing will focus on the President's Fiscal 
Year 2022 budget proposal for the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA), the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 
(GLS), the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS), the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
Disease Registry (ATSDR) at the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA).
    I would like to first discuss actions involving the EPA. I am 
appreciative that we have high-level representation from the Agency's 
political leadership at our hearing. Thank you for joining us today, 
Ms. Fox, and congratulations again on your recent Senate confirmation. 
I enjoyed our visit yesterday.
    I am however growing increasingly concerned that this 
administration is reversing reasonable policies put in place by the 
previous administration.
    Now, I certainly understand that different administrations will 
have different policy priorities and approaches. However, it seems as 
though some of these actions have very little merit considering most 
stakeholders have been very happy with the commonsense policy 
clarifications that were made under the Trump Administration.
    A few examples include the reversal of the Clean Water Act Section 
401 Certification Rule and the unprecedented mass firing of all members 
of two advisory panels.
    And then, of course, there is the announced effort underway to 
rewrite the Trump Administration's rule defining ``Waters of the United 
States'' (or ``WOTUS'') for purposes of the Clean Water Act.
    Three weeks ago, this subcommittee hosted Jaime Pinkham, Acting 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, and I'll say again 
today what I said about WOTUS when he was here, as I certainly think it 
bears repeating.
    While not a surprise to hear that the Biden Administration is 
proposing to take this action on WOTUS, it is no less a disappointment.
    The system we have in place now works. It is fair to our nation's 
farmers, ranchers, construction businesses, city planners, and everyone 
else. A return to anything close to the 2015 WOTUS rule would be a 
failure, and the regulatory burden placed on average Americans and the 
effect on the economy would be highly detrimental.
    As I said when this re-write was announced, no bureaucrat in 
Washington should be able to dictate what our farm families, small 
businesses, local governments, and citizens do on their property after 
a significant rainfall. So, outreach to solicit, truly listen to, and 
meaningfully address stakeholder concerns is going to be of paramount 
importance.
    While I certainly appreciated Mr. Pinkham's appearance here, I 
still have questions. This is why shortly after that hearing I led a 
letter to him and to you, Ms. Fox, pointing out the concerns many 
members of Congress still have on this issue [https://republicans-
transportation.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=479416-
71706684]. I was joined by 125 of my colleagues here in the House on 
that letter.
    I know you believe stakeholder outreach is important, and I think 
we would all like to hear whatever specifics you may be able to provide 
regarding that timeline and other details as to how stakeholder 
engagement will be achieved.
    On another topic, I would like to highlight an issue very important 
to me as well as many others in my home state of North Carolina and 
other states too, which is PFAS. We need a rational, scientifically 
informed approach to address this, and under the chemical safety laws 
passed by Congress, this responsibility rests with EPA. I understand 
that EPA is actively moving forward with developing important 
scientific information as part of implementing a ``PFAS Action Plan.'' 
Implementing this plan and establishing a safe consumption standard is 
a difficult, time consuming, and expensive process. I look forward to 
getting a progress report on these activities and hearing how this is 
coming along under EPA scientists and chemical safety experts.
    In addition to the EPA, we also have folks here from four other 
important agencies, as I mentioned before. Between them, these agencies 
have a diverse set of missions, including maintaining one of North 
America's most important waterways, helping farmers and ranchers with 
their conservation needs, protecting our country's coastal zones, and 
completing the nexus between public health and chemical safety. I look 
forward to hearing how they complete their objectives and what 
challenges they face in carrying out their respective duties.

    Mr. Rouzer. And, Madam Chair, I would like to ask unanimous 
consent to include for the record a copy of the letter that I 
and 126 other Members sent to Michael Regan and Mr. Jaime 
Pinkham with regard to the WOTUS rule.
    Mrs. Napolitano. So ordered.
    [The information follows:]

                                 
  Letter of June 25, 2021, to Hon. Michael Regan, Administrator, U.S. 
  Environmental Protection Agency and Jaime Pinkham, Acting Assistant 
    Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army, 
             Submitted for the Record by Hon. David Rouzer
                                                     June 25, 2021.
The Honorable Michael Regan,
Administrator,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., 
        Washington, D.C. 20460.
Mr. Jaime Pinkham,
Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works,
108 Army Pentagon, Room 3E446, Washington, DC 20310-0108.
    Dear Administrator Regan and Acting Assistant Secretary Pinkham:
    We are writing to you in response to the June 9, 2021 announcement 
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (collectively, the ``Agencies'') regarding the Agencies' 
intent to revise the definition of the ``waters of the United States'' 
(WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act.\1\ This could negatively impact the 
Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which the Trump Administration issued 
to provide long-awaited clarity on the extent of waters covered by the 
Clean Water Act for farmers, homeowners, private property owners, 
manufacturers, small businesses, water districts, and local governments 
while maintaining the United States' world-renowned standards of 
environmental protection.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Press Release, EPA, Army Announce Intent to Revise Definition 
of WOTUS, June 9, 2021, available at https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/
epa-army-announce-intent-revise-definition-wotus; see, e.g., 33 CFR 
Sec.  328.3; 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq.
    \2\ The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of ``Waters of 
the United States,'' Final Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. 22250 (Apr. 21, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We are concerned that the approach the Agencies intend to take in 
revising this important regulation will regress from the clarity 
provided by the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, and will reimpose a 
vastly overbroad interpretation of Federal jurisdiction over waters 
around the Nation. We are also concerned that, rather than soliciting 
and genuinely listening to input from the general public, small 
businesses, regulated community, and Federal and state resource 
agencies regarding the appropriate scope of Clean Water Act 
jurisdiction and the range of issues to be covered by those 
regulations, the Agencies intend to proceed with a rulemaking that will 
once again confuse regulated parties and lead to the same 
misinterpretations of legal standards as the Obama Administration's 
WOTUS rule.\3\ We are gravely concerned that the Agencies will let the 
flawed Obama WOTUS rule dictate the scope and content of any new rule 
the Agencies might now promulgate. The Agencies must not let 
institutional capture predetermine the outcome of a rulemaking, which 
we fear is going to happen here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Clean Water Rule: Definition of ``Waters of the United 
States,'' Final Rule, 80 FR 37054 (June 29, 2015) (Obama Administration 
WOTUS rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Public input from those stakeholders who will be most affected by a 
new regulation is crucial to any transparent rulemaking process. It is 
essential that, before the Agencies begin drafting any new rule, they 
first issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit 
input from the general public, regulated community, and resource 
agencies on the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction and the range of 
issues to be covered by the regulations, to support any revisions to 
the definition of ``waters of the United States.'' \4\ If the Agencies 
decide to move forward with a rulemaking after the ANPRM, we expect 
they will undertake a robust economic analysis, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for whatever proposed rule might be developed. This 
economic analysis must include an accurate quantification and 
monetization of the consequences anticipated from the proposed rule.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See 5 U.S.C. Sec.  553.
    \5\ See OMB Circular A-4, Executive Order 12866, and Executive 
Order 13563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the Agencies 
to assess the impact of this proposed regulation on ``small entities,'' 
which are defined as including small businesses, small governmental 
jurisdictions, and certain small not-for-profit organizations.\6\ 
Because of the scope of this rule and the way in which ``waters of the 
U.S.'' has previously been expanded, we expect to see a thorough 
regulatory flexibility analysis of the economic impact on small 
entities. Finally, because of the EPA's role in this rulemaking, we 
expect that the Agencies will convene an ``advocacy review panel'' 
pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act's 
requirement to hear from representatives of small entities affected by 
the proposed rule.\7\ We are hopeful that the Agencies will not again 
fail to calculate the significant impact of this rule like they did in 
2014, leading to a failure to hold a small business advocacy review 
panel in the future.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 601-612.
    \7\ 5 U.S.C. Sec.  609(b).
    \8\ SBA Office of Advocacy letter to Administrator McCarthy (Oct. 
1, 2014), available at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/
Final_WOTUS%20Comment%20Letter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Obama Administration's overreaching WOTUS rule had a disastrous 
effect on farmers, businesses, and families.\9\ That rule drew 
substantial opposition from states, local governments, and citizens 
across the Nation challenging the overbreadth of the definitions 
included.\10\ The regulatory burden placed on average Americans and the 
effect on the economy would be detrimental if the Agencies were to 
remove the definitions included in the Navigable Waters Protection 
Rule, especially as we look to restart the economy after the COVID-19 
pandemic. If we want to help get Americans back to work, the 
Administration cannot continue to propose partisan executive and 
legislative actions which will only slow down or reverse the economic 
recovery. Instead, we must have reasonable regulation to enable 
Americans to thrive and to grow our Nation's economy, including in 
rural and other underserved parts of the country. To do this, the 
Agencies must keep in mind the multitude of concerns and issues 
previously raised about the Obama Administration's WOTUS rule and 
maintain the updated definitions of the Navigable Waters Protection 
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ American Farm Bureau Federation ``Clean Water Act, WOTUS,'' 
available at https://www.fb.org/issues/regulatory-reform/clean-water-
act/.
    \10\ Snider, Annie, ``9 more states sue Obama admin over hot-button 
rule,'' Greenwire, June 30, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Regulation of the Nation's waters must be done in a manner that 
responsibly protects the environment without unnecessary and costly 
expansion of the Federal government in order to prevent unreasonable 
and burdensome regulations and to protect small businesses, farmers, 
and families. Consequently, it is critical that the Agencies take the 
proper steps to ensure that any new regulations provide an appropriate 
and clear definition of ``waters of the United States,'' and be 
consistent with the Clean Water Act and the governing U.S. Supreme 
Court decisions in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers and Rapanos v. United States concerning the 
extent of waters covered by the Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001); Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 
715 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We will be closely monitoring the process as a new rulemaking is 
initiated. We are aware this is a significant rulemaking and we 
strongly urge the Agencies to maintain the positive changes that were 
put into place under the Trump Administration's Navigable Waters 
Protection Rule. This Administration must cast aside ideological biases 
and carefully consider how this regulatory action will impact those who 
must live and work under this rule. With all the other crises 
confronting our nation, it makes little sense to unravel a final rule 
that has taken decades of Agency action, litigation, and legislation to 
settle. Instead, we encourage the Administration to focus its attention 
and resources on the more pressing economic and international issues 
confronting our nation such as inflation, the border crisis, the safety 
of our communities, reopening schools, and protecting America from our 
adversaries who seek to do us harm.
    Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
        Sincerely,
Sam Graves,
  Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
David Rouzer,
  Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
GT Thompson,
  Ranking Member, Committee on Agriculture.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers,
  Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Bruce Westerman,
  Ranking Member, Committee on Natural Resources.
Blaine Luetkemeyer,
  Ranking Member, Committee on Small Business.
Kevin McCarthy,
  Republican Leader.
Steve Scalise,
  Republican Whip.
Elise Stefanik,
  Republican Conference Chair.
Tom McClintock,
  Member of Congress.
Louie Gohmert,
  Member of Congress.
Doug Lamborn,
  Member of Congress.
Dan Newhouse,
  Member of Congress.
Kat Cammack,
  Member of Congress.
Clay Higgins,
  Member of Congress.
Mike Rogers,
  Member of Congress.
  
Tim Burchett,
  Member of Congress.
August Pfluger,
  Member of Congress.
Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
  Member of Congress.
Scott Perry,
  Member of Congress.
Bob Gibbs,
  Member of Congress.
Dusty Johnson,
  Member of Congress.
Steve Chabot,
  Member of Congress.
Pete Stauber,
  Member of Congress.
Mike Bost,
  Member of Congress.
Tom Rice,
  Member of Congress.
Beth Van Duyne,
  Member of Congress.
Ann Wagner,
  Member of Congress.
Michael C. Burgess, M.D.,
  Member of Congress.
Jay Obernolte,
  Member of Congress.
Michelle Steel,
  Member of Congress.
Paul Gosar,
  Member of Congress.
Ben Cline,
  Member of Congress.
Rick Allen,
  Member of Congress.
Russ Fulcher,
  Member of Congress.
  
Troy Nehls,
  Member of Congress.
Chris Stewart,
  Member of Congress.
Ashley Hinson,
  Member of Congress.
Greg Pence,
  Member of Congress.
Doug LaMalfa,
  Member of Congress.
Barry Loudermilk,
  Member of Congress.
Don Young,
  Member of Congress.
Jackie Walorski,
  Member of Congress.
Rob Wittman,
  Member of Congress.
Ted Budd,
  Member of Congress.
James R. Baird,
  Member of Congress.
Michael T. McCaul,
  Member of Congress.
Austin Scott,
  Member of Congress.
Liz Cheney,
  Member of Congress.
Jake LaTurner,
  Member of Congress.
John Joyce,
  Member of Congress.
Rodney Davis,
  Member of Congress.
Jodey C. Arrington,
  Member of Congress.
Tom Emmer,
  Member of Congress.
Scott Franklin,
  Member of Congress.
David Kustoff,
  Member of Congress.
Kevin Hern,
  Member of Congress.
Chris Jacobs,
  Member of Congress.
Diana Harshbarger,
  Member of Congress.
Kevin Brady,
  Member of Congress.
Richard Hudson,
  Member of Congress.
Ken Calvert,
  Member of Congress.
Robert Latta,
  Member of Congress.
Daniel Webster,
  Member of Congress.
Pete Sessions,
  Member of Congress.
Tom Cole,
  Member of Congress.
Troy Balderson,
  Member of Congress.
Jeff Duncan,
  Member of Congress.
  
Mo Brooks,
  Member of Congress.
Buddy Carter,
  Member of Congress.
Lauren Boebert,
  Member of Congress.
Matthew Rosendale,
  Member of Congress.
Michael Cloud,
  Member of Congress.
Tracey Mann,
  Member of Congress.
Mike Kelly,
  Member of Congress.
Jerry Carl,
  Member of Congress.
Guy Reschenthaler,
  Member of Congress.
James Comer,
  Member of Congress.
Tom Tiffany,
  Member of Congress.
Julia Letlow,
  Member of Congress.
Mariannette Miller-Meeks,
  Member of Congress.
Vicky Hartzler,
  Member of Congress.
Michelle Fischbach,
  Member of Congress.
Brian Babin,
  Member of Congress.
Cliff Bentz,
  Member of Congress.
Blake Moore,
  Member of Congress.
James Comer,
  Member of Congress.
Glenn Grothman,
  Member of Congress.
Darin LaHood,
  Member of Congress.
Robert Aderholt,
  Member of Congress.
Bill Johnson,
  Member of Congress.
Marjorie Taylor Greene,
  Member of Congress.
Mark Amodei,
  Member of Congress.
Michael Guest,
  Member of Congress.
Jim Hagedorn,
  Member of Congress.
Randy Feenstra,
  Member of Congress.
Gus Bilirakis,
  Member of Congress.
Randy Weber,
  Member of Congress.
Barry Moore,
  Member of Congress.
Debbie Lesko,
  Member of Congress.
Jack Bergman,
  Member of Congress.
  
Adam Kinzinger,
  Member of Congress.
Frank Lucas,
  Member of Congress.
Garret Graves,
  Member of Congress.
Darrell Issa,
  Member of Congress.
William Timmons,
  Member of Congress.
Burgess Owens,
  Member of Congress.
David G. Valadao,
  Member of Congress.
Adrian Smith,
  Member of Congress.
Stephanie Bice,
  Member of Congress.
Mike Gallagher,
  Member of Congress.
David McKinley,
  Member of Congress.
Tim Walberg,
  Member of Congress.
Claudia Tenney,
  Member of Congress.
  
Thomas Massie,
  Member of Congress.
Mark Green,
  Member of Congress.
Bill Posey,
  Member of Congress.
Steve Womack,
  Member of Congress.
Lisa McClain,
  Member of Congress.
Young Kim,
  Member of Congress.
Dan Bishop,
  Member of Congress.
Jim Banks,
  Member of Congress.
Jason Smith,
  Member of Congress.
Chuck Fleischmann,
  Member of Congress.
Andrew Garbarino,
  Member of Congress.
Ralph Norman,
  Member of Congress.

    Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Rouzer.
    And while I agree on some of the points you make, I think 
that the ``dirty water rule'' also affects people, and that is 
my biggest concern. So thank you for your opening statement.
    And now we will proceed to hear from our witnesses who will 
testify here today. Thank you all for being here and welcome.
    On today's panel, we have Assistant Administrator Radhika 
Fox, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, who 
just was named officially Assistant Administrator. 
Congratulations, Ms. Radhika Fox.
    We also have Acting Assistant Administrator Nicole LeBoeuf 
of the National Ocean Service at the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration.
    Also, Mr. Terry Cosby, Chief of the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
    Next, we have Dr. Patrick Breysse, Director of the Agency 
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
    Then our final witness--but not the least--Deputy 
Administrator Craig Middlebrook of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence 
Seaway Development Corporation.
    Without objection, your prepared statements will be entered 
into the record, and all witnesses are asked to limit their 
remarks to 5 minutes.
    Ms. Fox, congratulations again. Welcome, and you may 
proceed.

TESTIMONY OF HON. RADHIKA FOX, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE 
   OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; NICOLE R. 
    LeBOEUF, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEAN 
SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION; TERRY 
 J. COSBY, CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. 
  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; PATRICK N. BREYSSE, Ph.D., CIH, 
 DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND AGENCY 
FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY, CENTERS FOR DISEASE 
  CONTROL AND PREVENTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 
SERVICES; AND CRAIG H. MIDDLEBROOK, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, GREAT 
    LAKES ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, U.S. 
                  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

    Ms. Fox. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking 
Member Rouzer, and members of the Subcommittee on Water 
Resources and Environment.
    I am Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator for Water at the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and I am so grateful for 
the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss EPA's 
$5.2 billion budget request for our national water program.
    This fiscal year 2022 budget request supports key areas of 
investment that will provide safe drinking water and reliable 
wastewater service to support the environment, protect public 
health, and power our great U.S. economy. The budget request 
would give EPA the tools that we need to revitalize our 
Nation's water infrastructure and to support States, Tribes, 
and local partners to achieve our shared goals.
    I often say as I'm walking the halls of EPA, this is 
water's moment, and that is because I truly believe that smart 
and equitable investment in water is central to addressing the 
key challenges facing our Nation: COVID-19, the need for 
economic recovery, climate change, and the call for racial 
justice.
    And that is why the Biden-Harris administration is moving 
quickly in our investments in water infrastructure. For 
example, in the first 100 days of the administration, EPA 
closed more than $1.3 billion in WIFIA loans in multiple 
communities. These investments will generate nearly 9,000 jobs 
and improve water quality for 4 million Americans.
    Additionally, EPA announced the availability of $2.7 
billion for our well-worn, well-run State revolving funds. And 
what is so exciting is that the President's budget request 
would really build on these successes, build on this track 
record. The budget includes $80 million for the WIFIA program, 
$3.3 billion for the SRFs, and $600 million in grants that 
would address the pressing water needs in the diverse 
communities across America.
    With these resources, I believe that EPA could make 
tremendous progress in our mission to protect public health, 
the environment, reduce exposure to harmful contaminants like 
lead and PFAS, while also creating jobs and setting the stage 
for long-term economic development.
    And the potential benefits to communities could be even 
greater with the proposed bipartisan infrastructure framework, 
which proposes a historic $55 billion to enhance EPA's existing 
and successful water infrastructure programs. For example, this 
funding could put plumbers and pipefitters to work, replacing 
100 percent of the Nation's lead service lines so that every 
American can have safe drinking water.
    I can assure you that the Office of Water will do our work 
in a way that recognizes that it is low-income people, rural 
communities, Tribal communities, and communities of color that 
have been disproportionately impacted by water-related 
challenges, whether that is contamination, flooding, 
affordability, or climate stress. We believe we must do right 
by these communities, and that is our focus.
    In terms of tackling the climate crisis, President Biden is 
taking a whole-of-Government approach, and EPA's Office of 
Water is proud to be a part of it. We are working closely with 
our water sector partners to ensure that infrastructure 
investments keep climate and resilience at the forefront while 
also undertaking mitigation efforts that reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions.
    And we are doing all of our work in a way to ensure that 
our regulatory efforts are practical, implementable, durable, 
and informed by the lived experience of all stakeholders who 
are impacted by the decisions that we make at the Office of 
Water.
    Under Administrator Regan's direction, this is an EPA that 
is utilizing sound science, following the rule of law, and 
undertaking rulemaking in close partnership with our State and 
Tribal co-regulators and informed by robust stakeholder 
engagement.
    We are truly an EPA that is about partnership and 
collaboration. For example, none of our shared goals would be 
possible without strong collaboration between the executive and 
the legislative branches, and that is why I am so honored to 
join you today.
    Once again, Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member Rouzer 
and members of the subcommittee, thank you. Thank you very much 
for the opportunity to join you today, and I very much look 
forward to your questions and the discussion.
    [Ms. Fox's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
Prepared Statement of Hon. Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator, Office 
             of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Thank you, Chairman Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer, and members 
of the Subcommittee.
    I am Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator for the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Water. I am 
grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss 
EPA's budget request for water programs for Fiscal Year 2022. The 
National Water Program's FY 2022 President's Budget is $5.2 billion of 
EPA's total $11.2 billion request. This budget request supports key 
areas of investment that will help provide safe water for drinking, 
reliable wastewater service, and power our great economy by giving EPA 
the tools necessary to revitalize our nation's water infrastructure, to 
work with states, Tribes, and local partners, and to ground equity and 
climate into all of our work. Water is central to addressing the key 
challenges facing our nation--from COVID-19 to economic recovery, 
climate change, and equity.
    The Biden-Harris Administration is moving quickly to support our 
state and local partners and to invest in needed water infrastructure. 
In the first 100 days of the Administration, EPA closed more than $1.3 
billion in job-creating Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act 
(WIFIA) loans to multiple communities, which will support total project 
investments of over $2.6 billion. These investments will generate 
nearly 9,000 jobs and improve water quality for nearly 4 million 
people. Additionally, in April of this year EPA announced the 
availability of a further $6.5 billion in water infrastructure funding 
under the WIFIA and state infrastructure financing authority WIFIA 
(SWIFIA) program, which is estimated to create an additional 40,000 
jobs. In March 2021, EPA announced the availability of $2.7 billion for 
State Revolving Funds (SRFs) to assist states, Tribes, and territories 
with infrastructure projects that help provide safe drinking water and 
protect surface waters in communities across the United States. The FY 
2022 President's Budget requests $3.3 billion for State Revolving Funds 
(SRFs) to assists states, Tribes, and territories. The FY 2022 
President's Budget requests $80 million for the WIFIA program to unlock 
more affordable credit to communities and create jobs by rebuilding and 
repairing our nation's water infrastructure. The FY 2022 President's 
Budget also requests $600 million for drinking water and wastewater 
grants including the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation 
Act (WIIN Act) grant programs and the Innovative Water Infrastructure 
Workforce Development grant program.
    In collaboration with its state and local partners, EPA has 
demonstrated that investing in water infrastructure provides multiple 
benefits to communities. Through water infrastructure, we can improve 
public health and environmental protection by reducing exposure to 
harmful contaminants like lead and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances 
(PFAS), while creating jobs and setting the stage for long-term 
economic development. With strategic partnerships and community 
leadership, water infrastructure can address key challenges facing 
communities.
    This experience underscores the community benefits that can be 
created by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework, which represents 
the largest water infrastructure investment in American history. The 
proposed $55 billion would be used to enhance EPA's existing and 
successful water infrastructure programs to meet significant water 
infrastructure investment needs. For example, the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Framework would invest in needed water infrastructure 
upgrades across the country to support our wastewater systems, reduce 
pollution that affects the environment and public health, bolster 
climate resiliency, and address contaminants such as PFAS. This funding 
will also put plumbers and pipefitters to work, replacing 100 percent 
of the nation's lead pipes and service lines so every American can turn 
on a faucet or a fountain and drink clean water.
    Under the Biden-Harris Administration and Administrator Regan's 
leadership, the Agency is embedding equity into everything it does. We 
must ground our actions in the understanding that low-income people, 
Tribes, rural communities, and communities of color are 
disproportionately impacted by water related challenges--from 
contaminated water resources to flooding to climate stress. For the 
first time in FY 2021, funding for our WIFIA program will prioritize 
projects that benefit disadvantaged communities. This priority shows 
EPA's commitment to public health, equity, and affordability for our 
highly successful WIFIA program. Affordability is another challenge the 
water sector must navigate, and EPA is currently assisting the 
Department of Health and Human Services in the design of a $600 million 
water rate assistance program for low-income communities.
    Embedding equity into our investments and rulemaking is also 
essential to our response to the climate crisis. Communities of color, 
Tribes, rural communities, and low-income people disproportionately 
feel climate stress in the form of drought, flooding, heat islands, 
invasive species, and sea level rise. President Biden is committed to 
making progress on climate through whole-of-government solutions. He 
called for cutting greenhouse gases and highlighted how critical 
infrastructure investments can create more resilient water systems, 
generate jobs, and produce innovative clean technology. The Office of 
Water will work with the water sector to ensure that infrastructure 
investments keep climate and resiliency at the forefront, play a key 
role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and mitigate the impact of 
climate change on communities. This call to action is essential and 
long overdue and will help protect our communities from the worst 
threats of climate change including unprecedented super storms, floods, 
and droughts. In 2020 alone, we saw how damaging climate disasters can 
be with 22 separate weather events that cost $95 billion in damaged 
homes, businesses, and infrastructure. Investments in water 
infrastructure can help to reduce the impacts of severe climate 
disasters and ensure our systems are resilient to the challenges these 
events present. Making our infrastructure more robust is key to 
securing better opportunities and outcomes for our nation.
    We are also working to ensure that our regulatory efforts protect 
the health of the American people. In order to achieve this goal, the 
Agency will utilize sound science, follow the rule of law, and 
undertake our regulatory rulemaking in a manner that is transparent, 
grounded in partnership with our co-regulators in the states and 
Tribes, and informed by robust stakeholder engagement. We intend to do 
this with the goal of developing durable policies across the Office of 
Water, including the Lead and Copper Rule, definition of Waters of the 
United States, Clean Water Act section 401, and actions on PFAS.
    Our ability to achieve these bold goals will be determined by the 
strength of our partnerships. None of these goals will be possible 
without strong collaboration between the Executive and Legislative 
branches. That is why I am so honored to join you today. Once again, 
Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the FY 2022 
President's Budget for the EPA's National Water Program. I look forward 
to answering any questions you may have.

    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Ms. Fox. That was 
tremendous.
    Mr. LeBoeuf [sic], you are next. You may proceed.
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking 
Member Rouzer, and members of the subcommittee, for this 
opportunity to testify today.
    I am Nicole LeBoeuf, NOAA's Assistant Administrator for 
Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management. My statement will 
offer highlights of NOAA's fiscal year 2022 proposed budget, 
illustrating that investing in NOAA is more important than ever 
before as we turn our attention to the threat of climate 
change.
    NOAA's ability to understand and predict our changing 
planet is essential to communities around the country that are 
impacted by extreme events like hurricanes, floods, droughts, 
and wildfires, as well as the chronic impacts of heat waves and 
sea level rise.
    In 2020 alone, there were 22 environmental disasters in the 
United States, each with economic losses exceeding $1 billion. 
So it is fitting that a subcommittee that resides within the 
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is requesting 
today's hearing. NOAA's climate data tools and services are 
fundamental to sustaining our Nation's transportation, 
military, supply chain, and other built infrastructure 
essential to our economic prosperity and our very way of life.
    From the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, 
NOAA's mission, not just to understand our Earth systems but to 
deliver services and decision support, makes NOAA uniquely 
capable of helping our Nation build infrastructure that is 
resilient to the impacts of a changing climate.
    From safeguarding our coastal military installations from 
the effects of sea level rise and utilizing nature-based 
infrastructure in highway planning to assisting emergency 
responders to create more disaster-resilient communities, the 
American people need NOAA's data and tools more than ever.
    Beyond infrastructure, NOAA is being increasingly called 
upon by private industry and the public to provide a wide range 
of fundamental climate services and decision support. Through 
investments and research, observations and forecasting, 
restoration and resilience, and equitable delivery of services, 
in fiscal year 2022, NOAA will deliver new and improved climate 
tools, products, and services to decisionmakers, communities, 
businesses, and the public.
    In fiscal year 2022, NOAA requests $1.5 billion over fiscal 
year 2021 enacted levels, over half of which--$855 million--to 
specifically expand climate research, support regional and 
local decisionmaking, and help the most vulnerable communities 
prepare for climate change.
    NOAA is requesting an increase of $149.3 million to improve 
our understanding of climate change on time scales from weeks 
to several decades, enhancing our ability to predict 
precipitation, drought, and the impacts of climate change on 
fisheries, farms, protected species, and other living marine 
resources.
    In fiscal year 2022, NOAA's request includes an increase of 
$368.2 million to upgrade our ocean and coastal observing 
systems and to better integrate NOAA's marine navigation, 
weather, and environmental information into public- and 
private-sector decisionmaking.
    Building on our world-class weather predictions, NOAA 
proposes to build a seasonal forecast system to better inform 
regional and local adaptation and planning for nature-based 
infrastructure, food production, finance and national security.
    NOAA seeks to improve short-term forecasts, to include fire 
weather prediction and longer term modeling of climate 
variability to better understand the interrelatedness between 
wildfires, weather, and climate change.
    Along the coast and in the ocean, where conditions are 
changing rapidly, NOAA proposes to enhance core services, such 
as measuring sea level rise, to help decisionmakers safeguard 
the well-being of coastal communities.
    NOAA seeks to expand longstanding programs, like the 
National Sea Grant College Program and NOAA's Coastal Zone 
Management Program, to help local communities by empowering 
NOAA's partners with on-the-ground expertise.
    NOAA is requesting an increase of $259.3 million for 
ecological restoration and community resilience, including 
through research on blue carbon sequestration, in places that 
provide fish habitat, storm and erosion protection, and water 
quality improvements.
    Investments in the National Marine Sanctuaries and the 
National Estuarine Research Reserve Systems, as well as the 
National Coastal Resilience Fund, will engage communities, 
provide employment, and generate a wide array of economic and 
climate resilience cobenefits.
    In pursuit of climate solutions and economic prosperity, 
NOAA proposes an increase of $20.4 million to support offshore 
wind development so that Americans may expand clean energy 
usage while protecting marine resources, fisheries, and other 
important ocean activities.
    And NOAA is requesting $57.9 million to improve our 
equitable delivery of climate services to help vulnerable 
communities prepare for extreme weather and climate disasters.
    Measuring and predicting climate change impacts are core to 
NOAA's mission, as is delivering climate solutions to all 
Americans. We welcome the opportunity to work with you so that 
NOAA's delivery of climate science and services may be more 
fully deployed to meet the needs of our Nation in preparing for 
the impacts of climate change.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [Ms. LeBoeuf's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
       Prepared Statement of Nicole R. LeBoeuf, Acting Assistant 
Administrator, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
                             Administration
    Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the 
President's FY 2022 budget request. The Department of Commerce's 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) appreciates the 
continued support of Congress, the Administration, and our broad and 
diverse base of stakeholders.
    For FY 2022, NOAA proposes a budget of $6,983,329,000 in 
discretionary appropriations, an increase of $1,543,531,000 from FY 
2021 Enacted. This budget supports NOAA's goal of scaling up efforts to 
research and mitigate impacts of the climate crisis through investments 
in NOAA's data, tools, and services including research, observations 
and forecasting, restoration and resilience, ecologically sound 
offshore wind development, and equity at NOAA through programs that 
touch everyday lives. It also includes additional investments in fleet 
support and satellites to ensure the continuity of vital observations, 
and space weather observations and prediction services to protect 
critical infrastructure that provides the backbone of this country's 
economic vitality and national security.
                                Climate
    The atmosphere, ocean, water, and land ecosystems all show 
indicators of a warming and changing climate. To persist and thrive in 
this changing world, the Nation must make well-informed choices and 
embrace solutions that pave the way for a viable economy and the 
sustainable infrastructure to support it.
    Communities around the country are struggling with the effects of 
extreme events like hurricanes, floods, droughts, wildfires, heat 
waves, and fisheries collapse. In 2020, there were 22 weather and 
climate disaster events in the United States that each had losses 
exceeding $1 billion.\1\ The 2020 wildfires in California--the worst in 
the state's history--are a paramount example of the environmental and 
socio-economic devastation that environmental events can wreak on 
communities, businesses, and the environment. NOAA's FY 2022 budget 
requests an additional $855.1 million over enacted levels to help meet 
the Administration's climate science goals, including implementation of 
Executive Order (EO) 14008 on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and 
Abroad, by expanding investments in climate research, supporting 
regional and local decision making with climate data, tools, and 
services, and helping the most vulnerable communities improve 
adaptation, mitigation, and resilience to climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, U.S. 2020 
Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters, (2020), https://
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For over 50 years, NOAA has provided science, service and 
stewardship to the nation. NOAA develops actionable climate science and 
information needed to help solve the climate crisis. NOAA leverages 
diverse authorities for climate, weather, fisheries, coasts, and the 
ocean; huge stores of environmental data and observations; world-
renowned expertise; and networks of public, private, and academic 
partnerships to co-develop and deliver the most up-to-date knowledge 
and actionable products to meet the needs of decision makers. This 
information is critical to resilience-building, national security, and 
economic vitality; the protection of life and property; the sustainable 
use of our resources; and the preservation and resilience of our 
natural environment. From sun to sea, NOAA takes a comprehensive earth 
system approach.
    Through the following targeted investments to support an integrated 
approach to the climate crisis, NOAA will be on track to develop and 
deliver new and improved climate tools and products that provide useful 
climate information and services to decision makers, communities, 
businesses, and the public, including:

      Research: NOAA will strengthen core research capabilities 
Foundational research will improve products and services and will help 
communities prepare for and adapt to impacts of extreme weather and 
climate events that have become more frequent and costly in recent 
decades.

      Observations and Forecasting: NOAA will expand its delivery of 
the best-available climate observations and information (physical, 
biological, social, economic assessments, predictions and projections) 
to understand, mitigate, prepare for, and adapt to future conditions, 
especially in frontline and underserved communities that are 
disproportionately vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

      Restoration and Resilience: NOAA will invest in ecological 
restoration and community resilience, and address an increasing demand 
for NOAA's science and services needed to enhance natural and 
socioeconomic resilience of our ocean and coasts through our expertise, 
robust on-the-ground partnerships, and place-based conservation 
activities. NOAA will support the Administration's goal to conserve at 
least 30 percent of the Nation's lands and waters by 2030, collaborate 
with the new Civilian Climate Corps, and coordinate with partners on 
other related whole-of-government initiatives.

      Offshore Wind: NOAA will further the Administration's goal to 
deploy 30 gigawatts of offshore wind in the U.S. by 2030, while 
protecting biodiversity and promoting ocean co-use.

      Equity: NOAA will enhance its consideration of equity dimensions 
across the organization, from management, to policies, to service 
delivery. NOAA will cultivate a more diverse, climate-ready workforce 
of the future that builds upon NOAA's long history of investments in 
graduate and postgraduate training, fellowships, and extension 
programs.

    Collectively, these investments will support our efforts to build 
resilient communities, economies, businesses, and ecosystems.
Research
    NOAA science plays a critical role in informing the Nation and the 
world about current and projected changes in the climate system. 
Standing on the firm foundation of world-class earth system and climate 
science, NOAA provides data, tools, and services that reach every 
American every day.
    To strengthen core research capabilities to respond to increasing 
demand for the data, tools, and services that this research provides, 
NOAA is requesting an increase of $149.3 million. We will improve 
understanding of climate change on time scales from weeks, to decades, 
to centuries. We will build on this understanding to improve 
precipitation, fire weather, and sea level rise forecasts, and identify 
impacts of climate change on fisheries, protected species, and living 
marine resources to improve management. Of these funds, NOAA will 
commit $40 million to the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Climate 
(ARPA-C), harnessing NOAA's restoration and conservation efforts to 
help sequester carbon while also protecting marine ecosystem diversity.
    NOAA will research the ways in which our ocean influences, and is 
influenced by, climate change. For example, the total amount of excess 
heat absorbed by the ocean, or how the ocean's role as a sink for 
anthropogenic carbon will change over time are still not fully 
quantified. It is imperative that NOAA dedicates research towards 
understanding and projecting coastal inundation from rising seas, high 
lake levels, heavier precipitation, shrinking sea ice, and more 
frequent extreme weather events associated with our warming climate.
    NOAA will invest additional resources to improve predictions and 
projections in a research environment. In particular, NOAA will improve 
precipitation predictions across weather and climate timescales for 
transition to operations through the Precipitation Prediction Grand 
Challenge Initiative. This is a cross-NOAA effort to advance 
subseasonal-to-seasonal and seasonal-to-decadal forecasts, and will be 
conducted in collaboration with our academic research partners, and 
will include more skillful precipitation forecasts using NOAA's Unified 
Forecast System. In addition, NOAA will develop a global high-
resolution model to improve the understanding and prediction of extreme 
events.
    As we increase our understanding of the changing climate in the 
short and long term, we will simultaneously research and develop new 
and improved tools for decision makers to address extreme impacts such 
as sea level rise, fire weather, and impacts on living marine 
resources. NOAA will enhance our Effects of Sea Level Rise (ESLR) 
extramural grant program in partnership with the Department of 
Transportation, to support research that informs adaptation planning 
and coastal management decisions in response to sea-level rise, 
flooding, and inundation threats, including evaluation of nature-based 
solutions for enhancing the resilience of coastal transportation 
infrastructure. NOAA also proposes an increase to develop a 
collaborative and integrated fire weather research program to enable 
new research into the coupled modeling for both the short-term fire-
atmosphere and sub-seasonal to climate-scale modeling systems.
    Our research will address the needs of sustaining a healthy ``blue 
economy,'' which includes tourism, recreation, commercial fishing, 
renewable energy, and more. Last year the Bureau of Economic Analysis, 
in partnership with NOAA, released initial findings showing that the 
U.S. marine economy contributed about $373 billion to the Nation's 
gross domestic product in 2018 and grew faster than the nation's 
economy as a whole.\2\ The NOAA Climate and Fisheries Initiative will 
significantly increase fisheries surveys, sampling, and analysis 
capabilities to deliver information on the changing distribution and 
abundance of commercial and recreationally valuable species due to 
climate change so that decision makers can determine best management 
strategies. In addition, NOAA will build a national ocean/ecosystem 
modeling and prediction system spanning U.S. coastal waters, the 
Arctic, and the Great Lakes, leveraging its global climate modeling 
system. This research will develop tools for decision makers to prepare 
for changing conditions in the ocean and Great Lakes, reduce climate 
impacts, and increase the resilience of all living marine and Great 
Lakes resources and the communities that depend on them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Bureau of Economic Analysis and NOAA, Ocean Economy. (2020), 
https://www.bea.gov/data/special-topics/ocean-economy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Through the ARPA-C initiative, NOAA will pioneer research on blue 
carbon, carbon stored in ocean and coastal ecosystems, and factors that 
influence sequestration. This will lead to a better understanding of 
the effectiveness of certain climate mitigation strategies, such as 
different renewable energy choices and the role of coastal and ocean 
ecosystems, including in National Marine Sanctuaries and National 
Estuarine Research Reserves in carbon sequestration.
    NOAA's data are critical for every Federal agency that seeks to 
better understand the impacts of climate change on their specific 
mission. To ensure these data are actionable, NOAA convenes and works 
directly with other Federal agencies to produce climate science and to 
support the agencies who need to use our science within their missions. 
One of the primary interagency collaborations is through the U.S. 
Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), under which NOAA co-leads the 
quadrennial National Climate Assessment and multiple interagency 
working groups focused on adaptation and resilience, international 
collaboration, climate and human health, sustained assessments, and the 
social sciences of climate and global change.
Observations and Forecasting
    Measuring and predicting climate change impacts are core to NOAA's 
mission. NOAA proposes a $368.2 million budget increase to enhance and 
improve climate observationsand forecasting to assist the Nation to 
become safer and more resilient under a changing climate.
    NOAA provides timely, actionable access to global, national, 
regional, and local environmental data from satellites, radar, surface 
systems, atmospheric greenhouse gas sampling stations, ocean buoys, 
uncrewed systems, aircraft, and ships. In FY 2022, NOAA will continue 
to invest in these platforms to meet the increasing demand for 
observations. We will continue tracking marine ecosystem conditions to 
provide critical information for marine industries like fisheries, 
shipping, and offshore wind. We will also continue to track local 
environmental conditions that inform farming, forestry, building and 
construction, resource planning, disaster preparedness, and more. 
NOAA's local weather stations, climate monitoring stations, and 
research facilities across the country will continue to maintain long-
standing climate records, such as temperature and rainfall 
observations, taken by experts and community scientists. These records 
are made publicly available and used to prepare, plan, and execute 
critical decisions at the local level. NOAA uses these data to 
establish a baseline normal state against which to compare new 
environmental states over time.
    NOAA's ocean observing system is the basis for forecasting both 
natural climate variability, as well as the impacts of long-term 
climate change on our ocean resources and on ocean patterns that, in 
turn, drive our weather. The FY 2022 request will allow NOAA to begin 
addressing gaps that can be filled to improve forecasts. NOAA provides 
more than 50% of global in-situ ocean observing through our Argo and 
Tropical Pacific Observing System, to help us monitor the changing 
ocean environment. Enhancement and reconfiguration of the existing 
Tropical Atmosphere Ocean (TAO) moored array, implementation of the 
Tropical Pacific Observing System (TPOS) backbone observations, and 
calibrations of the radiation sensors across the observing network are 
essential to improving NOAA's climate forecast capabilities. These 
observations, supported by uncrewed platforms like ocean gliders, are 
also essential to describing the present state of the ocean, detecting 
long-term changes, and providing necessary operational weather, marine, 
and climate services worldwide.
    The FY 2022 request will allow NOAA to support and maintain long-
term atmospheric observations, which serve as a baseline and record of 
trends for the release and sequestration of carbon dioxide, methane, 
other important greenhouse gases, and other atmospheric aerosols and 
particles that affect climate, weather, and human health. NOAA will 
invest in our fleet of aircraft to continue to monitor long-term 
atmospheric and climate change trends. We will complete the acquisition 
of the G-550, which improves hurricane forecasting approximately 15-
25%. We will also conduct critical maintenance on our two P-3 Hurricane 
Hunter aircraft, which have unique airborne data collection tools.
    One of the greatest forecasting challenges facing NOAA is the need 
to improve precipitation forecasts across timescales from weather to 
climate. Related, there is a critical need for improved projections of 
how the climate will change on more granular, regional scales and over 
the next several decades. Investments to fully develop a Seasonal 
Forecast System will improve climate projections on these scales to 
better inform regional and local adaptation and resiliency planning for 
infrastructure, natural resource management, food production, finance, 
national security, and other sectors. Wildfires are influenced by the 
weather and climate, and the weather and climate are influenced by 
wildfires. Of particular interest to NOAA in FY 2022 are the 
opportunities to improve fire weather and smoke management forecasting. 
NOAA will work to improve short-term forecasts to better predict fire 
behavior and the longer-term modeling of interactions between climate 
variability, climate change, and the likelihood of hazardous wildfire 
conditions. Tools will be developed in concert with the U.S. Forest 
Service, the Department of the Interior, and relevant Tribal 
organizations.
    Looking beyond the interior to the coast, investments in improved 
precipitation forecasts, a modernization of water level and land height 
observations, and a completion of the operational coastal oceanographic 
modeling system will together provide real-time inundation alerts, 
high-tide flooding outlooks, and long-term sea level trends. NOAA will 
convey this information using a Next-Generation Coastal Inundation 
Dashboard to allow coastal decision makers to evaluate flood risk at a 
local level and varying timescales.
    NOAA's weather and climate predictions and information must be 
reliably delivered to users to impact decision making. The FY 2022 
request includes a critical investment in the NWS Integrated 
Dissemination Program plan to address reliability and capacity issues 
necessary to ensure the provision of weather and climate forecasts and 
warnings to the public, emergency management partners, and the U.S. 
weather and climate enterprise. NOAA will invest in dissemination of 
rapidly increasing open data with the establishment of a NOAA Cloud 
Program to streamline and accelerate the transition of all NOAA mission 
areas to the cloud. This, in conjunction with the evolution of NOAA's 
Open Data Dissemination, will provide worldwide cloud access to NOAA 
climate and earth system dynamics data crucial to improve climate 
modeling. NOAA will work with data users to ensure they have access to 
the data necessary to better understand and decrease climate risks. 
NOAA must also invest in the transition of legacy telecommunications 
infrastructure to the government-wide Enterprise Infrastructure 
Solutions contract, which will adopt modern technologies and a service-
based approach. This modernization effort will support all of the 
observing and forecasting efforts described above.
Restoration and Resilience
    Forty percent of the U.S. population live and work in coastal 
counties,\3\ making a disproportionate segment of our society and 
economy at increasing risk from such hazards as hurricanes and coastal 
inundation. Therefore, NOAA is requesting $259.3 million in FY 2022 for 
investments in ecological restoration and community resilience that are 
integral to NOAA's climate strategy. There is an increasing need for 
NOAA to create and foster natural and economic resilience along our 
coasts through direct financial support, expertise, robust, on-the-
ground partnerships, and place-based conservation activities. These 
activities would also support the Administration's efforts to conserve 
at least 30 percent of the Nation's lands and waters by 2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ NOAA Office of Coastal Management and U.S. Census Bureau, 
American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates. (2017), https://
coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/acs.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Grants in the FY 2022 request will help states, Tribes, and other 
landowners plan and implement habitat conservation and restoration 
projects, including for candidate, proposed, and ESA-listed species, 
increasing habitat acres restored by over 60 percent. Healthy coastal 
habitats, such as marshes and coral reefs, protect ecosystems, 
shorelines, and communities from waves, storms, and floods, and help to 
prevent loss of life, property damage, and erosion. They also are a key 
source of livelihoods, through tourism and fishing. In addition, 
restoration activities and the construction of natural infrastructure 
employs construction workers, engineers, ecologists, project managers, 
and heavy-equipment operators, and generates a wide array of economic 
co-benefits. A 2020 reexamination confirmed an initial assessment that 
a $10 million investment in ecological restoration of Michigan's 
Muskegon Lake in 2011, would power up the local economy by 
approximately $60 million through increased home prices and 
recreational visits.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Grand Valley State University, Muskegon Lake Area of Concern 
Habitat Restoration Project: Socio-Economic Assessment Revisited, 
(2020), https://www.glc.org/wp-content/uploads/Habitat-socioeconomic-
Study-July-2020.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NOAA will work with partners to foster resilience of coastal 
ecosystems and the communities that depend on them. NOAA requests funds 
to expand the National Coastal Resilience Fund to help coastal 
communities and ecosystems prepare for and recover from extreme weather 
events, climate hazards, and changing ocean conditions. NOAA also will 
enhance the National Coastal Zone Management Program for coastal states 
and territories to support community adaptation efforts, including a 
focus on underserved communities disproportionately vulnerable to 
hazards. With funding requested in FY 2022, NOAA will remove marine 
debris, increasing such removal by 60 percent, and foster public 
awareness of the effects of marine debris. NOAA will continue to 
partner with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation through the 
Fishing for Energy program to provide funding support to commercial 
fishermen to aid removal, disposal, and prevention of derelict fishing 
gear and plastic found at sea and aid in economic recovery for this 
sector.
    NOAA will support endangered and threatened marine species through 
the U.S. Marine Biodiversity Observation Network, to support ecosystem-
based management of commercially harvested species through advanced 
biological observing, modeling, and other innovative tools to inform 
adaptation strategies. NOAA will combat stony coral tissue loss 
disease, an especially lethal disease first reported in 2014 that 
spreads rapidly, causing high coral mortality. NOAA will build capacity 
for disease detection, prevention, and response efforts, and engage 
partners, coral reef managers, and regional fisheries managers.
    NOAA's active engagement and partnerships with regional users and 
climate service delivery providers facilitate the uptake and 
application of NOAA's authoritative information. NOAA's National Sea 
Grant College Program will increase coastal community understanding of 
climate risk factors, develop key decision tools, and address critical 
knowledge gaps for coastal communities. NOAA's Regional Integrated 
Sciences and Assessments (RISA) program will work with communities to 
co-produce and operationalize lasting and equitable climate resilience 
plans in 50 cities around the Nation, prioritizing underserved 
communities particularly vulnerable to a changing climate. NOAA will 
improve response readiness in preparation for more emergency events 
through an investment in our Office of Response and Restoration. This 
will strengthen the national capacity to respond to emergency events by 
addressing internal and external preparedness gaps, investing in more 
efficient response equipment, and initiating a nationwide refresh of 
the Environmental Sensitivity Index to ensure an accurate understanding 
of the baseline for timely decisions during a disaster.
    NOAA's FY 2022 request supports locally-driven management decisions 
regarding NOAA trust resources through increased engagement with 
partners, underrepresented communities, Tribes, and local indigenous 
groups to strengthen conservation outcomes. For example, in National 
Marine Sanctuaries, NOAA will double climate vulnerability assessments, 
promote climate resilience, and enhance work with states and local 
communities to achieve on-the-ground conservation goals. NOAA will also 
provide enhanced technical support and increased capacity within the 
National Estuarine Research Reserve System to further the benefits of 
blue carbon, to monitor marsh resilience to sea level rise, and to 
identify conservation corridors and habitat gaps for conservation and 
restoration planning. NOAA will convene technical experts, decision 
makers, and stakeholders to ensure that coastal adaptation investments 
are science-based, community-driven, and offer equitable solutions, 
making communities and the environment more resilient to climate 
impacts.
Offshore Wind
    Offshore wind development is rapidly expanding in the United 
States, particularly in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, and is being 
considered along the Gulf and West Coasts as well. This represents a 
relatively new use of our marine waters and will require scientific and 
regulatory review to balance energy production with protecting marine 
resources and fisheries production. NOAA will continue to work closely 
with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to minimize the 
effects of offshore energy projects on protected resources, fisheries, 
and important habitats in the region; avoid delays and minimize adverse 
economic impacts to the fishing industry and related coastal 
communities; and mitigate impacts to fisheries surveys in the Northeast 
and Mid-Atlantic. NOAA is requesting a total of $20.4 million in four 
complementary areas to enhance interagency engagement, siting, and 
permitting of offshore energy projects to minimize impacts on our trust 
resources and constituencies: 1) Offshore energy assessment and 
scientific advice to support the regulatory process; 2) dedicated 
resources for offshore energy assessment related to protected 
resources; 3) increased support for environmental assessments and 
consultations with BOEM; and 4) development of new fisheries survey 
design and methods to address anticipated changes in habitats around 
offshore wind developments. Working in partnership with BOEM and other 
relevant agencies, these funds will support NOAA's role in achieving 
the Administration's goal to deploy 30 GW of offshore wind in the U.S. 
by 2030, while protecting biodiversity and promoting ocean co-use.
Equity
    The Biden Administration policies, including those described in EO 
13985 on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved 
Communities Through the Federal Government, make it clear that agencies 
will integrate equity dimensions into the DNA of their organizations--
from management, to policies, to service-delivery. Underserved 
communities are especially vulnerable to weather, water, and climate 
events, with large disasters posing public health and safety risks and 
causing poverty rates to increase.\5\ In FY 2022, NOAA requests $57.9 
million to develop a framework to lay the foundation for successfully 
integrating equity considerations throughout the organization. This 
will position NOAA to help vulnerable communities better prepare for 
and respond to extreme weather and climate disasters. For example, in 
many localities whose budgets have already been constrained by the 
pandemic, major storms cause local revenues to fall by 6% to 7%, with 
that figure two times greater for municipalities with a significant 
racial minority population.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Hallegatte, S., Vogt-Schilb, A., Rozenberg, J., Bangalore, M., 
& Beaudet, C. (2020). From poverty to disaster and back: A review of 
the literature. Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, 4(1), 223-
247.
    \6\ Rhiannon Jerch & Matthew E. Kahn & Gary C. Lin, Local Public 
Finance Dynamics and Hurricane Shocks, (NBER Working Papers 28050, 
2020, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. 2020)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This effort includes investing in NOAA's internal capacity to 
better respond to the needs of vulnerable populations, assessing key 
services to identify and address barriers to access to all Americans, 
funding targeted investments in historically underserved communities, 
and enhancing NOAA's capabilities, such as the Drought Portal and the 
Sea Level Rise Viewer. NOAA's concrete goals will be responsive to 
promoting equitable delivery of government benefits and equitable 
opportunities as outlined in EO 13985 and provide an action plan to 
make service delivery more equitable. This includes delivering Spanish-
language translation of weather information from NWS offices and 
enhancing Tribal consultation on substantive policy matters with at 
least 30% of federally recognized Tribes in FY 2022. NOAA will also 
establish a NOAA Climate Cooperative Science Center as part of the Jose 
E. Serrano Educational Partnership Program with Minority Serving 
Institutions (EPP/MSI) to train post-secondary students in climate 
science. NOAA will modify award-winning Digital Coast tools and 
products to make them more accessible and conduct more robust 
engagement with underserved and vulnerable coastal communities. The 
National Sea Grant College Program will also increase, in FY 2022, the 
number of Sea Grant tools, products, and information services that are 
used to advance environmental literacy and workforce development 
services for underserved communities.
    NOAA also seeks to strengthen equity efforts internally to 
accelerate efforts to attract, retain, and develop talent, including 
from diverse backgrounds. NOAA will enhance recruitment programs and 
communication tools to support STEM recruitment efforts from 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other MSIs. NOAA will 
also leverage these institutions through more tailored recruitment in 
the NOAA Corps recruitment, and the IT Fellowship Program. NOAA will 
accelerate implementation of the Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan 
and training and outreach for staff, supervisors, and leaders. These 
investments in supporting equity in our current and prospective 
workforce will allow NOAA to leverage diversity to provide better 
services to all Americans.
            Fleet
    The FY 2022 request includes significant investments for NOAA's 
observational infrastructure, such as the NOAA fleet, a key component 
of the NOAA mission. NOAA drives the Nation's economy, protects and 
creates better opportunities for the American public, and responds to 
climate-induced impacts with products and services firmly rooted in 
data. These data depend on NOAA's fleet of 15 ships. The $5.4 trillion 
and 31 million jobs that pass through our Nation's ports,\7\ the $244.1 
billion in sales and 1.74 million jobs connected to the Nation's 
fisheries,\8\ and resiliency and prosperity of coastal communities all 
use data from NOAA ships. NOAA's detailed recapitalization plan and 
transformational maintenance strategy is a targeted approach to provide 
the Nation the most effective at-sea data. NOAA has made significant 
advancements in reliability and capabilities and, in turn, increased 
the days at sea available to support national requirements for data 
collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Martin Associates for the American Association of Port 
Authorities, 2018 National Economic Impact of the U.S. Coastal Port 
System, Spring Conference 2019, http://www.aapa-ports.org.
    \8\ NOAA, Fisheries Economics of the United States, Economic Impact 
Trends, 2017, (2017) https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
sustainable-fisheries/fisheries-economics-united-states
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In FY 2022, NOAA requests $101 million to support mid-life 
maintenance on the NOAA Ship Ronald H. Brown and to construct the 
Southeast Marine Operations Hub to replace Pier Romeo in Charleston, 
South Carolina, which is the homeport for the Brown and NOAA Ship Nancy 
Foster. The Brown, NOAA's largest oceanographic research vessel, 
collects oceanographic and atmospheric data worldwide in direct support 
of NOAA's climate missions, including data from buoys that drive 
accurate weather forecasts and climate models and ocean acidification 
data that informs global carbon models. Upon completion of maintenance, 
the Brown's expected life span will increase to provide 15 more years 
of reliable and highly capable support for at-sea data collection.
            Satellites
    The FY 2022 request also includes significant investments for 
NOAA's observational infrastructure, such as NOAA satellites, a key 
component of the NOAA mission. NOAA is committed to a flat $2.0 billion 
budget for the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information 
Service (NESDIS) starting in FY 2022 with no outyear increases other 
than government-wide inflation assumptions. The FY 2022 budget request 
underscores NOAA's commitment to making crucial, time-sensitive 
investments to ensure that the Nation's next-generation satellite 
systems not only improve capabilities, but that they also expand 
delivery of essential climate, weather, atmospheric, and oceanographic 
information to meet the needs of the American public. In support of EO 
14008, the FY 2022 budget will help NOAA better observe environmental 
phenomena, including greenhouse gas measurement, connected to climate 
change-related impacts and patterns, and deliver products, information, 
and climate services to inform decision makers.
    The value of NOAA's data is dependent on users' ability to access 
and apply it. The FY 2022 budget supports much-needed improvements to 
NOAA's data infrastructure that will ensure that the data collected are 
preserved for the future and can be easily accessed in a cloud-based 
environment. This includes funding to transition NOAA to cloud 
computing for data ingest, processing, dissemination, and archiving, 
which will expand the size and diversity of NOAA user communities and 
data applications.
    For decades, the U.S. government was alone in developing Earth 
observing satellites on behalf of the Nation. Now the government is 
joined by U.S. companies in the midst of another space race--a race to 
deploy constellations of satellites for communications and 
connectivity. The growth of the U.S. space industry has created new 
opportunities for Federal agencies like NOAA. Plus, there are more 
sophisticated commercial technologies and capabilities available than 
ever before to advance NOAA's national mission. NOAA will initiate 
development of the next generation of cutting-edge earth observing 
instruments to continue leading the world in this critical science and 
technology field, setting the global standards for such observations.
    NOAA's current constellation has proven its worth and will continue 
to do so for close to another decade. While robust, NOAA must invest in 
the development of the next generation of environmental satellites with 
the needs of all of our communities in mind. Today's funding for future 
geostationary, low earth orbit, and space weather observations will 
ensure critical data continuity from legacy systems, while providing 
significant improvements in data and products that the U.S. requires to 
meet complex societal and environmental needs. Our program investments 
also allow us to immediately exploit the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA)'s research satellite observations for NOAA 
requirements and to integrate critical research observations into 
NOAA's operational mission.
    With advances in technology, NOAA can build a more capable and 
efficient observing system, one that supports our vision to create an 
integrated, digital understanding of our Earth environment, that can 
evolve quickly to help our communities adapt and thrive, and maintain a 
stable and predictable budget path that avoids outyear cost growth 
which creates risk to both NESDIS as well as other NOAA priorities. 
This observing system, composed of satellites deployed by NOAA and our 
partners in Earth observations, including NASA, the Department of 
Defense (DOD), European Organization for the Exploitation of 
Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT), and others, will provide 
advanced, real-time data critical to saving lives and protecting 
property. It will improve Earth and space weather forecasting and 
expand capabilities for ocean, air quality, and climate observations. 
It will also enable NOAA to continue long-term monitoring and 
continuous services with no gaps in coverage of key climate parameters 
essential to understanding our changing environment.
    In the current world of increasing environmental changes and 
disasters, NOAA must invest in the next generation of satellites, 
products, and services to meet the demands for more accurate and 
expanded environmental information and services for the American 
public. Continuity of NOAA's current satellites and information 
services, exploitation of partner research observations, and 
implementation of NOAA's plans for enhanced observing capabilities of 
future satellites and for fostering vital partnerships, will directly 
support the entire weather enterprise and EO 14008.
            Space Weather
    This request also supports additional capacity for the forecasting 
of space weather events, which can have far-reaching impacts on our 
Nation's economy, communications, and national security. An extreme 
space weather event can severely impact an entire hemisphere and the 
globe. Impacts might include disruptions to satellite communications, 
impacts to the terrestrial electric grid, and communication outages to 
cross polar airline flights, yet current observations and prediction 
services do not meet the needs of agencies and operators of critical 
infrastructure to mitigate against these events. The Space Weather 
Operations, Research, and Mitigation (SWORM) Interagency Working Group, 
which includes 34 Federal departments and agencies, identified 
research-to-operations and operations-to-research (R2O2R) as a critical 
gap in our Nation's ability to improve existing space weather forecast 
and warning services. To close the gap, the Promoting Research and 
Observations of Space Weather to Improve the Forecasting of Tomorrow 
Act (PROSWIFT) (Public Law 116-181) authorizes Federal agencies to 
develop formal mechanisms to transition space weather research models 
and capabilities to NOAA.
    In FY 2022, NOAA requests $5 million to build towards a space 
weather prediction capability that will ensure national and global 
communities are ready for and responsive to space-weather events. For 
NOAA's Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) to improve these model 
forecasts, observations, and related watches and warnings, NOAA has 
identified four goals: implement a formal inter-agency R2O2R Framework; 
develop and sustain a Space Weather Prediction Testbed; transition new 
capabilities onto NOAA's operational national infrastructure; and 
establish two PROSWIFT directed community collaboration efforts, the 
Space Weather Advisory Group and National Academies Roundtable on Space 
Weather.
    To address the R2O2R gap, NOAA will partner with NASA, National 
Science Foundation (NSF), DOD, Department of Interior (DOI), and other 
Federal agencies to implement a formal framework to accelerate space 
weather research, observations, and model advances into NOAA 
operations. As a vital component of this framework, NOAA will develop 
and sustain the Space Weather Prediction Testbed (Testbed) that will 
leverage the expertise of academia, agencies, and commercial enterprise 
partners by fostering collaboration to validate, demonstrate, and 
transition emerging science and technologies into operations. In the 
Testbed, stakeholders participate in collaborative exercises and 
experiments using new capabilities under quasi-operational conditions. 
Following successful validation, the Testbed will demonstrate readiness 
and then enable the implementation of matured capabilities into NOAA 
operations.
    NOAA will also support two community efforts: the National 
Academies Roundtable and the Space Weather Advisory Group (SWAG). The 
Roundtable will discuss approaches and constructs on implementing the 
R2O2R framework and seek to identify ways to integrate relevant 
research from across the entire U.S. science and technology enterprise. 
SWAG will advise SWORM on methods to advance the space weather 
enterprise of the Nation by improving the coordination and facilitation 
of R2O2R.
                               Conclusion
    NOAA is uniquely positioned to observe and predict the changing 
climate and communicate the scientific information that underpins 
necessary actions. NOAA's FY2022 budget request includes significant 
investment in NOAA's capabilities to develop and deliver climate 
information and services that enable society to understand, prepare 
for, and adapt to the changes that we are already seeing and those that 
are yet to come.

    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. LeBoeuf.
    I am terribly sorry I said ``Mr.'' Thank you very much for 
your testimony.
    Mr. Cosby, you may proceed.
    [Pause.]
    Mrs. Napolitano. You have to unmute yourself, sir.
    Mr. Cosby. Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member Rouzer 
and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 
to provide testimony on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
Natural Resources Conservation Service's watershed programs.
    NRCS delivers voluntary programs and services that enable 
producers, agriculture landowners, Tribal nations, and others 
to enhance their land stewardship activities, improving the 
viability of agriculture operations and the sustainability of 
the Nation's soils, water, and related natural resources of 
non-Federal lands. About 70 percent of the Nation's land is 
privately owned, making stewardship by private landowners and 
managers critical to the health of our agriculture lands and 
economies.
    NRCS provides science-based technical assistance to help 
our customers better manage the natural resources of their 
land. Financial assistance can help offset the cost to install 
conservation practices that sustain and enhance natural 
resources and habitats.
    Although we administer a wide range of conservation 
programs, today I will focus on NRCS watershed programs. NRCS 
watershed programs include a small watershed program, a 
watershed operations program, and a watershed rehabilitation 
program. Through these programs, NRCS collaborates with State 
and local agencies, Tribal governments, and other Federal 
agencies to prevent damage caused by erosion, floodwater, and 
sediment.
    The vast majority of NRCS watershed projects have been 
built pursuant to the small watershed program authority, PL-566 
projects, under which NRCS works with local government sponsors 
and individual landowners to solve natural resources and 
related economic problems within watersheds.
    These projects protect our communities, infrastructure, and 
natural resources through flood prevention and damage 
reduction, development of rural water supplies, erosion and 
sediment control, fish and wildlife habitat enhancement and 
wetland creation and restoration.
    To date, NRCS has assisted in construction of 11,800 
watershed dams and other work from improvements to mitigate 
flooding downstream, enhance municipal and industrial water 
supplies, provide recreational opportunities, and improve 
irrigation water sources for our farmers and ranchers. These 
watershed projects help protect more than 180,000 farms, 
610,000 businesses, and positively impact more than 48 million 
people each day.
    In 2020, the agency received $175 million in discretionary 
funding and $50 million in mandatory funding. Using these 
funds, NRCS provided funding to 41 new and 12 backlogged 
projects in 24 States. NRCS provides technical assistance and 
cost-sharing for constructions. Local sponsors assume 
responsibility for the operations and maintenance of structures 
once completed.
    The watershed rehabilitation program provides assistance 
with the planning, design, and implementation needed to rehab 
aging watershed dams. We prioritize dams that pose the greatest 
risk to public safety. Our efforts can extend the service life 
of dams, bringing them into compliance with applicable safety 
and performance standards, or beginning steps to decommission 
dams that pose a threat to life and property.
    In fiscal year 2020, the watershed rehabilitation program 
received $10 million in discretionary funding and $19.9 million 
in mandatory funding, which helps repair aging infrastructure, 
creates jobs and commerce, and protects homes and families.
    NRCS continues to provide funding and promotes assessments 
of high-hazard potential dams, monitors costs, and examines the 
rehabilitation program to ensure equitable delivery in 
economically disadvantaged areas.
    We utilized $1.1 million to fund 50 dam assessments. These 
assessments provided communities with technical information 
about the condition of their dams and alternatives for 
rehabilitation of dams that do not currently meet Federal dam 
safety standards.
    By December 2021, 5,948 watershed dams will have reached 
the end of their original designed lifespan. This happens over 
time because dam spillway pipes can deteriorate, reservoirs may 
fill with sediment, and many former agricultural lands are now 
covered by urban sprawl.
    A dam failure could pose a serious threat to the health and 
safety of those living downstream and to the communities that 
depend on the reservoir. Dam failure also brings serious 
adverse environmental impacts.
    The fiscal year 2022 President's budget proposes 
discretionary apportionment of $110 million to the small 
watershed program, $65 million for the flood prevention 
operations program, and $10 million for the watershed 
rehabilitation program. It also includes a legislative proposal 
for mandatory appropriations to increase funding for the 
watershed and flood prevention operations to $100 million per 
year.
    In closing, NRCS watershed operations provide critical 
infrastructure as we face ongoing extreme weather and natural 
disasters. Farmers, ranchers, foresters, and other landowners 
are on the front line of the climate crisis. NRCS stands ready 
to support the implementation of conservation and 
infrastructure solutions that respond to the severity of the 
crisis.
    I appreciate Congress' continued support for NRCS and our 
work to ensure the safety and viability of our small watersheds 
and voluntary conservation on working lands. Thank you for the 
opportunity to be here with you today.
    [Mr. Cosby's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
    Prepared Statement of Terry J. Cosby, Chief, Natural Resources 
          Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
    Subcommittee Chairwoman Napolitano, Subcommittee Ranking Member 
Rouzer, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 
to provide testimony on U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural 
Resources Conservation Service watershed programs.
                            NRCS Background
    The mission of USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 
is to deliver conservation solutions so agriculture producers can 
protect natural resources and feed a growing world. NRCS provides 
programs and services that enable people to enhance their land 
stewardship activities to protect the viability of their agriculture 
operations and the nation's soil, water, and related natural resources 
on non-Federal lands. NRCS supports the rural economy by helping 
private landowners and producers, who make day-to-day decisions about 
natural resource use and management on non-Federal lands, implement 
conservation measures through technical and financial assistance. 
Technical assistance provided to farmers, ranchers, foresters and other 
private landowners supplies the knowledge and tools they need to 
conserve, maintain, and restore natural resources on the lands they 
manage. Financial assistance partially offsets the cost to install 
conservation practices necessary to sustain and enhance natural 
resources and improve wildlife habitat. About 70 percent of the land in 
the United States is privately owned, making stewardship by private 
landowners and land managers critical to the health of our agricultural 
economy. In addition to working directly with private landowners, NRCS 
also works with tribal Nations, units of government, and other eligible 
sponsors (like water authorities) to deliver technical and financial 
assistance.
    Conservation Technical Assistance: The ability of NRCS to provide 
Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) to farmers, ranchers, foresters 
and landowners across the country is core to our mission. Through CTA, 
NRCS works with landowners and managers to develop conservation plans 
that outline the specific conservation activities needed to improve 
farm operations and enhance farm environmental sustainability. NRCS 
partners with third-party private sector entities (known as Technical 
Service Providers, or TSPs) to collaborate and provide technical 
assistance for conservation planning and activities. Currently, there 
are 1,250 individuals and more than 100 businesses serving as certified 
TSPs that are available to help program participants apply conservation 
efforts through programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentive 
Program (EQIP), the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), the 
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), the Agricultural 
Management Assistance Program, Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), CTA, 
and Watershed programs.
    Conservation Programs: NRCS administers a wide range of 
conservation programs to help private landowners, and most are 
authorized by the Farm Bill, including EQIP, CSP, ACEP, and the 
Regional Conservation Partnership Program. These financial assistance 
programs make it possible to implement the conservation plans that 
resulted from CTA work. Additionally, while CRP is administered by 
USDA's Farm Service Agency, NRCS provides technical assistance, 
conservation planning, and support for conservation practice 
implementation and management. NRCS conservation programs are carried 
out through local field offices that provide direct assistance to 
individual farmers, ranchers, foresters, and other private landowners 
to restore and improve our shared natural resources. Key priorities 
about the implementation of these programs and practices are made at 
the local level, with input from Local Working Groups and State 
Technical Committees to ensure local needs, which vary greatly across 
the country, are addressed through voluntary based NRCS programs.
NRCS Watershed Programs
            Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
    Through the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO) 
account, NRCS cooperates with State and local agencies, tribal 
governments, and other Federal agencies to prevent damage caused by 
erosion, floodwater, and sediment, to further the conservation, 
development, utilization, and disposal of water, and advance the 
conservation and utilization of the land. WFPO includes the Small 
Watershed Program, the Flood Prevention Operations, and may include 
activities under the Watershed Rehabilitation Program described in the 
next section. The vast majority of NRCS watershed projects have been 
built pursuant to the authority of P.L. 83-566 (PL-566 projects), under 
which NRCS works with local government sponsors and helps participants 
solve natural resource and related economic problems within watersheds. 
Watershed projects are limited to 250,000 acres and cannot include any 
single structure that provides more than 12,500 acre-feet of floodwater 
retention capacity, or more than 25,000 acre-feet of total capacity. 
Projects may include flood prevention and damage reduction, development 
of rural water supply sources, erosion and sediment control, fish and 
wildlife habitat enhancement, wetland creation and restoration, and 
increased recreational opportunities. NRCS provides technical and 
financial assistance to support plan development and project 
implementation. NRCS can offer conservation practices to individual 
landowners and work with local communities to create vital 
infrastructure protecting and restoring natural resources. NRCS 
financial and technical assistance for watershed projects includes dams 
that not only offer flood control, but can also offer critical fish and 
wildlife habitat, livestock water, recreation and in some cases 
municipal water.
    Additionally, Flood Prevention Operations includes eleven projects 
that were specifically authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1944 
(P.L. 78-534) and are much larger than PL-566 projects. The Flood 
Control Act placed a primary focus on watershed protection by 
preventing floodwater damage and stabilizing stream channels, 
tributaries, and banks to reduce erosion and sediment transport. The 
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act extended these 
authorities to expand NRCS's ability for delivering additional 
conservation investments beyond those focused solely on flood damages. 
Through these programs, NRCS has assisted in the construction of 11,800 
watershed dams that help mitigate flooding downstream, offer municipal 
and industrial water supply, provide recreation opportunities, and 
serve as a source of irrigation for our farmers and ranchers. These 
dams help protect more than 180,000 farms, 610,000 businesses, and 
positively impact more than 48,000,000 people each day.
    In 2020, the Agency received $175 million in discretionary funding 
and $50 million in mandatory funding for WFPO. NRCS provided funding to 
41 new and 12 backlog projects in 24 States. In selecting projects for 
funding, the agency balanced the needs of remedial, backlog, and new 
projects. NRCS provided technical assistance and cost sharing for 
construction. Local sponsors assumed responsibility for the operations 
and maintenance of structures once completed. These dams protect our 
communities, infrastructure, and natural resources with flood control. 
Further, many provide the primary source of drinking water in an area 
or offer recreation and wildlife benefits.
            Watershed Rehabilitation Program
    The Watershed Rehabilitation Program provides technical and 
financial assistance for the planning, design, and implementation to 
rehabilitate aging watershed dam projects in communities to extend the 
service life of dams and bring them into compliance with applicable 
safety and performance standards, or to decommission the dams so they 
no longer pose a threat to life and property. While the Watershed 
Rehabilitation Program is a separate account, its activities are 
included as part of WFPO, and the 2018 Farm Bill authorized $50 million 
in mandatory funding for WFPO and the Watershed Rehabilitation Program. 
The Watershed Rehabilitation Program prioritizes dams that pose the 
greatest risk to public safety. These dams are classified as high 
hazard potential in the national dam safety classification system. All 
high-hazard potential dam project requests from public sponsors will be 
rehabilitated before dams classified as low or significant hazard 
potential to public safety. The Watershed Rehabilitation Program 
provides up to 65 percent of the total cost for dam rehabilitation 
projects, including the acquisition of land, easements, rights-of-way, 
project administration, non-Federal technical assistance, and 
construction. NRCS provides technical assistance to conduct studies, 
develop rehabilitation plans, develop environmental impact statements, 
prepare the engineering designs, and provide construction management 
services. Local sponsors are required to provide 35 percent of the 
total project cost.
    In fiscal year 2020, the Watershed Rehabilitation Program received 
$10 million in discretionary funding and $19.9 million in mandatory 
WFPO funding. This funding helps to repair aging infrastructure, 
creates jobs and commerce, and protects homes and families. NRCS 
continued to provide funding and promoted assessments of high-hazard 
potential dams, monitored costs, and examined the rehabilitation 
program to ensure equitable delivery in economically disadvantaged 
areas. Additionally, we utilized $1.1 million to fund 50 dam 
assessments. These assessments provided communities with technical 
information about the condition of their dams, and alternatives for 
rehabilitation of dams that do not currently meet Federal dam safety 
standards.
    From 2000 through 2020, 398 dams have been funded for planning. Of 
those, 254 dams were reauthorized to receive Federal funding to design 
and construction of rehabilitation measures in 25 States. There are 122 
dams in the planning phase that remain subject to funding priorities. 
Of the 254 dams that are already authorized for rehabilitation, 166 
have been rehabilitated and 67 are in the design and construction 
phase. Watershed Rehabilitation projects provide enormous benefits for 
both agricultural and non-agricultural lands. For example, completed 
projects resulted in an average of $9,383,748 in annual floodwater 
damage reduction benefits and more than 1,000 farms and ranches 
benefiting from program action.
    The reality is that many of the communities protected by the 
watershed dams that NRCS helped to establish are now vulnerable to 
flooding. Many dams have reached, or will soon reach, the end of their 
design life. Specifically, by December 2021, 5,947 watershed dams will 
have reached the end of their original designed lifespan. By 2025, that 
number will increase to nearly 6,800 watershed dams. This has happened 
over time because dam spillway pipes have deteriorated, and reservoirs 
have filled with sediment. Additionally, the area around many dams have 
changed as homes and businesses have been constructed on what was once 
agricultural land. A dam failure could pose a serious threat to the 
health and safety of those living downstream and to the communities 
that depend on the reservoir. Dam failure also could bring serious 
adverse environmental impacts.
    DamWatch: Dam safety is a critical concern as many of the 
watershed dams NRCS assisted sponsors with constructing were built in 
the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's. Of the 11,800 NRCS assisted dams, 2,423 
are high-hazard, meaning the potential for a loss of life should a dam 
failure occur. Many of these dams are in need of upgrades to meet 
current public safety standards, and many more are in need of key 
repairs to man-made components. NRCS has worked to help sponsors 
mitigate risk with DamWatch. DamWatch is a web-based application 
developed for NRCS to support watershed project sponsors with 
monitoring and managing NRCS-assisted dams. DamWatch provides real-
time monitoring of rainfall, snowmelt, stream flow, and seismic events 
that could pose potential threats to dam safety. The application is 
able to alert essential personnel when dams experience potentially 
hazardous monitored conditions, allowing for the coordinated deployment 
of personnel and resources. NRCS and watershed project sponsors utilize 
DamWatch to manage a proactive response through the application's 
``one stop shop'' for accessing critical documents, databases, 
monitoring devices, and geospatial information.
              Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget Overview
    The Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Budget proposes an overall increase of 
$67 million in discretionary funds for NRCS from the FY 2021 enacted 
appropriations funding level. This includes a $42.6 million increase 
for Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA). Additionally, the budget 
includes an overall mandatory increase of $140 million for NRCS. 
Legislative proposals in the FY 2022 budget include: increased funding 
for EQIP to address drought resilience; increased funding for RCPP for 
net-zero agriculture technology initiatives; increased funding for the 
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program; and increased 
funding for the Healthy Forests Reserve Program as part of a net-zero 
technology initiative to encourage land and species protection and 
restoration. Of note, the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations 
program would increase by $100 million per year, totaling $1 billion 
over ten years, to address repair needs. Additionally, the proposed 
increase to EQIP funding would support the ability of producers to 
adapt to the climate crisis through technological investments to 
increase drought resilience. These investments would result in the 
installation of conservation practices that include the incorporation 
of new science, technology and research into NRCS conservation 
practices in order to help producers with irrigation efficiencies, 
alternative livestock watering systems, and the adoption of resource 
conserving crop rotations.
    Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO)--FY 2022 Budget
    The FY 2022 Budget proposes $175 million in discretionary funding 
for WFPO. The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, commonly referred to 
as the 2018 Farm Bill, permanently authorized $50 million in annual 
mandatory funding to be used for WFPO and the Watershed Rehabilitation 
Program. Within WFPO, the budget proposes $110,000,000 for the Small 
Watershed Program (P.L. 83-566). The other $65,000,000 is for Flood 
Prevention Operations, which includes projects that were specifically 
authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534).
    The budget proposes $10,000,000 for the Watershed Rehabilitation 
Program. Dams installed through the Watershed Protection and Flood 
Prevention Act, Pilot Watershed Projects authorized by the Agriculture 
Appropriation Act of 1953, and the Resource Conservation and 
Development Program are eligible for rehabilitation assistance.
                               Conclusion
    NRCS's Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program combines 
the agency's technical, scientific, and financial resources to have the 
greatest impact on our nation's resources. This program reflects our 
commitment to local leadership on critical conservation issues and 
targets the specific needs of communities across the country. NRCS's 
financial and technical assistance on working lands are a critical 
component of our nation's infrastructure. We are accustomed to viewing 
infrastructure as part of our program delivery. However, some of our 
other activities, such as water supply forecasting network, are also a 
core aspect of the technology infrastructure that NRCS provides to the 
nation.
    Protecting our Nation's small watersheds is essential to protecting 
lives, natural resources, and agriculture. As we work to respond to the 
climate crisis, maintenance and upkeep of these dams and infrastructure 
is more important than ever in the face of extreme weather and natural 
disasters. We know that farmers, ranchers, foresters and other 
landowners are on the frontlines of the climate crisis and NRCS stands 
ready to support the implementation of conservation and infrastructure 
solutions that respond to the severity of the crisis. I appreciate 
Congress's continued support for NRCS and our work to ensure the safety 
and functionality of our small watersheds and voluntary conservation on 
working lands. Thank you for the opportunity to submit written 
testimony.

    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir, for your testimony.
    And now we may proceed to Dr. Breysse. You may proceed, 
sir.
    Mr. Breysse. Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer, 
and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss how 
investment in the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
Registry, also known as ATSDR, are working to protect 
Americans' health now and in the future.
    ATSDR protects communities from harmful effects of exposure 
to hazardous agents by supporting and building capacity at 
State, Tribal, Territorial and local health departments, by 
monitoring and investigating environmental exposures in 
communities, by preparing for and responding to emergencies, 
and by developing critical science-based tools and resources.
    While ATSDR is uniquely positioned to examine the health 
impacts of environmental exposures, demand for ATSDR's 
technical and scientific support exceeds the current capacity 
of the Agency to respond. Over the past 10 years, ATSDR has 
seen its purchasing power eroded by relatively flat funding 
levels, despite increasing demand for our support.
    Modest increases in funding in fiscal year 2020 and fiscal 
year 2021, along with the supplemental COVID-19 funding, have 
allowed ATSDR to provide marginal enhancements in its support 
to State and local health departments, to expand its 
environmental health education activities, to investigate the 
health impacts of exposure to emerging contaminants, and to 
develop tools to address environmental risks and aid in 
emergency response.
    The fiscal year 2022 President's budget looks to continue 
this progress by requesting an additional $3.75 million to 
expand geospatial public health analysis activities, which will 
increase our environmental public health capacity.
    In fiscal year 2020, ATSDR awarded approximately $35 
million to 28 health departments, through its cooperative 
agreement program. Five applicants were approved but unfunded 
due to funding constraints.
    ATSDR also manages a national network of Pediatric 
Environmental Health Specialty Units to advise parents and 
healthcare providers on protecting and caring for children 
potentially exposed to harmful chemicals. Supplemental COVID-19 
funding to these units and to 16 States' cooperative agreement 
partners allowed them to provide information on safe practices 
for disinfection of homes and education facilities during the 
COVID-19 response.
    ATSDR and its funded health grantees are investigating 
exposure to and possible health effects associated with 
emerging contaminants, such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl 
substances, also known as PFAS, and ethylene oxide.
    ATSDR is conducting PFAS exposure assessments in 10 
communities near current or former military bases. And it is 
conducting a groundbreaking PFAS health study at eight sites 
across the country.
    ATSDR is also working with Pediatric Environmental Health 
Specialty Units and the National Academies of Sciences, 
Engineering, and Medicine to provide clinicians with the 
resources they need to best serve their patients with exposure 
to PFAS concerns.
    ATSDR is supporting several States to address ethylene 
oxide exposure near medical device sterilization facilities, 
including working in five communities near these facilities. 
ATSDR is simultaneously exploring opportunities to study 
ethylene oxide exposure on a national scale.
    ATSDR staff and the geospatial program continue to provide 
support for 90 sites across the U.S. that are experiencing 
environmental health concerns. Additionally, the geospatial 
program developed a COVID data tracker dashboard, addressing 
data needs for the COVID-19 response. This one-stop source for 
COVID-19 data allows health professionals to increase their 
understanding of the novel coronavirus, to reduce the 
disproportionate burden of the pandemic on communities of color 
and other groups that have been marginalized, and to explore 
the impact of recovery on healthcare systems.
    ATSDR's geospatial team is currently working on an 
environmental justice index that we will use to identify 
communities that experience disproportionately high 
environmental burdens in the U.S.
    ATSDR has a unique mission and responsibility to advance 
health through the conduction of studies, through the use of 
innovative data sources, through support for local health 
departments, the development of guidance for clinicians, and 
through direct interaction with communities affected by 
exposure to hazardous substances.
    In fiscal year 2022, we will continue working toward our 
goal of providing science-based evidence to inform actions that 
protect people from environmental exposures and to improve 
their health.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today and to 
discuss the important work of ATSDR.
    [Mr. Breysse's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
    Prepared Statement of Patrick N. Breysse, Ph.D., CIH, Director, 
     National Center for Environmental Health and Agency for Toxic 
   Substances and Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control and 
        Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
    Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer, and Distinguished 
Members of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's 
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, I am Patrick Breysse, 
the Director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Director of the 
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It is an 
honor to appear before you today to discuss how investments in ATSDR 
are protecting Americans' health, now and in the future.
        Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
    In 1980, Congress created ATSDR to implement the health-related 
sections of laws that protect the public from hazardous wastes and 
spills of hazardous substances. Congress established ATSDR in the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 
1980 (CERCLA) and charged the agency with assessing the presence and 
nature of health hazards at specific Superfund sites, preventing and 
reducing further exposure and the illnesses that result from such 
exposures, and expanding the knowledge-base about health effects from 
exposure to hazardous substances. Amendments to the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and the Superfund 
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) broadened ATSDR's 
responsibilities and authorities in the areas of public health 
assessments, establishment and maintenance of toxicological databases, 
information dissemination, and medical education.
    ATSDR accomplishes its mission by supporting and building capacity 
at state, Tribal, territorial, and local health departments; monitoring 
and investigating environmental exposures in communities; preparing for 
and responding to emergencies; and developing critical science-based 
tools and resources. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, ATSDR responded to 715 
state, community, and Federal requests to address the potential health 
risks to over 2 million people around the country. During that period, 
ATSDR and our cooperative agreement partners conducted over 119 
assessments to evaluate environmental exposures in communities. Much of 
this work takes place in the regional offices, where staff can respond 
quickly during emergencies. Many regional staff served and are serving 
as liaisons to states during the COVID-19 response, among other 
deployments.
    Toxicological profiles are one way ATSDR provides state-of-the-art 
science to healthcare and public health professionals. These documents 
are unique compilations that provide comprehensive and extensive 
evaluation, summary, and interpretation of available toxicological and 
epidemiological information on a substance. ATSDR published 17 
toxicological profiles in FY 2020 and currently maintains a database of 
184 profiles.
    The foundation of ATSDR's activities are environmental justice and 
health equity. Communities economically and socially marginalized 
continue to bear disproportionate impacts of environmental hazards. It 
is a top priority for ATSDR to continue to engage these communities to 
address their concerns and understand how exposures impact health. For 
example, ATSDR's Region 10 is currently working on five health 
consultations with American Indian and Alaska Native tribes to evaluate 
exposures from contaminated sites through drinking water or traditional 
and subsistence use of resources.
    While ATSDR is uniquely positioned to examine the health impacts of 
environmental exposures, demand for ATSDR technical and scientific 
support exceeds the current capacity of the agency to respond. Funding 
in FY 2020 and FY 2021, along with COVID-19 supplemental funds, have 
allowed ATSDR to provide enhancements in its support to state and local 
health departments, expand its environmental health education, 
investigate the health impacts of exposures to emerging contaminants, 
and develop tools to address environmental risks and aid in emergency 
response. The President's Budget looks to continue this progress by 
providing a $3.75 million increase to support expanded geospatial 
public health analysis activities: improving technology, enhancing 
science in environmental modeling, and providing support to states.
             Support to State and Local Health Departments
    ATSDR's Partnership to Promote Localized Efforts to Reduce 
Environmental Exposure (APPLETREE) cooperative agreement program funds 
states to detect, respond to, and prevent harmful exposures in 
communities. In FY 2020, ATSDR awarded approximately $35 million to 28 
state health departments through APPLETREE. ATSDR also provided an 
additional $1.4 million in COVID-19 supplemental funding to 16 state 
APPLETREE recipients for guidance and community engagement on safe 
practices for disinfection for homes, schools, and early learning 
education centers.
    State health departments are on the front lines when it comes to 
responding to environmental exposures and ATSDR's cooperative agreement 
program builds capacity in states to assess potentially hazardous 
substances. This increased capacity extends ATSDR's reach and allows 
health departments to support clinicians, build bridges between health 
and environmental agencies, and rapidly respond to emergencies. ATSDR 
provides technical assistance and support for state experts to 
investigate community health concerns and implement practices to 
protect people from harmful exposures.
    APPLETREE awardees use program funding to identify if and how 
people are exposed to hazardous substances at specific sites and in 
communities across the country. They review environmental and health 
data to identify potential health risks, make recommendations to 
prevent exposures, and educate communities and local health 
professionals about site contaminations and potential health effects.
    Within current resources, ATSDR has prioritized activities that 
focus on children as an important susceptible group and ensuring the 
assessment of potential exposure risks at early care and education 
facilities for young children. In Missouri, the state health department 
investigated lead exposures in children enrolled in a Head Start 
facility built on a lead mining waste pile. Their investigation 
included on-site blood lead testing to evaluate the children's exposure 
to lead. One of the 26 children tested had a blood lead level above the 
reference value and was referred to services for additional evaluation, 
and soil remediation actions were planned.
    ATSDR's support has also enabled awardees to address the health 
effects of emerging contaminants, such as in North Carolina, where the 
state health department used APPLETREE funding to enhance their actions 
addressing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) exposure. 
APPLETREE awardees have conducted or are in the process of conducting 
investigations of PFAS exposure at sites in at least five states. They 
have also provided technical assistance and health education related to 
PFAS exposure in over 20 communities across the U.S.
    APPLETREE funding is also enabling states to take an innovative 
approach to address environmental exposures. With ATSDR's support, the 
California Department of Public Health collaborated with a community on 
a citizen science project to address concerns about air quality. The 
health department helped community volunteers install air monitoring 
sensors, which transmit air quality data to a real-time interactive map 
that all community members can use to help limit their exposures.
                     Environmental Health Education
    Children are particularly sensitive and susceptible to exposures to 
chemical contaminants, as their organ systems can easily be disturbed 
by environmental contaminants during rapid stages of growth and 
development. ATSDR manages a national network of Pediatric 
Environmental Health Specialty Units (PEHSUs), located in each federal 
region across the United States, to advise parents and healthcare 
providers on protecting and caring for children potentially exposed to 
harmful chemicals. Regional PEHSU units respond to requests for 
information, offer advice on environmentally related health effects for 
pregnant women and children, and provide education to healthcare 
providers, other health professionals, and community members.
    The PEHSU network has produced multiple tools to help clinicians, 
parents, and children understand environmental exposures. For example, 
they produced the Pediatric Environmental Health Toolkit, a web-based 
reference that provides examples of everyday environmental interactions 
for children and steps clinicians and parents can take to decrease 
harmful exposure.
    Uniquely positioned around the U.S. and nationally known as an 
expert resource in children and women's environmental health, ATSDR's 
PEHSU and other partners engaged early in the COVID-19 response to 
deliver timely education and disseminate guidance on safely 
disinfecting homes, schools, and day care settings during the pandemic. 
COVID-19 supplemental funds are helping make this guidance more widely 
available to communities. During a six-month period of the COVID-19 
response, the PEHSUs provided approximately 300 consultations to 
healthcare professionals and over 350 consultations to community 
members.
Investigating the Health Impacts of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances 
                                 (PFAS)
    ATSDR and state partners utilize biological (e.g., urine, blood) 
and environmental (e.g., drinking water, dust, air) sampling to better 
characterize the relationship between how people come into contact with 
hazardous substances and possible exposure-related health effects.
    ATSDR and its funded state health grantees are investigating 
exposure to and possible health effects associated with per- and 
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in multiple communities across the 
United States. PFAS are a class of thousands of human-made chemicals 
that have been used in industry and consumer products, such as grease-
proof food packaging and water-repellant fabrics, worldwide since the 
1950s. Exposure to these chemicals is widespread, with the CDC's 
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) detecting 
PFAS in the blood of more than 95 percent of the U.S. population \1\. 
More research is needed to determine the health effects in humans, but 
some studies \2\ suggest exposure may affect cholesterol levels, affect 
the immune system, and increase the risk for some cancers. ATSDR has 
worked to address community concerns about PFAS since 2009, with the 
development of the first health assessment that looked at PFAS exposure 
in Decatur, Alabama. To date, ATSDR has worked to investigate exposure 
to and possible health effects associated with PFAS in more than 40 
communities across the United States. Most of these communities have 
concerns about PFAS in their drinking water connected with PFAS 
production facilities or fire training areas where aqueous film forming 
foam (AFFF) was regularly used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072821/
    \2\ https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp200.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To learn more about the relationship between PFAS and health, the 
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2018 directed 
ATSDR to complete exposure assessments and a health study to look at 
PFAS exposure in communities. With funds provided through the 
Department of Defense Appropriations, ATSDR conducted exposure 
assessments in ten communities near current or former military bases 
across the U.S. that are known to have had PFAS in their drinking 
water. An exposure assessment provides information to communities about 
the levels of PFAS in their bodies. This information can be used to 
help reduce exposures. ATSDR has completed sample collection, provided 
individual results to participants, and released initial community 
summaries in all exposure assessment sites. The exposure assessments 
looked at exposure in more than 2,300 individuals from over 1,400 
households. In FY 2022, ATSDR will continue to develop individual site 
reports and an overall PFAS exposure assessment report covering all 
sites.
    ATSDR is using funds provided through Defense Appropriations to 
conduct a national health study that will look at the relationship 
between PFAS exposures through drinking water and health outcomes. The 
Pease Study in New Hampshire serves as the first site in the multi-site 
health study. Recruitment and sample collection for the Pease Study 
reopened on October 15, 2020 after a pause to ensure safety of 
participants and staff from COVID-19. In September 2019, ATSDR awarded 
research cooperative agreements to seven recipients for the Multi-Site 
Study to conduct work in seven additional states. This groundbreaking 
health study will provide information about the health effects of PFAS 
exposure that can be used in all communities to protect health. Three 
awardees plan to begin study recruitment by mid-summer 2021, with the 
remaining four planning to begin in early fall 2021.
    ATSDR is also taking steps to ensure that clinicians have the 
guidance they need to address patient concerns about PFAS exposure. 
ATSDR is working closely with the Pediatric Environmental Health 
Specialty Units to offer pediatricians and other healthcare 
professionals information about PFAS so they can best serve their 
patients in these communities. ATSDR is also working with the National 
Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine to develop clinician 
guidance on PFAS testing, how test results should inform clinical care, 
and how to advise patients on exposure reduction. As part of the 
ongoing review of scientific information on PFAS, ATSDR recently 
released the final version of the Toxicological Profile on 
Perfluoroalkyls that provides a comprehensive and extensive evaluation, 
summary, and interpretation of available toxicological and 
epidemiological information. We continue to review the rapidly evolving 
science on PFAS and will update the toxicological profile as new 
information emerges.
    Development of Tools to Address Environmental Risks and Aid in 
                           Emergency Response
    To guide the work of the agency, ATSDR's Geospatial Research, 
Analysis, and Services Program (GRASP) conducts geospatial information 
system (GIS) research, analysis, support, training, and technology to 
better understand how place affects health. The geospatial tools 
developed by the program are the cornerstone of ATSDR's work to 
understand the health impact of hazardous exposures.
    ATSDR has recently received COVID-19 supplemental funding to 
develop tools to provide critical support to CDC's COVID-19 response. 
GRASP has worked on over 70 projects responding to the COVID-19 
pandemic, using geospatial analysis to investigate geographic 
variations and demographic, behavioral, socioeconomic, and infectious 
risk factors and using innovative visualization methods to communicate 
complex results. To address data needs for the COVID-19 response, the 
program developed the COVID Data Tracker (CDT) Dashboard \3\ using 
technology and data from multiple organizations to increase the 
understanding of the novel coronavirus, reduce the disproportionate 
burden of the pandemic on communities of color and other groups that 
have been marginalized, explore the impact and recovery of healthcare 
systems, and to provide timely information to the public. The amount 
and type of data in the CDT grows every week and has become the one-
stop public facing source for almost all COVID-19 data, including 
vaccination data. The week of June 13, 2021, CDT had about two million 
views, with over 190 million views since it launched in April 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    GRASP has also built upon existing tools to respond to COVID-19. In 
2007, the program partnered with emergency response planners at ATSDR 
and CDC's National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) to develop 
the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) \4\. SVI uses U.S. Census tract 
data to characterize the social vulnerability of every U.S. community 
and ranks each community on 15 social factors, including poverty, lack 
of vehicle access, and crowded housing. Public health officials and 
local planners can use the SVI to better prepare for and respond to 
emergency events like hurricanes, disease outbreaks, or exposure to 
dangerous chemicals. In 2020, the SVI was used to create a Pandemic 
Vulnerability Index (PVI) \5\ to map populations that are more 
vulnerable to the spread of COVID-19, providing critical information to 
public health professionals to aid in decision-making and helping to 
focus vaccine efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/placeandhealth/svi/
data_documentation_download.html
    \5\ https://covid19pvi.niehs.nih.gov/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to their work on the COVID-19 response, the geospatial 
unit continues to provide geospatial analysis support for 90 sites 
across the U.S. that experienced environmental concerns such as 
ethylene oxide and other exposures, helping CDC/ATSDR scientists 
understand relationships between health and environmental, 
sociodemographic, and behavioral factors and communicate these findings 
through clear visualizations.
                        Looking Ahead in FY 2022
    ATSDR will prioritize the development of geospatial health tools 
and other resources to expand environmental health capacity. These 
tools will improve CDC/ATSDR's ability to respond effectively and in a 
timely manner to public health events and explore environmental factors 
that may influence the progression of infectious disease and other 
health outcomes. ATSDR's geospatial team is currently working on an 
Environmental Justice Index project, which will use information on 
demographic and socioeconomic factors and cumulative environmental 
exposures to identify communities that experience a disproportionately 
high environmental burden in the U.S.
    Work on emerging environmental contaminants continues to be a 
priority for ATSDR. These substances fall into one of two categories. 
The first are new substances for which information about their impacts 
on human health are still evolving, such as PFAS. The second category 
of emerging contaminants are known contaminants of concern that have 
emerging information on their toxicity which needs to be evaluated to 
assess the potential impact on human health.
    Microplastics fall into the first category. They are pervasive in 
the environment and are small enough to be internalized and transported 
within the human body. Exposure-dose and health effects have not been 
established, and studies are complicated due to a lack of standardized 
methods for identifying and measuring the particles. ATSDR, along with 
CDC's National Center for Environmental Health, is working on 
developing the science to define and prioritize potential health risks 
and develop initiatives to better characterize and understand whether 
microplastic exposures are harmful to human health.
    ATSDR is also working to address concerns regarding ethylene oxide 
exposure, which falls into the second category. Recent reviews by EPA 
\6\ indicate that the cancer risks from ethylene oxide may occur at 
lower exposure levels than previously thought. Ethylene oxide is used 
industrial settings and in the sterilization of medical equipment and 
some spices. Not all ethylene oxide sterilization facilities are 
required to report to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). For those 
that did report to TRI in 2019, 67 percent were located in census 
tracks scored as ``high'' or ``moderate to high'' on CDC/ATSDR's Social 
Vulnerability Index. ATSDR is supporting several states to address 
these ethylene oxide exposures, including working with five communities 
near ethylene oxide sterilization facilities. ATSDR is simultaneously 
exploring opportunities to study ethylene oxide exposures on a national 
scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/
toxreviews/1025tr.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    FY 2022 Budget Request for ATSDR
    Increases provided in FY 2021 enabled an expansion in the number of 
states funded through the APPLETREE program. In FY 2022, ATSDR's budget 
request will bolster GIS capacity building within state and local 
health departments, an important priority to enhance health 
departments' response to environmental and public health emergencies.
                               Conclusion
    ATSDR has a unique mission and responsibility to advance health 
through studies, use of innovative data sources, support for health 
departments, development of guidance for clinicians and direct 
interaction with communities affected by exposure to hazardous 
substances. In FY 2022, we will continue working toward our goals of 
providing science-based evidence to inform actions to protect people 
from environmental exposures and improve health. Thank you again for 
the opportunity to be here today to discuss the important work of the 
agency.

    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir, for your testimony.
    And we will proceed with Mr. Middlebrook. You may proceed, 
sir.
    Mr. Middlebrook. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking 
Member Rouzer, and members of the subcommittee. I thank you 
again for the opportunity to talk to you today and present the 
President's fiscal year 2022 budget request for the Great Lakes 
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. I am happy to 
share this information with you and to report on the activities 
of the corporation.
    More than 3 billion metric tons of cargo valued at over 
$450 billion has transited the St. Lawrence Seaway over its 60-
plus-year history. This includes grain, iron ore, steel, 
project cargoes, and other bulk commodities.
    During the 2020 navigation season, nearly 38 million metric 
tons of cargo moved through the binational waterway. The Saint 
Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation was renamed the Great 
Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation by Congress 
as part of the fiscal year 2021 Consolidated Appropriations 
Act.
    This name change was led by your colleagues to acknowledge 
the seaway's longstanding contributions and importance to the 
Great Lakes region and its economy. Since then, we have been 
executing this name change, and on May 13th of this year, the 
67th anniversary of our creation by Congress, we debuted our 
new corporate seal.
    For fiscal year 2022, the President's budget requests an 
appropriation of $37.7 million from the Harbor Maintenance 
Trust Fund. The budget request includes two programs: seaway 
operations and maintenance, and seaway infrastructure. This 
request supports the administration's priorities of safety, job 
creation and economic growth, and transformational 
infrastructure investments.
    The fiscal year 2022 request for the seaway operations and 
maintenance program is $23.2 million. This will provide the 
financial and personnel resources necessary to perform the 
operational, maintenance, and administrative functions of the 
corporation, including lock operations, marine services, vessel 
traffic control, asset maintenance, ballast water management, 
safety and environmental inspections, and trade promotion and 
economic development.
    Operations and maintenance also includes a request of $1.5 
million for the U.S. portion of the operations and maintenance 
costs of the binational Seaway International Bridge. The U.S. 
and Canada share the ownership, management, and operation of 
this international bridge.
    Due to COVID-19 and the cross-border travel restrictions, 
paid car and truck traffic on the bridge has dramatically 
decreased to only 10 to 15 percent of average levels. That has 
resulted in a 70- to 75-percent reduction in toll revenue, and 
as a result, the bridge is unable to function self-
sufficiently.
    Last year, the Canadian Government provided Federal funding 
to supplement the reduced tolls to ensure that the bridge 
safely remains open. The $1.5 million request in the fiscal 
year 2022 budget request will satisfy the U.S. shared 
commitment to the needs of the bridge.
    The budget request for the seaway infrastructure program 
includes $14.5 million for 11 maritime infrastructure-related 
capital projects, including $6.5 million for the rehabilitation 
of the diffusers at Snell lock used to dampen the flow of water 
when the lock is emptied, $3 million to replace deteriorated 
and damaged concrete at Eisenhower lock and Snell lock, $1.5 
million to upgrade electrical distribution equipment at the 
locks and maintenance facilities, and $1 million to upgrade the 
machine shop facility used to maintain the new hands-free 
mooring technology at the locks.
    I am happy to report that we were able to operate during 
the 2020 navigation season without any positive cases of COVID-
19 impacting our workforce, even though the majority of our 
Massena, New York-based operational employees reported to the 
worksite every day, given our operational nature.
    During the winter maintenance cycle, our workforce was 
impacted by several positive cases. However, additional 
remedial measures, implemented quickly, reduced the 
transmission of COVID-19, and the winter maintenance schedule 
was completed in time for the opening of the 2021 navigation 
season on March 22nd.
    The fiscal year 2022 budget request will help ensure that 
the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation can 
continue to operate and maintain the U.S. seaway 
infrastructure, ensure safe navigation, protect the 
environment, and promote trade and economic development.
    Thank you for including my written statement in the record, 
and I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.
    [Mr. Middlebrook's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
Prepared Statement of Craig H. Middlebrook, Deputy Administrator, Great 
 Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, U.S. Department of 
                             Transportation
    Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony 
for the record regarding the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 budget request for 
the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (GLS or 
Corporation) (formerly the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
Corporation). I am glad to present this information and to report on 
the activities of the GLS.
    The GLS is a wholly owned government corporation within the U.S. 
Department of Transportation (USDOT) with its funding appropriated 
since 1987 from the user fee-based Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 
(HMTF). Since its creation, the GLS has been funded through 
appropriations derived from user fees and not from the Treasury's 
General Fund. Prior to 1987, the GLS's funding was derived from tolls 
to commercial vessels transiting the St. Lawrence Seaway.
    The GLS's mission is to operate and maintain the U.S. 
infrastructure and waters of the St. Lawrence Seaway, while performing 
trade and economic development activities designed to enhance the 
utilization of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway System. The GLS is 
primarily responsible for maintaining and operating the Eisenhower and 
Snell locks located in Massena, New York, and controlling commercial 
vessel traffic in areas of the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. 
Since the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959, the GLS has 
directly served commercial marine transportation stakeholders by 
providing a safe, reliable, and efficient deep-draft international 
waterway, in cooperation with its Canadian counterpart, the St. 
Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC).
    Over its 60-year history, more than 3 billion metric tons of cargo 
valued at over $450 billion has transited the St. Lawrence Seaway, 
including grain, iron ore, iron and steel, project cargoes, and other 
raw and bulk commodities. During the 2020 navigation season, nearly 38 
million metric tons of cargo moved through the binational waterway.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://greatlakes-seaway.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/
tonnage2020_12_en.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A ship entering the St. Lawrence Seaway at Montreal, Canada, and 
transiting to Lake Erie crosses the international border 27 times while 
passing through the St. Lawrence Seaway's 15 locks (2 U.S. and 13 
Canadian). As a consequence of this geographic fact, when constructing 
the Seaway in 1954, the United States and Canada created a binational 
governance approach for the Seaway through an exchange of diplomatic 
notes, constituting a binding international agreement between the 
countries. It was and remains a bold, optimistic, unique, and effective 
governance approach; all other U.S. inland waterways are operated, 
maintained, and managed directly by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
and the U.S. Coast Guard. Due to the geography of the St. Lawrence 
River and the importance of the sovereignty issues involved, however, 
the U.S. and Canadian Governments established a binational framework of 
civilian Federal oversight and control of this international waterway, 
which today is administered by the GLS and the Canadian SLSMC.
    To carry out its mission, the GLS possesses legal authorities that 
distinguish it from other operating administrations at the U.S. 
Department of Transportation and from most other Executive Branch 
agencies. The Wiley-Dondero Act of 1954 (Seaway Act), which created and 
permanently authorized the GLS, incorporated authorities that were 
first put into law through the Government Corporation Control Act of 
1945. The GLS was created as a government corporation to manage this 
public infrastructure asset and provide a direct service to customers--
moving ships safely and efficiently through a binational waterway. The 
succinct and plain language of the Corporation's enabling statute 
allows sufficient flexibility to manage its operations in a business-
like manner. Some of the distinguishing attributes include the ability 
to make and carry out contracts or agreements as necessary to conduct 
business as well as the ability to acquire real and personal property 
and sell, lease, or dispose of such property. Together with its mission 
of providing 24/7 transportation services, these legal authorities help 
promote a culture within the GLS of accountability and customer 
service.
    The deep degree of trust and operational cross-border interaction 
that has developed between the U.S. and Canadian Seaway entities over 
the past 62 years helps maintain a transit experience for Seaway users 
that is essentially seamless from a ship captain's perspective. It is a 
remarkable achievement given the operational complexities and multiple 
jurisdictions that impact that transit.
    The St. Lawrence Seaway directly serves an eight-State, two-
province region that accounts for one-quarter of the U.S. gross 
domestic product (GDP), one-half of North America's manufacturing and 
services industries, and is home to nearly one-quarter of the 
continent's population.
    Annual commerce on the Great Lakes Seaway System typically exceeds 
180 million metric tons and serves U.S. farmers, manufacturing workers, 
miners, and commercial interests throughout the Great Lakes region. 
Virtually every type of bulk and general cargo commodity moves on the 
Great Lakes Seaway System, including iron ore for the U.S. steel 
industry; limestone for construction and steel industries; coal for 
power generation and steel production; grain exports from U.S. farms; 
general cargo such as iron and steel products and heavy machinery; and 
cement, salt, and stone aggregates for agriculture and industry. 
Additionally, the Seaway has emerged as a critical transportation route 
for the shipment of large components essential to the wind energy 
industry.
    Maritime commerce on the Great Lakes Seaway System provides 
shippers with nearly $4 billion in annual cost savings compared to the 
next least expensive mode of transportation.\2\ The Seaway also 
produces significant economic benefits to the Great Lakes region. An 
economic impact study completed in 2018 concluded that maritime 
commerce on the Great Lakes Seaway System sustains over 237,000 U.S. 
and Canadian jobs, $35 billion in economic activity, $14.2 billion in 
personal income, and $6.6 billion in federal, state/provincial, and 
local taxes each year.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Great Lakes Navigation System: 
Economic Strength to the Nation, January 2009.
    \3\ Economic Impacts of Maritime Shipping in the Great Lakes-St. 
Lawrence Region, Martin Associates, July 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         FY 2022 Budget Request
    For FY 2022, the President's Budget requests an appropriation of 
$37.7 million from the HMTF to fund the GLS's operations and 
maintenance of the U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway, as well as 
capital infrastructure projects to rehabilitate and modernize the GLS's 
perpetual assets and associated equipment. The request represents a 
decrease of $300,000 from the FY 2021 enacted level.
    The budget request includes two programs--(1) Seaway Operations and 
Maintenance and (2) Seaway Infrastructure, which support the 
Administration's priorities of safety, job creation and economic 
growth, and transformational infrastructure investments.
    The FY 2022 request for the GLS's Seaway Operations and Maintenance 
program is $23.2 million to provide the GLS with the financial and 
personnel resources necessary to perform its operational, maintenance, 
and administrative functions, including lock operations, marine 
services, vessel traffic control, asset maintenance, ballast water 
management, safety and environmental inspections, and trade promotion 
and economic development.
    This program budget request also includes $1.5 million for the U.S. 
portion of operations and maintenance costs for the binational Seaway 
International Bridge. The GLS has an ownership interest with Canada in 
the binational South Channel Span of the Seaway International Bridge. 
Due to the pandemic and the associated cross-border restrictions 
currently enforced between the United States and Canada, paid car and 
truck traffic on the bridge has dramatically decreased by 80-90 percent 
of average levels, resulting in significant toll revenue reductions 
(70-75 percent). The request level was developed based on the 
assumption that the current bridge toll levels remain constant in FY 
2022. Federal funding from the Canadian Government has kept the bridge 
open and operational since the start of the cross-border restrictions 
in March 2020.
    For its Seaway Infrastructure program, the FY 2022 President's 
Budget includes a request of $14.5 million for 11 infrastructure-
related capital projects, including $6.5 million for rehabilitation of 
the diffusers at Snell Lock used to dampen the flow of water when the 
lock is emptied; $3 million to replace deteriorated and damaged 
concrete at Eisenhower Lock and Snell Lock; $1.5 million to upgrade 
electrical distribution equipment at the GLS locks and maintenance 
facility; and $1 million to upgrade the GLS's machine shop facility 
used to maintain the GLS's new Hands Free Mooring Technology.
                         Safety and Reliability
    The continued safety and reliability of the St. Lawrence Seaway is 
the foundation upon which we can promote and accommodate increases in 
maritime cargo. The Seaway is already one of the world's safest 
waterways and that safety record continues to improve. Over the past 25 
years, the average number of international vessel incidents in the 
Seaway requiring GLS inspectors has decreased significantly. From 1996-
2006, the average number of incidents was 19 per year. However, from 
2007-2020, the average number of incidents declined to only 6 per year. 
This positive development can be attributed to several factors, 
including the U.S.-Canadian Enhanced Seaway Inspection Program, the use 
of the Seaway's Automatic Identification System (AIS) vessel traffic 
management technology beginning in 2002, the use of the Seaway's Hands 
Free Mooring system beginning in 2018, the well-trained and skilled GLS 
lock operations and maintenance staff, and a major fleet renewal 
program implemented by many of the Seaway's commercial carriers.
    In addition, since the Seaway's opening in 1959, the GLS has 
consistently maintained a near-perfect reliability rate of 99 percent 
for commercial users of its locks in the U.S. sector of the waterway. 
During the 2020 navigation season (April 1-December 30, 2020), the GLS 
workforce ably operated and maintained the waterway and lock system at 
a reliability rate of 99.3 percent and lock availability rate of 99.96 
percent, all while managing the impacts of the coronavirus disease 2019 
(COVID-19) pandemic. This high mark of success is due primarily to the 
GLS's efficient management and operations of the locks and control of 
vessel traffic. Global customers from nearly 50 countries return each 
year to use the Seaway because of the waterway's strong safety record, 
efficient operations, and near-perfect reliability rate.
                       Environmental Stewardship
    The GLS also ensures strict ballast water management efforts to 
prevent any new introductions of aquatic invasive species via 
commercial vessels entering Seaway waters. In 2008, the GLS and 
Canadian SLSMC implemented regulations jointly requiring all ships with 
no ballast in their tanks to conduct saltwater flushing of the empty 
ballast water tanks before arriving in the Seaway. The GLS, along with 
the U.S. Coast Guard, Transport Canada, and the SLSMC, formed the 
Ballast Water Working Group (BWWG) to enforce ballast water inspections 
of all vessels to ensure these regulations are carried out. The BWWG's 
annual summary report documents the Group's inspection results and 
findings.\4\ The report measures both the performance of the binational 
inspection team in inspecting the ballast tanks of incoming ocean 
vessels and the compliance by the oceangoing trade in meeting U.S. and 
Canadian ballast water management requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://greatlakes-seaway.com/en/commercial-shipping/
transiting-the-seaway/ballast-water/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In both cases, the results of the 2020 report are outstanding. In 
2020, every ballast tank of every ocean vessel entering the Seaway was 
assessed--10,628 ballast tanks on 536 vessel transits. The BWWG found 
that the compliance rate by industry in 2020 for low salinity non-
compliant tanks was 98.2 percent.\5\ In those rare instances where 
salinity levels do not meet the standard, the ballast tanks are sealed 
and then re-inspected on the vessel's outbound journey to ensure that 
the tank was not used on its voyage in the Great Lakes. Since 2009, 100 
percent of international vessels entering the Seaway have received a 
ballast water management exam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://greatlakes-seaway.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/
2020_BW_Rpt_EN.pdf.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Great Lakes Seaway System has one of the most stringent 
inspection regimes in world. The effectiveness of the Seaway's ballast 
water inspection program has been publicly credited as a key factor in 
dramatically reducing the risk of introduction of invasive species into 
the Great Lakes. Since 2006, there have been only 2 new aquatic 
invasive species identified in the Great Lakes that the scientific 
community considers are possibly associated with ballast water, but the 
timing of introduction and actual source pathways are uncertain. This 
can be compared to 15 new aquatic invasive species that were identified 
from 1993-2006, the equivalent time period before the new regulations, 
which the scientific community strongly attributes to ballast water. 
The GLS is proud of its efforts in serving as an environmental 
gatekeeper to the St. Lawrence Seaway and will continue to perform 
these important inspections.
                      Infrastructure Modernization
    The locks, channels, and accompanying infrastructure of the St. 
Lawrence Seaway owned and maintained by the GLS are ``perpetual'' 
transportation assets that require periodic and regular capital 
reinvestment in order to continue to operate safely, reliably, and 
efficiently. After 50 years of continuous operation with only minimal 
capital reinvestment, Congress approved the authorization and funding 
for the GLS's infrastructure renewal program beginning in FY 2009. The 
start of the program marked the first time in the Seaway's 50-year 
history that a coordinated effort to repair and modernize the U.S. 
Seaway infrastructure had taken place.
    From FY 2009-2020, the GLS spent $179 million on 59 infrastructure-
related projects. Major infrastructure projects completed over that 
time period included maintenance dredging in the U.S. portion of the 
Seaway navigation channel, lock miter gate and culvert valve machinery 
upgrades, culvert valve replacements, hands-free mooring installation 
at the locks, gatelifter upgrades, miter gate rehabilitation, and 
tugboat replacements, as well as various other structural and equipment 
repairs and/or replacements. The GLS's infrastructure investments over 
the past decade demonstrate our country's commitment to the long-
standing agreement to jointly operate and maintain the St. Lawrence 
Seaway with Canada.
    The GLS Seaway Infrastructure program is developed annually by 
Corporation engineering, maintenance, lock operations, and policy staff 
following annual winter preventative maintenance work and inspections. 
This capital planning process ensures that aging machinery, equipment, 
and parts are rehabilitated/replaced; that buildings for employees and 
the public, grounds, and utilities are sufficiently maintained/
refurbished; and that commercial trade continues to move on the Seaway 
safely and without interruption or delays.
                     Trade and Economic Development
    The statute that created the GLS provided general authority for the 
Corporation to undertake trade and economic development activities, and 
this is an important aspect of our mission. In recent years, Congress 
has provided additional funding for the GLS to expand this program. The 
GLS devotes resources to trade and economic development activities 
aimed at increasing commercial trade through the St. Lawrence Seaway 
and improving economic conditions in the eight Great Lakes States. The 
primary benefit is the stimulation of U.S. and Canadian port city 
economies through increased maritime industry activity, including 
services and employment to support maritime commerce. In 2015, the GLS 
designated a Great Lakes Regional Representative who leads this value-
added service for the wider stakeholder community.
    Initiative activities include facilitating new trade for Great 
Lakes Seaway System ports, conducting trade research and analysis to 
assist Great Lakes Seaway System stakeholders in identifying cargo 
trends and new business, participating in joint marketing efforts with 
our Canadian counterparts, promoting the Seaway System to prospective 
customers, and assessing the economic impact of Great Lakes Seaway 
shipping.
    The GLS's trade and economic development activities were 
instrumental in the 2014 launch of the first regularly scheduled 
international liner service to a U.S. port on the Great Lakes since the 
1970's. Working directly with Great Lakes Seaway System ports, the GLS 
helps identify ways to increase tonnage traffic in traditional Seaway 
cargoes as well as in diversifying the types of cargo moving through 
their port.
    Additionally, the GLS has been instrumental in the growth of 
international cruising activity in the Great Lakes. In January 2020, 
Viking Cruise Line announced its Great Lakes itineraries and the 
construction of two Seaway-sized cruise ships. The first ship will 
conduct its maiden voyage in May 2022. This adds to the nine other 
cruise vessels that have itineraries in the Lakes. The GLS continues to 
work with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to find ways to streamline 
passenger processing and bring more cruise vessels to more ports in the 
Great Lakes. Stakeholders and customers alike are realizing the 
benefits from a modernizing vision of the Great Lakes Seaway System and 
the added value the GLS and Great Lakes/Seaway ports are providing to 
their communities and to the region.
                             Current Issues
    COVID-19--The GLS is happy to report that we were able to operate 
the entire 2020 navigation season (April 1-December 31, 2020), without 
any positive cases of COVID-19 impacting our workforce, even though the 
majority of our Massena-based operational employees reported to the 
worksite every day. During the winter maintenance cycle, the GLS was 
impacted by several positive cases of COVID-19; however, additional 
remedial measures implemented quickly reduced the transmission of 
COVID-19 and the winter maintenance was completed in time for the 
opening of the 2021 navigation season on March 22.
    Seaway International Bridge--The U.S. and Canada share the 
ownership, management, and operation of the Seaway International 
Bridge. The bridge is the only U.S. federally owned international 
border crossing bridge and is co-owned by the GLS and the Canadian 
Federal Government through its Canadian Federal Bridge Corporation, 
Ltd. (FBCL). The bridge is managed by the Seaway International Bridge 
Corporation (SIBC), on behalf of the U.S. and Canadian owners.
    Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated cross-border 
restrictions currently enforced between the United States and Canada, 
paid car and truck traffic on the bridge has dramatically decreased to 
10-15 percent of average levels, resulting in the financial inability 
of the bridge to function self-sufficiently. To date, the Canadian 
Government has provided federal funding to supplement the reduced 
bridge tolls to ensure the bridge safely remains open.
    Water Levels--Water flows and levels can significantly impact the 
safe and efficient operation of navigation in the Seaway. If Lake 
Ontario outflows reach a certain level, it becomes unsafe for 
commercial navigation to transit through the Seaway. In 2019, Lake 
Ontario experienced record high water levels and flooding to shoreline 
communities due to unprecedented precipitation in the region. The 2021 
shipping season has not been similarly affected by water level issues, 
as Lake Ontario is currently in drought conditions.
    Lake Ontario water outflows are regulated by the International 
Joint Commission (IJC) and its International Lake Ontario St. Lawrence 
River Board (Board) is the entity that manages the outflow rates. 
Outflows are governed by a water regulation plan, Plan 2014, which the 
IJC and the Board implemented in January 2017 after many years of 
interagency and binational discussions regarding the prioritization of 
uses for the boundary waters. The GLS and the Canadian Seaway have 
worked closely with the IJC and the Board over the past several years 
to ensure that the priority rights of the Seaway and commercial 
navigation established by the U.S. and Canadian Governments in the 
Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, reaffirmed by both countries in their 
concurrence of Plan 2014, and reiterated in the accompanying joint U.S. 
and Canadian Government documents, including the Supplementary Order of 
Approval, continue to be respected.
    Pilotage--All international vessels entering the Great Lakes St. 
Lawrence Seaway System are required by U.S. and Canadian regulations to 
have a certified vessel pilot on board to assist the vessel's captain 
in navigating the vessel. The oversight of pilotage services is a 
state-regulated activity everywhere in the United States, except for 
the Great Lakes, where pilotage is regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard 
Office of Great Lakes Pilotage pursuant to the Great Lakes Pilotage Act 
of 1960.
    In addition to overseeing the three U.S. pilot districts in the 
Great Lakes Seaway System, the U.S. Coast Guard also establishes the 
rates that the U.S. pilots may charge for the provision of their 
services to vessel owners. Changes in the rate adjustment methodology 
have been controversial and have been met with criticism and litigation 
from various U.S. and Canadian commercial navigation stakeholders. The 
availability and cost of U.S. pilotage services in the Great Lakes 
Seaway System are crucial components of the Seaway's safety and 
economic competitiveness. It is essential that the availability of 
Great Lakes Seaway System pilots be maintained in a manner that ensures 
safety while promoting the competitiveness of the waterway.
    The GLS remains dedicated to safely and efficiently operating the 
U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway while also promoting the 
economic benefits of the marine mode, attracting new cargoes to the 
Great Lakes Seaway System, and leveraging technology and innovation to 
enhance the system's performance and safety. Over its more than 60-year 
history, the GLS has been a model of binational partnership, ensuring 
that this international waterway is one of the safest and most reliable 
transportation routes in the world. With the investments being made in 
the St. Lawrence Seaway by the United States and Canada, it will remain 
so for many years to come.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this statement for 
the record.

    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mr. Middlebrook.
    Thank you to all our witnesses, and we will now move to 
have the questions to the witnesses. And we will use the timer 
to allow 5 minutes of questions for each Member. If there are 
additional questions, we may have additional rounds, as 
necessary.
    And beginning the questioning to Ms. Fox: In many places in 
the West, including my district, we are taking vital steps to 
fight drought by improving local water capture and groundwater 
recharge. Many groundwater basins that would be very effective 
for water storage and supply have had major challenges with 
historical contamination. Some of the sites are Superfund, some 
are brownfields, and some are regulated by the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act.
    What is EPA doing to specifically address groundwater 
remediation for basins needed for water supply, especially in 
drought-prone regions?
    Ms. Fox. Thank you so much for the question, Chairwoman 
Napolitano. And I share your deep concern for the drought that 
is plaguing the Western States. In fact, we now have 99 percent 
of the West in drought. That is 14 States, including 
California, where we are both from. And 60 percent of the West 
is now in extreme drought.
    The EPA is doing several things to really address this 
issue. For example, the EPA's Office of Water and the Office of 
Land and Emergency Management are working together on cleaning 
up groundwater and building long-term drought resiliency.
    We are also actively engaged in the White House drought 
working group, which is led by the Department of the Interior 
and USDA, to really think about in the short term in this 
crisis that we are seeing in the West what can we do, what 
short-term funding options do we have to support communities. 
We are also actively engaged in the National Drought Resilience 
Partnership, which is really looking at longer term 
authorities.
    And what I would say, Congresswoman Napolitano, as far as 
the tools and resources we have available to tackle drought, 
one of the biggest ones that we have at EPA is really the work 
that we are doing around water reuse. We have a dedicated water 
reuse team here in the Office of Water, and they are really 
working with communities all around the country to make sure 
that they know what the latest technologies are providing 
technical assistance and support, trying to coordinate across 
the Federal family on water reuse and recycling.
    We are also really thinking about how to target the funding 
and financing programs that we have available to this issue. 
So, for example, States can utilize their Drinking Water 
Revolving Loan Fund programs for aquifer recharge projects.
    And one of the things that I am particularly proud of is 
with this year's notice of funding availability for WIFIA, we 
are prioritizing projects that tackle these kinds of issues and 
tackle climate resilience. It really is going to take all of us 
working together to make sure that the urgent crisis around 
drought is addressed.
    So thank you for the question.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, ma'am, for the answer.
    I have great concern for the protection of the Clean Water 
Act, and I am troubled that the administration has not 
addressed the ``dirty water rule,'' and your testimony today 
doesn't even mention it. Of particular concern to me is the 
streams that are feeding the great rivers of the arid West only 
flow in the rainy season and are dry the rest of the year. 
These are rivers that we rely on for our drinking water, and if 
they are polluted because of lack of protection for 
intermittent waters, our residents and businesses will be 
forced to pay for treatment of contaminated water sources.
    What is EPA doing to protect and prevent pollution in these 
areas?
    Ms. Fox. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. And I 
share your concerns about the Navigable Waters Protection Rule 
and the lack of protections that we have for so many water 
bodies across America.
    That is why Army and EPA have made the determination to 
undertake a rulemaking to address these issues. As 
Administrator Regan and I have said, we want to develop a 
definition of ``waters of the United States'' that is 
consistent with the spirit and intent of the Clean Water Act, 
which is to preserve and protect the integrity of our Nation's 
waters.
    And we also want a rule that stops the ping pong, 
Congresswoman. I mean, for over a decade we have had multiple 
lawsuits. It seems like every time there is an election this 
rule gets rewritten, and we want to stop that ping pong because 
at the end of the day, who gets hurt? It is people, and it is 
our Nation's waters.
    And that is why we are both going to be expeditious as we 
develop this rulemaking, but we are going to do it in a way 
that is grounded in learning from the lessons of the past. We 
are going to understand what worked and what didn't about the 
pre-2015 WOTUS definition, what worked and what didn't around 
the Clean Water Rule, and then also what worked and what 
doesn't about the Navigable Waters Protection Rule.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much for your answers, 
ma'am. I appreciate it.
    Mr. Rouzer, you are recognized.
    Mr. Rouzer. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And, Ms. Fox, 
thank you again for being here. It is great to see you, and 
thank you again for the visit that we had recently. I very much 
enjoyed the opportunity to talk with you.
    A number of things, but I am going to start with this: So a 
few weeks ago, as I mentioned in my opening comments, Acting 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Jaime Pinkham 
testified before this subcommittee. And he, in essence, said 
this, or I asked him this question: Which agency is going to be 
the lead on the WOTUS rewrite?
    And his response was, quote, ``It will be primarily EPA, 
with a tremendous amount of engagement from the Civil Works 
program at the Army.''
    Would you say that is an accurate assessment? Is that how 
you understand the relationship there?
    Ms. Fox. Well, first of all, it is wonderful to see you 
again, Congressman Rouzer. And I really enjoyed our discussion 
about so many water quality issues in North Carolina and really 
look forward to working with you as I take on this new role.
    So the ``waters of the United States'' is a joint 
rulemaking, with EPA and Army both having a responsibility. And 
so it is a big and important rule and so we divide up the work. 
And we are very collaborative. We actually have biweekly 
meetings. At the staff level, they meet weekly on many of the 
technical issues. It is really a collaboration in the finest 
sense of the word between our two agencies.
    Mr. Rouzer. Which agency or is it both of you that will be 
coordinating the stakeholder outreach, and can you give a 
timeline on that, any specific details on what that will 
entail?
    Ms. Fox. Yes. We have not ironed out the specific sort of 
staffing division of responsibility on the stakeholder 
engagements, but I do anticipate that EPA Office of Water staff 
will take on a lot of the administrative coordination, 
logistical coordination, et cetera, of those stakeholder 
engagements.
    As to your question, Congressman, about the timing, we want 
to be transparent in the development of this rule, because we 
know it is so foundational to so many things that communities 
care about. And so, later this summer, we will be announcing 
the framework for the rulemaking and also the various 
stakeholder engagements that will happen.
    But just to preview that for you, sir, this summer, later 
this summer, we intend to do public listening sessions that 
will be virtual. So any member of the general public can share 
their feedback with EPA and Army.
    We will also do dedicated stakeholder conversations with 
many of the stakeholder groups that are impacted with that 
rule. We will meet with agriculture. We will meet with 
industry. We will meet with environmental organizations, 
environmental justice groups, and, of course, our State and 
Tribal coregulators. Local governments and county governments 
are so important to this. So we will do those targeted 
stakeholder discussions.
    And then we anticipate in the late fall-early winter, we 
will then have regional roundtables as well. And, really, the 
regional roundtables, Congressman, really recognize that the 
way in which ``waters of the U.S.'' is implemented in different 
regions, it looks different because the geology, the hydrology 
are different. And so we really need to understand that 
application, that implementation on the ground. And so we will 
be doing those really in all of the 10 EPA regions, like I 
said, in the late winter.
    Mr. Rouzer. One quick question, and this is very important. 
I remember in 2015 the Obama ``waters of the U.S.'' rule. I had 
Democratic mayors, Republican mayors, it was across the board, 
just a lot of strong concern. There were 31 States and a myriad 
of stakeholder groups representing farmers, ranchers, miners, 
really anyone who wanted to do anything on land were very much 
concerned about the rule.
    Who is concerned about the Trump rule, specifically? I know 
my friends on the other side call it the ``dirty water rule,'' 
but I have not heard a word from my Democratic mayors back home 
or anyone. People seem to be satisfied with this rule. So I am 
just wondering who you all have specifically heard from.
    Ms. Fox. Well, thank you for that question, and thank you 
for that feedback about the concerns from your constituents on 
the 2015 rule. Of course, as you know, I was not here in 2015, 
so I can't speak to all the particulars.
    But what I can say is that with the Navigable Waters 
Protection Rule, it is being litigated in many courts around 
the country. In fact, there are 20 State's attorneys that have 
expressed their deep concern. And I will say I think that 
concern, there is cause for concern in thinking about some of 
the long-term water quality protections.
    We have heard, for example, from New Mexico that now over 
90 percent of their waters are no longer jurisdictional. And 
the concern that they have raised to us is that when a water is 
not jurisdictional, it means that we don't have the ability to 
use the permitting process to assess and potentially mitigate 
water quality impacts. We are not saying no development. We are 
saying we want to really understand the impacts of the 
particular development on our Nation's waters. And that is 
really why this definition is so important.
    So we have heard lots of concerns about the 2020 rule. We 
have heard lots of concerns about the 2015 rule. And, 
Congressman, that is why Administrator Regan, Army, myself are 
so committed to really understanding those implementation 
challenges through our stakeholder engagement process and 
really trying to find a balance that really protects our waters 
but is also clear and efficient in its implementation.
    Mr. Rouzer. Madam Chair, my time has expired. Thank you.
    Mrs. Napolitano. You are very welcome.
    I would like to have Ms. Johnson next, followed by Mr. 
Webster, followed by Mr. Garamendi and Mr. Bost. Ms. Johnson, 
you are on.
    Ms. Johnson of Texas. Well, thank you very much. And thank 
you for having this hearing.
    I would like to pose a question first to Ms. Fox. I was 
pleased to see in your testimony that the EPA, under the 
leadership of Administrator Regan, is embedding equity in 
everything that it does.
    I wonder specifically what are the primary avenues in which 
the agency intends to embark upon this goal, and how do you see 
the EPA accomplishing this, and what do you view as the main 
obstacles or roadblocks that may be in place that you need to 
overcome?
    Ms. Fox. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman, and it 
is wonderful to see you again. It has been I think almost a 
number of years since we have last visited.
    So thank you for the question. And I have to say our 
commitment to equity starts from President Biden and to 
Administrator Regan.
    And what Administrator Regan has done is he has asked each 
of his national program offices in our 10 EPA regions to look 
at what regulatory authority, what funding and financing 
programs we have, what voluntary programs we have--you know, we 
also have a range of technical assistance tools available to 
us--and has asked us to assess, you know, are there 
disproportionate impacts from how we are utilizing these 
authorities that we have, and can we do better?
    So what that means, in the context of the Office of Water, 
is we are looking at things like, when we do a rulemaking, do 
we have meaningful community engagement from those who are 
perhaps disproportionately impacted? And, unfortunately, we 
haven't always done that. And that is why, for example, as we 
are looking at the Lead and Copper Rule, we are doing community 
roundtables with low-income people and communities of color 
around the country. So we are thinking about, are we being 
equitable when we do these regulations and rulemaking?
    I am very grateful that Congress has bestowed upon the 
Office of Water a range of funding and financing programs. You 
know, are those resources going to communities who are most 
vulnerable when it comes to water quality and quantity 
challenges? So we are doing that assessment.
    And then, Congresswoman, one of the things that I would say 
as far as do we have all the tools that we need, I would say I 
think we need more. So, for example, one of the barriers that 
we face in utilizing some of our grant programs is that the 
definition of disadvantaged communities doesn't always line up 
or doesn't always actually target the communities who are most 
vulnerable. So we may need to come to Congress and present that 
information to all of you so that we could work on getting 
those things aligned.
    Another thing that I hear from communities all around the 
country is that they need technical assistance and support to 
even be able to access the funds that we have. And so we think 
that it is actually really important to invest more in building 
the technical and the managerial and the financial capacity of 
these more vulnerable water systems. And so I think that is 
another area of promise as we move forward.
    And then, of course, you know, the environmental justice 
programs. The President's budget, the fiscal year 2022 budget 
calls for a historic investment in environmental justice 
communities. And so we are keeping our fingers crossed that 
that makes it into the final budget that Congress passes 
because we know that the situation is dire all around the 
country.
    Ms. Johnson of Texas. Well, thank you very much. I just 
have a very short amount of time. I will yield back. I yield 
back.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
    Mr. Webster, you are next. You are on.
    Mr. Webster. I am on?
    Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, you are. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Webster. Thank you, Chair.
    I have a question for Mr. Cosby: In the agriculture world, 
does your area--because we have been talking about global 
warming and so forth, do you have any impact on the agriculture 
industry and their harvesting and planting machines and so 
forth as it comes to internal combustion engines? Do you have 
anything to do with that?
    Mr. Cosby. Thank you for the question, sir. And my agency 
is--you know, we have a lot of things that we do. And I would 
like to talk a little bit about the programs that we have to 
offer to the landowners across this great country through our 
conservation programs and through our working lands programs.
    And it helps these farmers adjust to a lot of things that 
are happening, and especially with drought and some of the 
disasters that are happening around the country right now.
    We have our EQIP program, our environmental EQIP program 
that we have, and we administer that throughout the whole 
country. And we offer those programs to the farmers out there, 
and it helps them to address a lot of things.
    What we do on the land is we sit down with the landowner 
and we start with a conservation plan. And from that 
conservation plan, we talk to the landowner about, you know, 
what are their objectives? What are you trying to achieve on 
these acres? We walk a lot of times--we walk every acre, and we 
talk about what the resource needs are for those acres. And we 
help landowners, inform landowners on what they can do to solve 
some of those resource problems. And a lot of times those 
landowners take those plans, they implement those programs.
    But, also, we have our financial assistance programs that 
we offer to a lot of the landowners to help offset some of the 
costs of some of these practices that they want to put on. A 
lot of our practices, they do a lot for climate mitigation, and 
it helps with erosion, water quality. And so we have a lot of 
tools in the toolbox to work with landowners around the country 
to help them with their resource needs, sir.
    Mr. Webster. Specifically, let me ask: Most of the 
harvesting and so forth, there is a museum in my area for 
International Harvester equipment and all kinds of interesting 
pieces of equipment. And they are still used, and they are all 
internal combustion engines.
    And I am wondering, is there a battery-powered industry 
building or coming or thought about in the agriculture 
industry, do you know?
    Mr. Cosby. Sir, what I would like to do is take that 
question back with me and maybe sit down with you and your 
staff to look at this a little bit further, but I would like to 
take that question back.
    Mr. Webster. OK. Well, I have got a lot of agriculture in 
my area, and I am not sure exactly how they are going. One of 
the things I am talking about is the fact that, in Florida, if 
you had an electric vehicle, you wouldn't want to leave the 
State; trying to get out of the State with a hurricane coming 
with that electric vehicle, in some places, you can't make it, 
and then to recharge is going to be a little difficult.
    But in the area of farming, the recharging stations are not 
next to you. They are not there. And I am wondering if that 
industry is--part of what you take back with you and part of 
what I would like to know about is what is happening in that 
realm of agriculture that changes footprint, changes the use of 
internal combustion engines, and allows for farmers still to 
maintain what they are doing, still to do their work, the 
crops, feed us, and yet do it in a way that would be the right 
way.
    And, anyway, I look forward to hearing back from you. I 
yield back.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Webster, for yielding back.
    Mr. Garamendi, you are recognized.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And for the witnesses, thank you very much for your 
statements. I have got about a dozen questions for each of you 
and certainly not the time to ask them.
    Ms. Fox, you have been questioned several times on the 
``waters of the U.S.'' I will add very briefly to that. It is 
an extremely important issue for California, particularly for 
my district where I have about 200 miles of the Sacramento 
River Valley and a lot of agriculture. The 2015 rule created 
very, very serious problems for agriculture where a drainage 
ditch, dry most of the year, would be subject to the rule. The 
Trump rule went too far in the other direction. There is a lot 
of middle ground there. Listening to the way in which you 
intend to go about that, it is the right way. Gather the 
information. Find the appropriate way to deal with it. Not 
every agricultural ditch is a ``water of the U.S.'' or would 
have impact.
    Also please keep in mind that there are other Federal rules 
that also interact with ``waters of the U.S.,'' particularly 
the clean waters programs, discharges, and the like. And so 
when you explained what you wanted to do and your philosophy, I 
think you may have merged into the discharge area. In any case, 
count on us being deeply involved in all of this. Our farmers 
will be there, and I will be there. I did oppose the 2015, much 
to the chagrin of my environmental friends but I thought it was 
too far, too much, and, of course, the Trump administration 
rule, equally too far in the other direction. I am going to let 
it go at that. You have already opined on this, and we will 
deeply be involved in it.
    I do have a couple of other questions. Mr. Cosby, not a 
question but a shout-out and a thank you. The NRCS is extremely 
important in California. The work that you are doing not only 
on the farms but now into the forests, working with, for 
example, the Yuba County Water Agency, trying to figure out how 
to bring NRCS into the forest for forest health, for water, as 
well as for fire protection. Please continue. Be strong. Make 
sure that money goes out to the projects, most of which you 
have already spoke to.
    I had not expected to talk about the Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry program, Mr. Breysse, but I am 
going to. My work in the House Armed Services Committee is 
directly related and complementary to what you are doing, and 
so I would appreciate a conversation with you and my staff 
about the work that you are doing on this. The registry program 
that you are talking about, we have a similar program with the 
military, the OATH Act, and then augmenting that this year to 
cover many of the things that you are covering. So we have got 
a meeting that will be scheduled between your team and our team 
on the House Armed Services Committee.
    With regard to the Great Lakes, we are putting together an 
amendment to the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and 
Control Act of 1990 so that we can find a way of making sure 
that boats and ships that move from one environment to another 
do not transmit nonnative aquatic species. So we look forward 
to working with you, Mr. Middlebrook, on this issue so that we 
can once again try to protect our native aquatic species from 
invasives. So, yeah, you and I and our team are going to have a 
further conversation.
    And, finally, with regard to the NOAA: NOAA, you have 
icebreakers. You rent icebreakers. I want to know how you are 
doing that. I want to know how that works. The Coast Guard and 
the Navy are in desperate need of icebreakers. Maybe your model 
works. Maybe it doesn't. So let's look at that and have a 
conversation about it.
    So my questions are, hey, we are going to have a 
conversation on each and every one of these issues. What do you 
say to that? On board? Thumbs up. Let's do it.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi, very much for 
your input.
    Next we have Mr. Bost. You may proceed.
    [Pause.]
    Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Bost?
    We will proceed to the next individual, Mr. Pappas.
    Mr. Pappas. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the 
opportunity.
    Mrs. Napolitano. I am sorry. I skipped somebody. I am 
sorry, Mr. Pappas.
    It is Mr. Malinowski who is next.
    Mr. Pappas. OK.
    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    So thank to you the witnesses. Very interesting and 
important testimony.
    And I wanted to start with you, Ms. Fox, raising an issue 
about cybersecurity. Earlier this year, as you know, a water 
treatment plant in Oldsmar, Florida, was hacked and the 
intruders apparently attempted to dramatically increase the 
amount of lye in the water treatment process. It was a near 
miss that could have been absolutely catastrophic. This is 
obviously a larger problem. Chris Krebs, the former Director of 
CISA, speaking to this event, said that the vulnerability at 
that particular water treatment plant was probably more the 
rule than the exception around the United States.
    I note that EPA has asked for a small increase to $15 
million in its budget to help these kinds of facilities harden 
their systems. So I wonder, first of all, do you agree with Mr. 
Krebs that that was more the rule than the exception? And, 
second, say a little bit about what the money you are 
requesting will do and whether it is sufficient.
    Ms. Fox. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
    And one thing that you may or may not know about me is that 
I used to work for a local water utility. I worked for the San 
Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and so I saw firsthand, 
working at a local water utility, how vulnerable water 
utilities are. So you mentioned the situation in Florida, but 
we have seen cyber threats, cyber attacks on other water 
utilities around the country.
    This is a critical issue when it relates to preserving 
public health, and so this is an area--I think what is in the 
fiscal year 2022 budget is a start, but we are going to need, I 
think, more tools and resources in order to make sure that our 
drinking water and wastewater systems are cyber secure. We 
have, I think, made some really good progress in a voluntary 
way, working with the Federal family and then working with some 
of the national water associations, working with the 
associations that represent our State coregulators. But I think 
we need to invest more in these water utilities so that they 
can develop cybersecurity plans.
    I think we need to start asking whether, when a breach 
happens, is there a requirement that it is reported to the EPA? 
Because that is currently not the case. So I think that there 
is a lot that we need to do from a regulatory perspective and 
from a funding perspective, and I would welcome the opportunity 
to work with you and this committee on moving some of those 
issues forward.
    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you.
    Would that require legislation, or is that a regulatory 
fix?
    Ms. Fox. So I think what one that we are doing with the 
Office of Water is really, and really at the request of the 
National Security Council and the President, is what current 
regulatory authorities do we have that we could utilize to do 
more on cyber, but we also know that we are going to need, I 
think, more legislative action in order----
    Mr. Malinowski. I meant in terms of specifically the 
reporting requirement.
    Ms. Fox. The reporting, as well as funding, funding 
directly so that water utilities can make these kinds of 
investments.
    Mr. Malinowski. Good. Thank you.
    And then finally just to echo the emphasis that Ms. LeBoeuf 
provided on climate and climate policy, we had a record-
breaking year in 2020 in terms of the number of billion-dollar 
weather and climate disasters in this country, 22. The previous 
record was 16, and we have seen the heat waves and what 
happened in Texas and subways flooded in New York City.
    I guess my quick question for you is: Is there any amount 
of money we can spend on the resiliency and hardening 
infrastructure that is actually going to insulate us from those 
kinds of disasters if we don't take dramatic action soon to 
actually deal with the cause of those disasters, which is the 
change in climate?
    Ms. Fox. It is an excellent question, Congressman.
    I think this question is exactly why President Biden is 
acting so urgently to address the climate crisis. We have had a 
number of Executive orders that I think illustrate the urgency 
with which the President wants us to act. The national climate 
office within the White House is doing an excellent job of 
convening the Federal family on these issues, and it is why I 
think we so desperately need the bipartisan infrastructure 
framework to become legislation. It would really help us make a 
lot of progress on the climate issue as well.
    Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. My time is up.
    I yield back.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Malinowski.
    Now we will proceed to Mr. LaMalfa, followed by Ms. Mace 
and then Mr. Pappas.
    You are on, Mr. LaMalfa.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it.
    As we sit here in the West and northern California, I have 
at least seven forest fires going on in my area here. And we 
don't hear talk about it enough. We hear a lot about changing 
weather patterns but not a lot about the action in order to 
mitigate drought and to mitigate forests that have an overload, 
have an over-inventory of trees and brush and dead material 
that needs to be removed and made something useful of it.
    So, if we want to do something about this situation with 
changing weather patterns, why don't we focus on thinning 
forests, managing them in a way so they have the inventory per 
acre that makes them much more survivable, and storing more 
water when we do get it as rainfall? We are getting less as 
snowpack lately. And we would have that to carry over into 
later years. But, you know, those are the eternal discussions 
that we have and seem to gloss over a lot.
    In regards to the WOTUS conversation earlier here, we have 
had areas up here where people in agriculture have been told 
they cannot farm their land because it somehow affects the 
``waters of the United States.'' Changing crops, changing from 
a grain crop to a tree crop has in recent times, before the 
Trump administration WOTUS action, people were getting fined 
and getting land even seized from them for changing crops and 
forming their land in the way that works for actually better 
water management for them. And so it has really became an out-
of-control rule. And as one of my colleagues was mentioning, 
who is complaining right now about WOTUS as it is, as it has 
been redefined? So, when we do the ping-pong thing back and 
forth, we want to change it back to the thing that is very 
restrictive.
    ``Waters of the United States'' has nothing to do with a 
farmer's irrigation ditch, drainage ditch, the land which they 
are farming themselves. When you want to talk rivers and things 
like that, fine. You have a conversation. But every drop of 
water that falls on somebody's roof, somebody's driveway, 
somebody's ditch, somebody's field, does not belong to the 
United States. And that is something that needs to be made 
clear and understood by this administration and everybody else 
in Washington, DC.
    So, with those struggles we have in agriculture, I want to 
focus on Chief Cosby there. You mentioned in your issues with 
NRCS, you want to protect the viability of agriculture 
operations, the Nation's soil, water, and related natural 
resources on non-Federal lands. So let me bring up how things 
are going in the Klamath Basin which borders northern 
California and southern Oregon, the Klamath River. It, of 
course, is facing a catastrophic lack of water supply. The lack 
of water is partially the Federal Government's fault. The 
Klamath project was built, part of it, over 100 years ago to 
bring water to agriculture that belonged solely to agriculture. 
Courts have upheld that that water, the augmentation of the 
existing lake, was water that belongs to agriculture. Yet it is 
still being pilfered by the Department of the Interior through 
the Bureau of Reclamation to flush down the stream for either 
trying to help coho salmon or being forced to stay in the lake 
ostensibly to try and help the sucker fish. So both ESA and the 
NEPA both require the water be flushed for those reasons.
    So it is really a conundrum as to which way--you keep the 
water in the lake, you flush it out--either way, none of it is 
now available for agriculture or the refuges up there or much 
wildlife that affects the whole Pacific Flyway in place.
    So the Bureau this year, the Bureau of Reclamation for the 
first time ever will not even open the canal to agriculture to 
send in for irrigation water for products that you and I use 
all across this country. So it triggers a long process of 
Government aid approval that would actually be helpful, but it 
takes months and months. Meanwhile, these folks are on the line 
with not being able to farm their crops and making a living for 
lack of that. So they will be waiting for Congress to put 
together a disaster package. The Bureau has already allocated 
its entire aid budget.
    So the question to you, Mr. Cosby, is: What are the goals 
you lay out for your agency to protect the viability of 
agriculture operations? We want farming the basin to continue, 
but we have to set up a much faster process to get the aid out. 
These farmers don't want aid. They would rather farm with the 
water that actually belongs to them. That said, what can we do 
to speed up the process to get the aid out so they can get 
through 2021? We believe the Commodity Credit Corporation is a 
vehicle we can do that with, partnering with NRCS. CCC does 
much work already with agriculture, as you know, and so they 
could be a way for a distribution system for payments, not 
completely unlike how we tasked SBA to get through the CARES 
Act and the first part of the COVID business.
    So what do you think about the partnership that NRCS can 
use with CCC to accelerate aid payments for these farmers and 
ranchers that are up in that basin?
    Mr. Cosby. And, Congressman, thank you for your question.
    We share your concern about drought and what is happening 
in the western part of the United States, and NRCS is making 
some programs available to those farmers and ranchers. It is 
mainly through our Environmental Quality Incentives Program, 
which we call EQIP. We have made available----
    Mr. LaMalfa. Sir, sir, let me jump in there. Let me jump in 
there. We have heard of EQIP----
    Mrs. Napolitano. Your time is up, Mr. LaMalfa.
    Mr. LaMalfa. It is a fine program.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    It's a fine program, but it doesn't do anything near the 
scale of what we are talking about for the type of damage that 
is being done up there. And so, when you say we have programs, 
they are good little programs but they nip at the edges of the 
size of an agricultural operation. I am a farmer in my real 
life, too, and they help----
    Mrs. Napolitano. Would you mind putting this in writing. 
Mr. LaMalfa?
    Mr. LaMalfa. Yeah, yeah, thank you.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
    We will proceed to the next Member of Congress.
    Ms. Mace, you are on.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano, and Ranking 
Member Rouzer. I appreciate the time this afternoon, and I 
appreciate all of our witnesses being here today and especially 
you, Ms. LeBoeuf, with NOAA.
    I am speaking to you today from the historic Charleston 
Battery right here in downtown Charleston and also behind me 
right on the water and actually a little bit further behind me, 
we pan that way, is the South Carolina Department of Natural 
Resources where NOAA also has a lab and works with our 
department here.
    And while we are not always going to see eye to eye on 
funding priorities, I know there are some areas where I think 
we can join together and work together with all of my 
colleagues here today, and I want to echo how important the 
work that NOAA does, your organization, in regards to flooding, 
which is why I am standing in downtown Charleston this 
afternoon.
    Forty years ago, flooding in Charleston, where I am 
standing today, averaged about two times a year. Today, in 
2021, 40 years later, we are seeing over 40 flood incidents 
every single year, and it is predicted by 2045, our city will 
be hit by coastal flooding up to 180 times per year.
    Additionally, our region has been hit by several major 
flooding events over the years, including the 1,000-year flood, 
which was in October of 2015, Hurricane Matthew in 2016, 
Hurricane Irma in 2017, and just last week we had a mere 
tropical storm, which caused tremendous flooding throughout our 
great city. The Holy City of Charleston, the original sea level 
rise strategy adopted in 2015, was aided by technical mapping 
assistance by the Regional Coastal Resilience Grant from NOAA's 
Office for Coastal Management. The grant was awarded to the 
South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium on behalf of the Charleston 
Resilience Network.
    I work with the Office of Coastal Resilience and have been 
out to the NOAA facility here in Charleston. I have seen the 
important work that NOAA and your office is doing with the 
digital coast mapping software, something that was very 
important to me as a State lawmaker and even more important now 
as a Member of Congress. Today we are learning, quickly 
learning, that 5-year, 10-year, and further out flood plans are 
constantly evolving because this issue is rapidly changing 
literally on a year-to-year basis. And I look forward to 
hearing from you on how the administration and your office 
plans to account for the budgeting needs of cities like 
Charleston, South Carolina, that are facing ever-growing, ever-
changing flooding issues.
    I also want to add that, as I am sure you know, the city of 
Charleston is working closely with the Army Corps of Engineers 
to propose seawall construction in which engineers believe they 
can save the city from long-term impacts of storm surges until 
and through 2082. We are all eagerly awarding the Corps' final 
report to be released and signed--we are hoping it will be next 
month. I hope you will be able to speak to your office's 
coordinating strategists also with the Army Corps of the 
Engineers.
    Again, I appreciate your time today. I see your office at 
NOAA as critical for the needs of Charleston, of South 
Carolina, our First Congressional District, and the entire 
State of South Carolina and I would like to invite you down 
here anytime to come and visit.
    So, with the few moments we have left on my time on the 
floor, I certainly would love to hear from you, Ms. LeBoeuf, on 
NOAA and what we can do to help Charleston and our flooding 
situation here today.
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you, Congresswoman Mace, and Charleston 
is absolutely one of my favorite places in the country, and I 
share your concern about rising sea levels. In fact, later 
today, I will be speaking at a media event to release our 
``High-Tide Flooding Report'' for this year. In any home State 
of Texas, for example, we either tied or broke several records 
from Galveston to Corpus Christi of more than 20 days of high-
tide flooding per year. Just 20 years ago, that was 2 to 3 days 
per year.
    And you are absolutely right. In Charleston, in Pensacola, 
we saw more than 14 days of high-tide flooding where just 20 
years ago it was 1 to 2 days, and so absolutely we are facing 
some big challenges, and I really appreciate you bringing those 
up.
    We do work closely with the Army Corps of Engineers and 
advise them with regard to sea-level rise and inundation risks 
and projections. We also work closely with the Army Corps on 
engineering with nature, which is a program that they lead to 
better understand the value of nature-based infrastructure to 
protect our coastlines and to provide critical habitat for 
commercially and recreationally viable species.
    With regard to this budget, we are very keen to make sure 
that we have the water level sensors in place, that we have 
high-performance computing to be able to predict sea level rise 
and storm surge risks for all of our coastal communities. For 
first time in human history, we must plan infrastructure for 
conditions that we have not yet seen. We have never had to do 
that before, and so it is essential that NOAA's predictive 
capabilities and our observations be put to the task and work 
with other Federal agencies to make sure that our communities 
are safe and that our Federal agencies are able to complete 
their missions with climate change in mind.
    So thank you so much. I will absolutely take you up on your 
offer to come to Charleston. It has been too long.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Mace.
    Ms. Mace. We would--we would certainly----
    Mrs. Napolitano. Your time is up.
    Ms. Mace [continuing]. Welcome you.
    Thank you, Ms. Chairwoman.
    Mrs. Napolitano. You are very welcome.
    Next we recognize Mr. Pappas. You may proceed.
    Mr. Pappas. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    And I appreciate the comments of all of our panelists here 
today, and I want to focus my questions on the urgent need to 
address PFAS contamination which is something that my 
constituents and all of the other Members who are represented 
here today, their constituents, are grappling with as well. Now 
I have been encouraged and impressed by the commitment that the 
administration has taken on PFAS. I think we need aggressive, 
comprehensive action when it comes to making some forward 
progress here. It is about time.
    And, Ms. Fox, maybe I could turn to you. I know that the 
Administrator announced the creation of a PFAS council, and you 
have been appointed as cochair. One of the charges of the 
council is to develop a multiyear strategy to address public 
health and environmental impacts from PFAS. So, as we are 
approaching the first deadline of initial recommendations from 
the council, I am wondering if you could share any updates on 
the work on this council and, in addition to that, what 
resources EPA may eventually need from Congress in order to 
move as quickly as possible when it comes to setting standards, 
holding polluters accountable, and protecting public health.
    Ms. Fox. Thank you for the question, Congressman Pappas, 
and thank you for your incredible leadership on PFAS. It is 
quite inspiring, and I very much enjoyed having the opportunity 
to hear about your priorities for the people of New Hampshire.
    And you are right. I have the incredible honor of 
cochairing the EPA's PFAS council. And to preview for you some 
of the recommendations that we will be making, we are really 
taking again a whole-of-EPA approach. Administrator Regan has 
directed us to think really creatively about how we harmonize 
all of our authorities under the Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean 
Water Act, CERCLA within the Office of Land and Emergency 
Management, the Office of Air and Radiation. So we are taking 
that charge seriously.
    Some of the things that we are looking at are research, 
restrict, and remediate. We want to build the research and 
scientific base that we have at EPA and across the Federal 
family, and we want to do that not only on individual PFAS as 
we have historically done, but also, how do we look at PFAS as 
a group? So how do we build that research and evidence base? 
And then, second, we really want to restrict PFAS from entering 
our land, our air, and our water in the first place. You see 
what happens, Congressman, when we have that contamination in 
our communities. So one of the best things that we can do as a 
Federal family is to restrict PFAS in the first place. So we 
are looking at that.
    And then finally remediate. We have to tackle the PFAS 
contamination that exists in too many communities around the 
country, and so that is going to be also a huge priority of 
this EPA.
    As to your question around what we need, right now, we are 
both looking at our current authorities, our current regulatory 
authority, and how far we can go on tackling the PFAS 
contamination, but we may need to come back to you-all for 
additional authority.
    Additionally, we need resources. We are grateful for the 
resources that we have, and we are trying to use every dollar 
wisely but the scale of the problem in communities around the 
country is so great, and that is why I think we have been so 
pleased and just so inspired by your leadership on this issue 
and really truly believe this is an area where the executive 
branch and the legislative branch can make a lot of progress 
together.
    Mr. Pappas. Well, thanks for your comments, and it is an 
issue that many Members are concerned about and working on. The 
ranking member also mentioned this issue in his opening 
statement, which I was pleased to hear. I have got legislation, 
the Clean Water Standards for PFAS Act, which would accelerate 
efforts to set limits on manufacturers who are still 
discharging PFAS into our waterways. When we talk about 
restricting these forever chemicals from getting out into the 
environment, that is an important step forward.
    And in the few seconds that I have left, I am wondering if 
you would agree that setting PFAS discharge standards for key 
polluters is a key pillar in curbing the PFAS crisis and 
whether that fits within the framework envisioned by Congress 
when they authorized the Clean Water Act.
    Ms. Fox. I agree with you, Representative, and one of the 
things that I am proud of is that, within the Office of Water, 
we have started to undertake a rulemaking that is looking at 
industrial discharges from PFAS manufacturers. So it is 
something that we intend to move forward with.
    Mr. Pappas. Well, thanks for that commitment. This work 
can't wait, and the health and well-being of our constituents 
and the environment, as well, depends on your work. So we will 
continue to engage on this.
    And I yield back my time, Madam Chair.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mr. Pappas.
    The next order will be Miss Gonzalez-Colon, Mr. Stanton, 
Mr. Mast, and Mr. Carbajal.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon, you may proceed.
    [Pause.]
    Mrs. Napolitano. Miss Gonzalez-Colon is not answering.
    Mr. Mast, you are on.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the time 
today.
    My remarks are going to Ms. Fox from the EPA. I have 
enjoyed speaking to you before, and I would just want to start 
by saying I really appreciate the work that you-all have done 
on toxic algal blooms. Everybody on this committee knows this 
is the biggest thing that I work on because my community is 
getting poisoned by extremely toxic algal blooms on a regular 
basis. I just really want to thank you for the yeoman's work 
that you-all have done on ingestion standards.
    And to move a little bit onto that, EPA put out a policy or 
a standard that set toxic microcystin of cyanotoxins over 8 
parts per billion or 8 micrograms per liter is very toxic. It 
leads to Alzheimer's, ALS, liver failure, kidney failure, 
neurological things. Am I giving an accurate representation of 
your findings, ma'am?
    Ms. Fox. Congressman Mast, it is wonderful to see you 
again, and I really enjoyed visiting with you and I want to 
thank you for your leadership on these issues.
    So there are not many published studies on inhalation risks 
related to toxins produced by----
    Mr. Mast. This is ingestion, ma'am, ingestion, going back 
to what you guys did on ingestion. I am not asking about 
inhalation. Did I----
    Ms. Fox. Yes.
    Mr. Mast [continuing]. Give an accurate representation of 
what you said about ingestion?
    Ms. Fox. So we have examined the relative exposure levels 
between inhalation and incidental ingestion exposures based on 
available scientific studies and what we determined from that 
analysis is that the amount of aerosolized microcystins that 
people are expected to inhale is estimated to be much lower 
than the amount that is incidentally ingested while swimming.
    Mr. Mast. Right. So, if 8 micrograms per liter, somebody is 
swimming in that, versus if somebody is breathing that, it is 
not as bad if they are breathing it versus if they are swimming 
and taking it in. That is fair to say?
    Ms. Fox. I would love to check in with my team on this, 
Congressman, and get back to you because I do not want to 
misspeak.
    Mr. Mast. You were quoted--not you--EPA was quoted by the 
Corps of Engineers to say the EPA indicates health risks 
associated with inhalation of these algal blooms is very low. 
Would you say that that is an accurate representation of what 
you-all believe?
    Ms. Fox. I would----
    Mr. Mast. You guys are being quoted as that.
    Ms. Fox. Yes, Congressman, if that is the study, yes, I am 
happy to follow up with you on this. I want to make sure that I 
am getting the accurate information to you.
    Mr. Mast. That is not a study. I am--I actually asked the 
Corps for the source material. They didn't have it. So I am 
asking you if they are interpreting--you know, you guys said, 
the Environmental Protection Agency indicates the highest risk 
from microcystin exposure is through ingestion. It is kind of 
like a ``duh'' thing. Anything has the highest risk is if you 
drink it and ingest it, but they extrapolated from that that 
health risks associated with inhalation, therefore, are 
extremely low.
    Ms. Fox. So, Congressman, as you know, there are hundreds 
of issues that the EPA Office of Water has responsibility for 
and what you can always rely on and count on me is I am only 
going to answer questions accurately when I have that 
information in front of me. So I am not deeply familiar with 
this particular study. So please let me check in with my career 
experts, and I will get back to you promptly on this matter.
    Mr. Mast. I will. I want to lead you a little bit more on 
it, though, just so you know what to check into. Like I said, 
they indicate that or they actually said it is very low. I 
asked a very pointed question of the Corps because the fact of 
the matter is they are not just facing algal blooms measured at 
8 parts per billion. They are facing algal blooms where they 
are directly--when I say directly on top of them, I mean 
directly on top of them for upwards of 10 hours a day at 800 
parts per billion.
    Does that seem as though the individuals, the Active Duty 
military personnel and civilian Corps personnel exposed to 
that, does that seem like a healthy situation to you? That is 
an opinion question.
    Ms. Fox. I am sorry?
    Mr. Mast. That is an opinion question. Does that seem 
healthy to you?
    Ms. Fox. Congressman?
    Mr. Mast. Yes, ma'am. I hope they will pause the clocks 
since Ms. Fox just went offline here, until she is back on.
    [Technical difficulty.]
    Ms. Fox. Can you--somebody needs to get Dominique ASAP. 
[Directing comment to her staff.]
    Mrs. Napolitano. We can hear you.
    Ms. Fox. Sorry, Congressman. I don't know what has 
happened, but we are getting our IT people immediately but----
    Mr. Mast. Mrs. Napolitano, if you want to pause and come 
back to me with my remaining time, I will be open to that.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Well, you can hear her. You may not see 
her, but you can hear her.
    Ms. Fox. Is this the camera? I don't know. What is that? 
Oh. [Directing comments to her staff.]
    Can you see me know?
    Mr. Mast. I can hear her, but they're not really focused on 
me, Mrs. Napolitano. Can we pause my time and come back when 
they are ready?
    Mrs. Napolitano. Well, I would like to move on and then 
come back to you. Is that all right?
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate it, ma'am. Thank 
you. I will be standing by whenever you are ready to come back.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Very fine.
    So next we have Mr. Stanton, followed by Mr. Carbajal and 
Mr. Delgado and then Mr. Lowenthal.
    Mr. Stanton, you may proceed.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate 
the opportunity to ask questions of these outstanding 
witnesses.
    There is no area of our country where the need for 
significant investments in water infrastructure is more acute 
than in our Tribal communities. Approximately 12 percent of 
Tribal homes do not have safe water or basic sanitation 
facilities, and currently there is a backlog of more than 1,500 
sanitation construction projects.
    As noted, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights ``Broken 
Promises Report,'' infrastructure and investment on Tribal 
lands has been underfunded for decades. The chronic 
underinvestment has impacted not only the social, physical, and 
mental well-being of Tribal members, it has affected the 
ability of Tribes to fully leverage their economic potential.
    The COVID pandemic brought this underinvestment to light 
again, and no place was more evident than on the Navajo Nation 
in Arizona. More than one-third of the Nation's population 
lacks access to running water or indoor plumbing, and many 
families have fewer than 10 gallons of water at home at any 
given time. The lack of access to water and basic sanitation 
helped fuel the spread of COVID on the Nation, which in May of 
last year had the highest per capita infection rate in the 
entire country.
    Given the tremendous backlog of drinking water and 
sanitation projects across Indian Country and on the Navajo 
Nation, where an estimated $700 million would be needed to 
connect everyone with safe drinking water and basic sanitation, 
the National Congress of American Indians has advocated for 
increasing the Tribal set-aside in both Clean Water and 
Drinking Water State Revolving Funds.
    Administrator Fox, do you agree that increasing the set-
aside would be one way to tackle the significant 
underinvestment in water infrastructure on our Tribal 
communities?
    Ms. Fox. Thank you for the question, Congressman Stanton.
    And, yes, I agree with you on the Tribal set-aside. I will 
say that this is an issue that I have had the opportunity to 
work on for a number of years. When the COVID-19 pandemic 
happened, I worked with a range of philanthropic partners and 
others to try to get more resources to the Navajo Nation, and 
this is a dire issue. It is also why President Biden has made 
one of the priorities of this administration to strengthen the 
nation-to-nation relationship with Tribes.
    And just to preview something that is coming down the pike 
from the Office of Water, Congressman, is we are developing a 
Tribal water action plan that is really the Office of Water and 
EPA's commitment to really accelerate action on these critical 
water issues in Indian Country. And I really look forward to 
working with you on this moving forward.
    Mr. Stanton. Madam Chair, I am hoping maybe in the future 
we could have a specific hearing on the issue of the water 
crisis on Tribal nations across the country, and we can learn 
more detailed information from the EPA and the administration 
about what steps they are taking to better support our Tribal 
nations. Sadly, the COVID crisis was significantly worse as a 
result of that water crisis.
    I now want to turn to the issue of our aging workforce. The 
Government Accountability Office projects that 30 to 50 percent 
of the municipal water workforce will be retiring over the next 
decade, taking with them decades of experience and knowledge. 
In my State, the Rural Water Association of Arizona has 
reported numerous vacancies in communities, and systems have 
been unable to fill positions due to lack of qualified 
workforce.
    Water and wastewater utilities need a pipeline of qualified 
skilled workers to help ensure clean and safe water for the 
public and to maintain the infrastructure necessary to keep 
services for the public and to maintain the infrastructure 
necessary to keep service areas economically viable, especially 
in smaller rural communities.
    With 93 percent of the water systems in the country in 
communities of 10,000 or less, finding qualified workers is a 
significant challenge. How is the Office of Water addressing 
the shortage of qualified drinking water and wastewater 
operation professionals, especially in our smaller rural 
communities?
    Ms. Fox. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
    This issue of an aging water workforce and the need to 
build the next generation of water workers is something that I 
saw firsthand when I worked for the San Francisco Public 
Utilities Commission. At that utility, we had essentially one-
third of our workforce eligible for retirement and what is 
particularly concerning to me about this issue is is, like the 
issue around COVID-19 that we just spoke about, that also the 
retirements are accelerating because of COVID-19.
    And so we were really so pleased that Congress has 
appropriated a couple of million dollars for a water workforce 
grant program to really invest in these types of workforce 
training programs. We are going to be announcing the first 
round of those grants soon.
    We have also done some work around technical assistance and 
those sorts of things. I agree with you that the work that 
national rural water and rural community assistance programs do 
in helping again on these workforce issues, very important, and 
particularly in smaller communities and more rural areas.
    And, Congressman, if this is an area where you would like 
to see the EPA doing more work, it is something I would welcome 
the opportunity to have a deeper strategy conversation with you 
on.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you much.
    I yield back. I appreciate it.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
    We will go back to Mr. Mast. You have 1 minute, sir.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, ma'am.
    And thank you, Ms. Fox. Again, I appreciate that you will 
be getting back to me with things.
    This is a very timely issue because I believe that our 
Active Duty service soldiers and Corps personnel are being 
poisoned as we speak, breathing in algal blooms 100 times 
greater than what you said are toxic, the EPA said are toxic, 
800 parts per billion microcystin. Unequivocally, the EPA or, 
rather, the Corps of Engineers, when I asked, are your people 
being poisoned, soldiers, they said ``no,'' and they referenced 
``because the EPA says health risks associated with inhalation 
at 8 parts per billion are low.'' Now, I am talking about 
people standing on these things for 10 hours a day in a 
situation where you are gagging; it is so disgusting, and that 
is why this is an important opinion question right now.
    Do you feel that that is a safe situation for these people 
to be standing on 800 parts per billion, 10 hours per day? It 
is an important opinion question, ma'am.
    Ms. Fox. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. And I 
apologize for the technical issues that happened.
    And I want to thank you, and I share your concerns for the 
people who are serving this country. In fact, my husband also 
served in the Army, and I think what I can just say is that my 
record on public health is clear. My commitment to you and 
understanding these issues better and reporting back, I am 
publicly saying that now, I commit to following up with you on 
these specifics and I will get back----
    Mr. Mast. I know you will follow up.
    But does it seem safe to you?
    Mrs. Napolitano. You have--your time is up, Mr. Mast.
    Mr. Mast. I know you will follow up. Does it seem safe? 
Only hurting our soldiers here. That is unfortunate.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Next we have Mr. Carbajal.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you to all the panelists and the witnesses that 
are with us today.
    Ms. LeBoeuf, our oceans are facing unprecedented challenges 
from the warming waters to continued threat from oil drilling. 
It is clear we need to act to protect these valuable resources 
that are also drivers of our economies.
    One form of protection is through the National Marine 
Sanctuaries. Data from NOAA estimates that between 2010 and 
2012, harvest from commercial fishing in the four existing 
California National Marine Sanctuaries generated $70 million in 
income and supported 1,840 coastal jobs.
    In my district, there is widespread support to protect the 
waters between the Monterey Bay and the Channel Islands Marine 
Sanctuaries as the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary. 
The nomination for the Chumash Marine Sanctuary was formally 
accepted into the national inventory in October 2015. I 
appreciate NOAA's support for extending the nomination last 
year after it expired. What is the expected timeframe for NOAA 
to advance this nomination forward?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you for your question, Congressman 
Carbajal.
    The National Marine Sanctuary System is really a jewel in 
the crown for conserving American waters and the resources that 
are there and the economies that depend on them and related 
economies like fisheries. We are committed to considering the 
sanctuaries along our candidate list, and we very much 
appreciate support being able to extend the deadline for the 
Chumash sanctuary proposal.
    With regard to being able to address all of the sanctuary 
proposals on the inventory, that takes resources, and you will 
see in our fiscal year 2022 budget that we have asked for 
increased resources to begin the process needed to really work 
forward on the proposal of the sanctuary on the inventory, and 
that includes the Chumash proposal. It takes several steps to 
get us started. It also requires a lot of public input, which 
we are committed to taking throughout the process. So giving a 
timeline is difficult, but I can say, with additional 
resources, we are eager to begin.
    Mr. Carbajal. Well, thank you for that information. I can't 
stress enough the importance of this issue to my constituents. 
And my hope is, as you look at prioritizing which goes next and 
which effort is given your time and energy, I sure hope that 
you give this sanctuary the next priority.
    Ms. LeBoeuf, I also want to discuss the importance of 
offshore wind. As you discuss in your testimony, offshore wind 
is rapidly developing throughout the United States. President 
Biden has set an ambitious goal to deploy 30 gigawatts of 
offshore wind in the United States by 2030. I am pleased to 
have worked with the administration and other stakeholders, 
including your department, to advance offshore wind off Morro 
Bay in my district. This will help create new jobs and allow us 
to move towards a more resilient future by investing in 
renewable energy.
    In promoting offshore wind, we also need to promote 
partnerships and co-use of our oceans. Fishermen need to be 
part of the planning process and are important co-users of our 
oceans. Can you delve further on how NOAA intends to work with 
BOEM and stakeholders to achieve this goal?
    Ms. LeBoeuf. Absolutely and thank you again for that.
    I couldn't agree with you more that there are many very 
important users in the ocean already. It is a busy place. We 
just look at the surface of the water and think nothing is 
going on, but there are a lot of very important industries 
already in place. And making room for wind energy will be a 
challenge, but we are confident that we will be able to work 
with fishermen and other industries to help reduce the 
potential conflicts between users.
    NOAA, for example, is very much involved in helping groups 
get together to plan and to inform early conversations about 
siting of offshore wind so we can better understand, working 
from all the same information, what is under water, what other 
industries are present, what the risks are, what the 
environmental conditions are, particularly as any new industry 
expands rapidly like we anticipate with wind. We will work 
closely with BOEM to make sure that the fishermen and other 
ocean users have a voice at the table because their 
contributions are absolutely vital. And, as always, NOAA will 
do that with a basis of science and informed decision support 
at the foundation.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. I am out of time.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Carbajal.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon, are you available now?
    [Pause.]
    Mrs. Napolitano. I guess she is not.
    We are now in the closing end of it. I ask unanimous 
consent that the record of today's hearing remain open until 
such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any and all 
questions that may be submitted to you.
    I request unanimous consent that the record remain open 15 
days for any additional comments and information submitted by 
Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's 
hearing.
    And, without objection, so ordered.
    I would like to sincerely thank all our witnesses again for 
their testimony, and, again, congratulations to Ms. Fox on your 
recent appointment.
    If no other Members have anything to add, the committee 
does stand adjourned.
    Thank you. Goodbye.
    [Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]



                       Submissions for the Record

                              ----------                              


  Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress 
     from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure
    Thank you, Chair Napolitano, for holding this hearing, and thank 
you to our witnesses.
    I am eager to hear from our witness about the agency's priorities; 
in particular, EPA's plans to re-write the Trump Administration's 
Navigable Waters Protection Rule and the definition of ``Waters of the 
United States''.
    The current rule provided much needed clarification for farmers, 
homeowners, small businesses, and local governments on the extent of 
waters covered by the Clean Water Act.
    We will be watching this process closely, but the administration's 
decision to initiate a new rulemaking certainly appears to be a plan to 
bring back burdensome regulations for our agriculture and business 
sectors, state and local governments, and private citizens.
    An example of the egregious impacts of the Obama administration's 
WOTUS rule was seen in my home State of Missouri, where the rule gave 
EPA the authority to regulate over 99 percent of Missouri farmland.
    I want to remind the EPA that the Obama administration utterly 
failed to properly incorporate feedback from these stakeholders who 
would have to live and work under the regulation, and the result was 
the deeply flawed WOTUS rule.
    I look forward to learning how the EPA plans to proceed on this 
rulemaking and avoid a repeat of the grave mistakes of the Obama 
administration, and I look forward to hearing from the full panel of 
witnesses about their agency priorities.
    I yield back.



                               Appendix

                              ----------                              


    Questions from Hon. David Rouzer to Hon. Radhika Fox, Assistant 
  Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

    Question 1. Your written testimony discusses developing ``durable'' 
policy on Clean Water Act section 401 certification. Isn't it true that 
some states have interpreted the language in section 401 as allowing 
them to use that certification authority to impose requirements that go 
way beyond water quality-related requirements, thereby essentially 
turning the 401 Certification process into another broad environmental 
review process like under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)? If 
the language of section 401 is not limited to water quality concerns 
under the Clean Water Act or state law, how does the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) interpret the scope?
    Answer. EPA believes that Congress provided authority to states and 
Tribes under Clean Water Act section 401 to protect the quality of 
their waters from adverse impacts resulting from federally licensed or 
permitted projects. EPA recently announced its intent to revise the 
2020 Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule after expressing 
substantial concern that the rule erodes state and Tribal authority. 
Through this process, EPA will consider strengthening the authority of 
states and Tribes to protect their vital water resources.
    EPA is concerned that the 2020 rule's narrow scope of certification 
and conditions may prevent state and tribal authorities from adequately 
protecting their water quality. Recently, as part of EPA's initial 
process of reconsidering and revising the 2020 Section 401 
Certification Rule, EPA provided an opportunity for public and 
stakeholder input to inform the development of a proposed regulation. 
EPA plans to continue to engage in a sustained dialogue with state and 
Tribal co-regulator partners and local governments around these issues.

    Question 2. After the publication of the 2015 Obama-era rule, 31 
states and myriad stakeholder groups, such as those representing 
farmers, ranchers, construction, miners, and really anyone that wants 
to build anything, opposed the ``Waters of the United States'' (WOTUS) 
rule.\1\ Please list the organizations that have complained, or are 
otherwise opposed to, about the Trump Administration's ``Waters of the 
United States'' (WOTUS) rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of ``Waters of 
the United States'', 85 Fed. Reg. 22250, (Apr. 21, 2020), at 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. Many states, tribes, and stakeholder groups have expressed 
their concerns about the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) in 
public documents and litigation.
    The Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (the agencies) are in receipt of the U.S. District Court for 
the District of Arizona's August 30, 2021 order vacating and remanding 
the NWPR in the case of Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency. In light of this order, the agencies have halted 
implementation of the NWPR and are interpreting ``waters of the United 
States'' consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime until further 
notice. The agencies continue to review the order and consider next 
steps. This includes working expeditiously to move forward with the 
rulemakings announced on June 9, 2021 [https://www.epa.gov/wotus/
notice-public-meetings-regarding-waters-united-states], in order to 
better protect our nation's vital water resources that support public 
health, environmental protection, agricultural activity, and economic 
growth. The agencies remain committed to crafting a durable definition 
of ``waters of the United States'' that is informed by diverse 
perspectives and based on an inclusive foundation.
    The agencies are committed to hearing from voices across the 
spectrum when developing a durable regulatory definition on which co-
regulators, stakeholders, and communities can rely. As a first step, on 
July 30, 2021, EPA and the Army announced a series of engagement 
opportunities, including an opportunity for stakeholders and the public 
to provide written recommendations and participate in a series of 
public meetings. In addition, the agencies initiated Federalism and 
Tribal consultations and announced that the agencies intend to host a 
series of dialogues with state and Tribal co-regulators this fall.
    The agencies also plan to convene regionally focused and inclusive 
roundtables. These roundtables will allow a full spectrum of the 
agencies' partners to engage and discuss their experience with 
definitions of ``waters of the United States''--including what has 
worked and what has not. The roundtables will provide opportunities to 
discuss geographic similarities and differences, particular water 
resources that are characteristic of or unique to each region, and 
site-specific feedback about implementation. The agencies are 
interested in hearing from all stakeholders, including communities, 
states, Tribes, local governments, association groups, small 
businesses, farmers, and families.

    Question 3. Clean Water Act Section 101(b) states that ``[i]t is 
the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the 
primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and 
eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use (including 
restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and water 
resources, and to consult with the Administrator in the exercise of his 
authority under this chapter.'' This shows it was the intent of 
Congress to recognize the primacy of states in protecting their own 
waters over that of the federal government. Do you agree? Are states 
not in a unique position that enables them to best know where resources 
are best used for environmental protection? If not, please explain why 
you think that the federal government is better suited to determine 
State water plans.
    Answer. I agree with you that states play a critical role in Clean 
Water Act implementation, and the agencies look forward to hearing 
specifically from our state and tribal co-regulators to help inform 
next steps. A durable definition of ``waters of the United States'' is 
essential to ensuring clean and safe water in all communities--
supporting human health, animal habitat, agriculture, watersheds, flood 
management, local economies, and industry. The agencies' July 30, 2021 
announcement, which kicked off consultations with states, Tribes, and 
local governments, as well as a robust public engagement effort on this 
issue, marks an important step in the agencies' efforts to restore 
protections and write a rule to define ``waters of the United States'' 
that is grounded in science and the law, emphasizes implementation, and 
prioritizes collaborative partnerships with states, Tribes, local 
governments, and stakeholders.

    Question 4. Last month, both EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers 
(the ``Agencies'') announced they would redo the Navigable Waters 
Protection Rule (NWPR) and re-write the definition of the ``Waters of 
the United States.'' There are many concerns that the Obama 
Administration's rule failed to genuinely consider stakeholder feedback 
and placed burdensome and confusing requirements on farmers, small 
businesses, local communities, and regulated entities.
    Question 4.a. How does the Biden Administration plan to solicit and 
incorporate substantive feedback from those affected by this 
regulation?
    Question 4.b. What specific steps do you intend to take to engage 
the states in substantive consultation to ensure their concerns are 
fully addressed in a final rule?
    Question 4.c. Will the Agencies issue an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit input from impacted stakeholders?
    Question 4.d. When does the Administration plan to issue an NPRM?
    Answer to questions 4.a. through 4.d. As a first step to developing 
a durable regulatory definition on which stakeholders and communities 
can rely, on July 30, 2021, EPA and the Army announced a series of 
engagement opportunities, including an opportunity for stakeholders and 
the public to provide written recommendations via an open docket and 
participate in a series of public meetings. In addition, the agencies 
initiated Federalism and Tribal consultations and announced that the 
agencies intend to host a series of dialogues with state and Tribal co-
regulators this fall. The agencies also plan to convene regionally 
focused and inclusive roundtables. These roundtables will allow a full 
spectrum of the agencies' partners to engage and discuss their 
experience with definitions of ``waters of the United States''--
including what has worked and what has not. The roundtables will 
provide opportunities to discuss geographic similarities and 
differences, particular water resources that are characteristic of or 
unique to each region, and site-specific feedback about implementation.
    Additional information on the agencies' public engagement efforts 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/wotus/notice-public-meetings-
regarding-waters-united-states.

    Question 5. You recently stated the Agencies will ``[v]ery 
imminently'' announce a two-step rulemaking process for repealing and 
then replacing the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR).\2\ At what 
point ``this summer'' \3\ do you anticipate the Agencies will issue a 
proposal to repeal the NWPR? Do the Agencies plan to conduct 
stakeholder outreach and engagement in advance of issuing such a 
proposal?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Hannah Northey, EPA's top water official on Biden climate, 
equity, goals, Politico, July 6, 2021, available at https://
subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2021/07/06/epas-top-water-
official-on-bidens-climate-equity-goals-179726.
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. See above response to your Question 4. The agencies 
announced a robust public engagement effort on July 30, 2021, beginning 
with public meetings in August and extending into the fall and winter 
with regionally focused and inclusive roundtable discussions.

    Question 6. There are significant geographic variations across the 
United States and a single set of standards will not fit all, how do 
the Agencies plan to address these differences in any new rule? Should 
there be a role here for state and local governments and water 
districts in identifying regional differences and fashioning a workable 
solution? What are the Agencies going to do to work with states and 
localities to address these concerns?
    Answer. See above response to your Question 4. The agencies also 
have initiated Federalism and Tribal consultations consistent with 
Executive Orders and Agency guidance. The agencies additionally intend 
to host a series of dialogues with state and Tribal co-regulators this 
fall. This is consistent with the robust public engagement effort 
announced on July 30, 2021, beginning with public meetings in August 
and extending into the fall and winter with regionally focused and 
inclusive roundtable discussions. The agencies are interested in 
hearing from all stakeholders on various aspects of the definition, 
including communities, states, Tribes, local governments, association 
groups, small businesses, farmers, and families.

    Question 7. Many States and local governments and their 
representative organizations are concerned that the Agencies' 
consultation process with state and local governments will once again 
be flawed, because the Agencies will not sufficiently consult with 
them, and that the rulemaking could impinge on state authority in water 
management. Do you consider the states and local government a partner 
in our Nation's intergovernmental system? Or just another stakeholder 
group in this discussion? Will the Agencies engage the states and local 
government in substantive consultation, considering and specifically 
addressing the concerns raised by the states and local governments, to 
ensure their concerns are fully addressed in a final rule?
    Answer. The agencies consider states and local governments key 
regulatory partners. See above response to your Question 4. The 
agencies have initiated Federalism and Tribal consultations consistent 
with Executive Orders and Agency guidance. The agencies additionally 
intend to host a series of dialogues with state and Tribal co-
regulators this fall. This is consistent with the robust public 
engagement effort announced on July 30, 2021, beginning with public 
meetings in August and extending into the fall and winter with 
regionally focused and inclusive roundtable discussions. We are 
interested in hearing from all stakeholders, including communities, 
states, Tribes, local governments, association groups, small 
businesses, farmers, and families. I agree with you that states play a 
critical role in Clean Water Act implementation, and the agencies look 
forward to hearing specifically from our state and tribal co-
regulators--as well as local governments--to help inform next steps.

    Question 8. Will you commit to having the Agencies prepare a 
detailed response to public comments which will substantively respond 
to all issues raises in each comment before proceeding to finalize this 
rulemaking?
    Answer. Yes, the agencies are soliciting written recommendations 
from the public through a public docket. This feedback will be used to 
inform the rulemaking process. The agencies also will carefully review 
all public comments on the forthcoming proposed rules and respond as 
appropriate.

    Question 9. We are concerned that a new rule would end up having 
direct, significant effects on small entities, and that the Agencies 
will fail to convene a Small Business Advocacy Review panel before 
proceeding with this new rulemaking. Will you commit to formally 
examining the impacts of any new proposed rule on small entities? Will 
you convene a Small Business Advocacy Review panel before proceeding 
any further with this rulemaking?
    Answer. As the agencies receive and consider feedback from the 
public--including small businesses--and develop a proposed rule, we 
will follow the science and the law, including the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act.

    Question 10. Please provide details and definitions for what the 
Agencies consider ``significant environmental damage'' and ``ongoing 
environmental harm'', as cited in the announcement for the decision to 
repeal the current NWPR.
    Answer. The 2020 NWPR was identified in President Biden's Executive 
Order 13990, Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring 
Science to Tackle Climate Change, dated January 25, 2021, which 
directed federal agencies to review all existing regulations, orders, 
guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions 
promulgated, issued, or adopted between January 20, 2017 and January 
20, 2021. As a part of the Executive Order 13990 review, the agencies 
reviewed available data to assess the potential effects of the NWPR, 
informed by nearly a full year of implementation. The agencies 
determined that the NWPR is reducing Clean Water Act protections and 
this lack of protections is particularly significant in arid states 
like New Mexico and Arizona, where nearly every one of over 1,500 
streams assessed through approved jurisdictional determinations has 
been found to be non-jurisdictional under the NWPR. The agencies also 
are aware of at least 333 projects that would have required Clean Water 
Act section 404 permitting prior to the NWPR but no longer do.

    Question 11. The Agencies have been inconsistent when describing 
their plans for the NWPR. In several federal court filings, the 
Agencies announced that they have ``decided to commence a new 
rulemaking to revise or replace the rule.'' \4\ Yet in statements to 
the press, you have stated that the Agencies ``are moving quickly'' to 
a two-step rulemaking process under which, the first step is to repeal 
the NWPR.\5\ You have stated the Agencies feel ``it is important to get 
the Navigable Waters Protection Rule off the books.'' \6\ Have the 
Agencies pre-determined they are repealing the NWPR and that it is not 
acceptable to instead revise the NWPR?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Defendants Motion for Remand Without Vacatur, Conservation Law 
Foundation v. EPA, (D. Mass) Case No. 20-cv-10820-DPW, available at 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/documents/
clf_memo_of_law_iso_motion_for_remand.pdf.
    \5\ Northey, supra note 2.
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. The agencies intend to revise the definition of ``waters of 
the United States'' to create a durable definition following a process 
that includes two rulemakings. A forthcoming rule would propose to 
restore the regulations defining WOTUS that were in place for decades 
until 2015, with updates to be consistent with relevant Supreme Court 
decisions. A separate, second rulemaking process would be based on a 
broader review of the rule.

    Question 12. The Agencies have stated that the NWPR ``resulted in a 
25-percentage point reduction in determinations of waters that would 
otherwise be afforded protection.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ EPA, Army Announce Intent to Revise Definition of WOTUS (June 
9, 2021), https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-army-announce-intent-
revise-definition-wotus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question 12.a. What is the methodology the agencies used to arrive 
at this 25% figure?
    Question 12.b. What data or database did the agencies use as the 
baseline for comparison to the NWPR?
    Question 12.c. What is the geographic distribution of this 
reduction in jurisdiction (nationwide or isolated to certain regions)?
    Answer to questions 12.a. through 12.c. EPA and the Army have 
reviewed approved jurisdictional determinations (AJDs) and identified 
indicators of a substantial reduction in waters covered under the NWPR 
compared to previous rules and practices. These indicators include an 
increase in determinations by the Corps that waters are non-
jurisdictional and an increase in projects for which CWA section 404 
permits are no longer required. The agencies also have found that 
preliminary jurisdictional determinations (through which applicants 
proceed with permitting as though all resources were jurisdictional) 
are much less common under the NWPR, indicating that fewer project 
proponents believe waters are jurisdictional from the start.
    The 25 percent figure comes from looking at AJDs completed 
nationwide by the Army Corps of Engineers and recorded in their 
internal database. The Corps finalized 6,351 AJDs between the NWPR's 
effective date of June 22, 2020 and April 15, 2021. When this dataset 
was adjusted to account for differences in how determination forms were 
designed under the different regulatory regimes, the Corps found 
approximately 71 percent of AJDs identified non-jurisdictional aquatic 
resources and 29 percent identified jurisdictional aquatic 
resources.\8\ In comparison, AJDs made under the 2015 Clean Water Rule 
and the pre-2015 regulatory regime from the time periods of June 22, 
2018 to April 15, 2019, and June 22, 2019 to April 15, 2020, found that 
approximately 46 percent of AJDs included non-jurisdictional aquatic 
resources and 54 percent included jurisdictional aquatic resources.\9\ 
Thus, there is an absolute 25-percentage point reduction in 
determinations of waters that would otherwise be afforded protection 
under the different regulatory regimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Under the NWPR, a single AJD in the Corps' database can include 
both affirmative and negative jurisdictional determinations. Under 
prior regulatory regimes, the Corps' database was structured such that 
a single AJD could have only affirmative, or only negative, 
jurisdictional determinations. Because of this difference, a NWPR 
jurisdictional determination that includes both affirmative and 
negative jurisdictional resources was normalized and counted as two 
separate approved jurisdictional determinations, one affirmative and 
one negative.
    \9\ Due to preliminary injunctions, the 2015 Clean Water Rule and 
the pre-2015 regulatory regime were being implemented in different 
parts of the country during a portion of the time periods for which the 
agencies assessed data. Data used in this analysis for the 2015 Clean 
Water Rule are from August 16, 2018 (the date that the nationwide stay 
was lifted) to April 15, 2019, and June 22, 2019 to December 22, 2019 
(the Clean Water Rule was replaced by the 2019 Repeal Rule on December 
23, 2019). The 2015 Clean Water Rule was never in effect for the entire 
country due to preliminary injunctions. For the time periods assessed 
under this analysis, the pre-2015 regulatory regime was in effect 
nationwide from June 22, 2018 to August 15, 2018, and December 23, 2019 
(effective date of the 2019 Repeal Rule) to April 15, 2020. The 2019 
Rule Repeal, which reinstated the pre-2015 regulatory regime, was in 
effect until the NWPR's effective date of June 22, 2020, but the 
agencies chose to analysis data for comparable time periods as the data 
available for NWPR determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The agencies also looked at the data from the NWPR on an aquatic 
resource level. Of the 40,211 individual aquatic resources or water 
features for which the Corps made approved jurisdictional 
determinations under the NWPR between June 22, 2020 and April 15, 2021, 
approximately 76 percent were found to be non-jurisdictional. Many of 
the non-jurisdictional waters are excluded ephemeral resources (mostly 
streams) and wetlands that are not adjacent under the NWPR.
    The agencies are aware of at least 333 projects that would have 
required section 404 permitting prior to the NWPR, but no longer do 
under the NWPR. The agencies also are aware that this number is not the 
full universe of projects that no longer require section 404 permitting 
under the NWPR, partly because to the extent that project proponents 
are not seeking any determinations for waters that the NWPR now 
excludes, such as ephemeral streams, the effects of such projects are 
not tracked in the Corps database. As a whole, the reduction in 
jurisdiction is notably greater than the deregulatory effects discussed 
in the NWPR rule preamble and the economic analysis case studies.

    Question 13. The Agencies have expressed in litigation filings that 
they have ``substantial concerns about the lawfulness of aspects of the 
NWPR.'' \10\ More recently, you were quoted as saying the NWPR ``is 
not, in [your] view, something that's sustainable or durable'' and that 
``[w]e need a rule that's legally defensible.'' \11\ How does your view 
align with the fact that no court has preliminarily enjoined the NWPR? 
Please describe in detail what you believe is not ``legally 
defensible'' about the NWPR.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Declaration of Jaime A. Pinkham, Conservation Law Foundation 
v. EPA, (D. Mass) Case No. 20-cv-10820-DPW, available at https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-06/documents/
2_conservation_law_found._d._mass._-
_jaime_pinkham_declaration_final_signed_
508c.pdf.
    \11\ Northey, supra note 1.
    \12\ Northey, supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (the agencies) are in receipt of the U.S. District Court for 
the District of Arizona's August 30, 2021 order vacating and remanding 
the NWPR in the case of Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency. In light of this order, the agencies have halted 
implementation of the NWPR and are interpreting ``waters of the United 
States'' consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime until further 
notice. The agencies continue to review the order and consider next 
steps. This includes working expeditiously to move forward with the 
rulemakings announced on June 9, 2021 [https://www.epa.gov/wotus/
notice-public-meetings-regarding-waters-united-states], in order to 
better protect our nation's vital water resources that support public 
health, environmental protection, agricultural activity, and economic 
growth. The agencies remain committed to crafting a durable definition 
of ``waters of the United States'' that is informed by diverse 
perspectives and based on an inclusive foundation.

    Question 14. The Agencies have represented to a federal court that 
they ``have noted on-the-ground effects of the NWPR since the rule went 
into effect,'' citing vague and speculative ``concerns'' raised by 
stakeholders that the NWPR ``is resulting in significant, actual 
environmental harms.'' \13\ How do those assertions about ongoing harms 
align with your more recent statements to the press that the Agencies 
do not have the ``ability to really assess the potential water quality 
impacts on wetlands, on streams, on a range of things'' \14\ that 
allegedly result from activities that can move forward without a permit 
under the NWPR?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for 
Voluntary Remand without Vacatur, Conservation Law Foundation v. EPA, 
(D. Mass) Case No. 20-cv-10820-DPW, available at https://
www.eenews.net/assets/2021/06/09/document_pm_01.pdf; Supra n.2.
    \14\ Northey, supra note 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. The agencies' EO 13990 review identified substantial 
concerns with the NWPR and the agencies determined that additional 
consideration should be given to certain aspects of the NWPR through 
notice-and-comment rulemaking, including concern that when interpreting 
the jurisdictional scope of the CWA the NWPR did not appropriately 
consider the effect of the revised definition of ``waters of the United 
States'' on the integrity of the nation's waters, as well as concern 
over the loss of waters protected by the CWA.

    Question 15. The Corps' declaration submitted to federal courts 
refers to 333 projects ``that would have required Section 404 
permitting prior to the NWPR, but no longer do under the NWPR.'' \15\ 
However, the approved jurisdictional determinations (AJDs) for many of 
those projects suggests that the jurisdictional status of waters in 
question was unknown because the Corps engineer answered ``N/A'' in the 
section of the form asking about ``Associated JDs.'' \16\ If there was 
no prior AJD related to the project, what is the Agencies' basis for 
claiming that the projects would have required Section 404 permits 
before the NWPR but no longer do? If there was a prior JD, please 
provide them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Pinkham, supra note 9.
    \16\ See e.g.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Program, 
Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form (Interim), Navigable Waters 
Protection Rule, available at https://www.swt.usace.army.mil/Portals/
41/docs/missions/regulatory/JD/SWT-2016-344%20AJD.pdf?
ver=2020-09-03-084218-473
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. The agencies are aware of at least 333 projects that would 
have required section 404 permitting prior to the NWPR, but no longer 
do under the NWPR. These projects had AJDs carried out for determining 
that no permit would be required. The reference to associated AJDs 
refers to separate AJDs carried out on the given project site in 
association with other actions. Notes on associated AJDs allows for 
Corps staff to track prior activities on sites.
    The agencies also are aware that this number is not the full 
universe of projects that no longer require section 404 permitting 
under the NWPR, partly because to the extent that project proponents 
are not seeking any determinations for waters that the NWPR now 
excludes, such as ephemeral streams, the effects of such projects are 
not tracked in the Corps database. The reduction in jurisdiction is 
notably greater than the deregulatory effects discussed in the NWPR 
rule preamble and the economic analysis case studies.

    Question 16. You recently stated that more than 300 projects ``now 
have the ability to move forward without a permit.'' \17\ You went on 
to say that ``[w]ithout the ability to really assess the potential 
water quality impacts on wetlands, on streams, on a range of things, 
that is concerning to us.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Northey, supra note 2.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question 16.a. Does this mean the Agencies have not confirmed that 
any of those 300 or more projects have moved forward?
    Question 16.b. Even if any given project has moved forward, it 
appears potential impacts on water quality are unclear. Have the 
Agencies assessed whether there were any discharges, whether any states 
imposed regulatory requirements, or whether there were any impacts on 
water quality?
    Question 16.c. If the Agencies have assessed any of these things, 
when will you release those findings?
    Answer to questions 16.a. through 16.c. The agencies are aware of 
at least 333 projects that would have required section 404 permitting 
prior to the NWPR, but no longer do under the NWPR. The agencies also 
are aware that this number is not the full universe of projects that no 
longer require section 404 permitting under the NWPR, partly because to 
the extent that project proponents are not seeking any determinations 
for waters that the NWPR now excludes, such as ephemeral streams, the 
effects of such projects are not tracked in the Corps database. The 
reduction in jurisdiction is notably greater than the deregulatory 
effects discussed in the NWPR rule preamble and the economic analysis 
case studies. Based on this and other aspects of the EO 13990 review, 
EPA and the Army have substantial concerns about aspects of the NWPR 
and the harmful effects of the NWPR on the nation's waters. Therefore, 
we have decided to initiate rulemaking to revise the term ``waters of 
the United States.''

    Question 17. The Agencies have asserted in sworn declarations that 
``[p]rojects are proceeding in newly non-jurisdictional waters in 
states and tribal lands where regulation of waters beyond those covered 
by the CWA are not authorized.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Pinkham, supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question 17.a. What basis supports this claim?
    Question 17.b. Which projects are proceeding and in which states? 
Have the Agencies confirmed that each of these states, in fact, do not 
have laws in place that address discharges to ephemeral streams or 
wetlands that are not jurisdictional under the NWPR?
    Question 17.c. Have the Agencies confirmed that any of these 
unnamed projects in fact involve discharges to newly non-jurisdictional 
waters?
    Answer to questions 17.a. through 17.c. The agencies have heard 
concerns from a broad array of stakeholders, including states, Tribes, 
scientists, and non-governmental organizations, that the reduction in 
the jurisdictional scope of the CWA is resulting in significant, actual 
environmental harms. These entities have identified specific projects 
and discharges that would no longer be subject to CWA protections 
because the waters at issue would no longer be jurisdictional. In many 
cases permit applications have been withdrawn. For example, 
stakeholders have raised concerns about dredge and fill activities on 
large swaths of wetlands in sensitive areas, in the floodplains of 
jurisdictional waters, or even within several hundred yards of 
traditional navigable waters, that are proceeding without CWA 
regulatory protection or compensatory mitigation. Stakeholders also 
have identified for the agencies many other wetlands and streams, newly 
deemed non-jurisdictional, which are likely to be filled for commercial 
and housing developments, mines, water pipelines, and other forms of 
development without CWA oversight.
    Due to the NWPR definition of ``waters of the United States,'' 
projects are proceeding in newly non-jurisdictional waters in states 
and tribal lands where regulation of waters beyond those covered by the 
CWA are not authorized, and based on available information, will 
therefore result in discharges without any regulation or mitigation 
from federal, state, or tribal agencies. See ``Economic Analysis for 
the Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of ``Waters of the 
United States'' at 40 (Jan. 22, 2020) (indicating that a large number 
of states do not currently regulate waters more broadly than the CWA 
requires, and are ``unlikely to increase state regulatory practices'' 
following the NWPR).\20\ One project example is the construction of a 
mine that would destroy hundreds of previously jurisdictional wetlands, 
deemed non-jurisdictional under the NWPR, next to a National Wildlife 
Refuge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-01/
documents/econ_analysis_-_nwpr.pdf.

    Question 18. The Agencies found that in New Mexico and Arizona, 
nearly all of the more than 1,500 streams have been deemed a non-
jurisdictional ephemeral resource, ``which is very different from the 
status of the streams as assessed under both the Clean Water Rule and 
the pre-2015 regulatory regime.'' \21\ Under the pre-2015 regime, 
however, ephemeral resources were not per se jurisdictional, but 
instead had to undergo case-by-case determinations to see if there was 
a ``significant nexus.'' What data do the Agencies have to show that 
any of these streams would have been jurisdictional under a case-by-
case determination for ``significant nexus''?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. Ephemeral streams, wetlands, and other aquatic resources 
provide numerous ecosystem services, and there could be cascading and 
cumulative downstream effects from impacts to these resources, 
including but not limited to effects on water supplies, water quality, 
flooding, drought, erosion, and habitat integrity. The agencies have 
substantial concerns about the consideration of these effects on the 
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters in 
the NWPR rulemaking process.

    Question 19. If there is a hurricane and it floods a section of 
farmland in my district, North Carolina's Seventh Congressional 
District, which then drains into the Cape Fear River and then the 
Atlantic Ocean, would that constitute a ``Water of the United States''?
    Answer. Uncertainty over the definition of ``waters of the United 
States'' has harmed our waters and the stakeholders and communities 
that rely on them. EPA and the Army look forward to engaging all 
parties as we move forward to provide the certainty that's needed to 
protect our precious natural water resources. We are committed to 
crafting an enduring definition of ``waters of the United States'' by 
listening to all sides so we can build on an inclusive foundation. Our 
goal is to develop a WOTUS definition that ensures clean and safe water 
for all while giving you and your district the certainty you need to 
appropriately address emergency situations like the scenario referenced 
in your question.

    Question 20. In making the decision to replace the NWPR, what 
public input did the Agencies rely on to drive this action? What 
groups, associations, entities, or other stakeholders requested the 
Administration take this action?
    Answer. Based on a careful evaluation of the record of the NWPR, 
the agencies have substantial and legitimate concerns regarding the 
adequacy of consideration of the CWA's water quality goals in the 
development of the NWPR. As such, the agencies believe it is 
appropriate to reconsider these issues--and, in particular, the effects 
of the ``waters of the United States'' definition on the chemical, 
physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters--in a new 
rulemaking. We have initiated a robust and meaningful public engagement 
effort to hear from all of those impacted by the WOTUS definition, 
including Tribes, states, local governments, communities, and any other 
interested stakeholders.
    As explained above, the agencies announced a robust public 
engagement effort on July 30, beginning with public meetings and a 
recommendations docket in August and extending into the fall and winter 
with regionally focused and inclusive roundtable discussions. We are 
interested in hearing from all stakeholders, including communities, 
states, Tribes, local governments, association groups, small 
businesses, farmers, and families.

 Questions from Hon. Salud O. Carbajal to Hon. Radhika Fox, Assistant 
  Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

    Question 1. Can you explain the importance of the administration's 
request of $9 million for the Drinking Water System Infrastructure 
Resilience and Sustainability Program?
    Answer. This program supports water infrastructure in underserved, 
small and disadvantaged communities, ensuring access to safe drinking 
water. It supports the President's priority of assisting communities 
and their drinking water systems in the planning, design, construction, 
implementation, operation, or maintenance of a program or project that 
increases resilience to natural hazards. Eligible entities will be able 
to use this increase in funding will target climate resilience for 
drinking water infrastructure to adapt to or withstand the effects of a 
malevolent act or natural hazard.

    Question 2. Can you provide an update on this program's 
implementation?
    Answer. EPA appreciates Congress' recent attention toward upgrading 
and modernizing our nation's drinking water systems. Congress 
authorized the Drinking Water System Infrastructure Resilience and 
Sustainability Program in America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, 
and Congress provided first-time appropriations for this program in 
Fiscal Year 2020. EPA is in the final stages of preparing a Request for 
Applications (RFA) for this inaugural round of funding.

    Question 3. As currently structured, the program is only available 
to assist drinking water systems serving small and disadvantaged 
communities. Are these the only water systems that face challenges 
related to climate change and extreme weather, or would wastewater 
systems and larger drinking water systems also benefit if Congress 
expanded the program to make them eligible as well?
    Answer. As you know, there are certainly important differences 
between the needs of our country's drinking water systems and our 
wastewater and stormwater systems. EPA supports several programs that 
ensure access to clean and safe water for all Americans including 
underserved, small and disadvantaged communities.

    Questions from Hon. Greg Stanton to Hon. Radhika Fox, Assistant 
  Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

    Question 1. Tribal water systems are facing many of the same 
challenges as our smaller systems in finding qualified workers, but in 
many instances, they are often doing so far with fewer resources.
    Question 1.a. How is EPA approaching the next generation of tribal 
operators?
    Question 1.b. How can EPA help with future planning for tribal 
water systems in developing a new workforce?
    Answer to questions 1.a. and 1.b. EPA's technical assistance and 
training programs help to ensure that all communities, especially small 
and underserved communities, have the tools they need to address their 
pressing water infrastructure and other water quality needs. In 
addition, EPA provides training and technical assistance and 
certification for tribal wastewater and drinking water systems to 
improve their operation and management practices and promote 
sustainability. Examples of EPA technical assistance and training 
programs that help tribal communities include the Tribal Public Water 
System Supervision, the Drinking Water Infrastructure Grants Tribal 
Set-Aside, WIIN Act Section 2104: Assistance for Small and 
Disadvantaged Communities Tribal Grant, the Clean Water Indian Set-
Aside, Small System Technical Assistance for Drinking Water and 
Wastewater Grant, and the new Technical Assistance for Small Wastewater 
Systems Grant programs.
    EPA appreciates this Committee's attention to water infrastructure 
and to our water workforce--including our Tribal water workforce--and I 
look forward to being a partner with Congress as you consider this 
important issue.

Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Terry J. Cosby, Chief, Natural 
     Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

    Question 1. Given the crisis agriculture and other key sectors of 
our economy are facing from unprecedented drought, do you believe the 
requested increases in funding are sufficient?
    Answer. The current crisis caused by the unprecedented drought is 
severely impacting our communities in the western region of the 
country. The USDA-NRCS watershed programs are uniquely suited to help 
these communities to plan, design, and construct infrastructure to help 
alleviate the long-term effects of drought. Through our watershed 
protection and flood prevention operations program, we have helped 
communities install agricultural water management practices that have 
helped to improve irrigation efficiency. Some of our sponsors are 
taking advantage of the ability to use the watershed rehabilitation 
program to add water supply to our rehabilitated watershed dams.
    The requested funding will enable USDA-NRCS to help address needs 
where the Federal investment can strategically serve communities to 
meet unprecedented drought and other resource challenges created by 
climatic variability.

    Question 2. What is the typical timeline for a Watershed and Flood 
Prevention Operations (WFPO) project from planning to construction? How 
would additional funding for the NRCS enable it to expedite completion 
of WFPO projects so that communities could see more immediate benefits 
from this program?
    Answer. NRCS seeks to work with project sponsors to complete 
watershed planning in 18 months, designs in 18 months, and construction 
in 2-5 years. These project timelines can vary significantly due to 
many factors. Some of these include project complexity, potential 
environmental and cultural impacts, public and stakeholder involvement, 
agency review timelines, permit acquisition process, varying 
construction seasons due to climate and weather.
    NRCS is committed to our responsibility to use public funds in a 
manner that is economically, environmentally, and technically 
defensible. Working through the environmental review process, as well 
as maintaining quality technical standards, helps to ensure that 
measures are adequately installed and provide the intended benefits to 
the local community while protecting life and property.

  Questions from Hon. Greg Stanton to Terry J. Cosby, Chief, Natural 
     Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

    Question 1. The Flood Control District (FCD) of Maricopa County in 
Arizona operates and maintains 16 dams designed and constructed by the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), including the Powerline, 
Vineyard, and Rittenhouse Flood Retarding Structures (PVR FRS). The PVR 
FRS provide 100-year flood protection for a significant portion of the 
far eastern part of the county, including portions of the cities of 
Mesa, Gilbert, Queen Creek, and Chandler. According to the 2010 Census, 
nearly a half million people, thousands of buildings, and critical 
infrastructure are protected by these structures. Unfortunately, these 
structures are now more than 50 years old and are in serious need of 
repair.
    In September 2014, NRCS accepted FCD's funding requests for 
rehabilitation of the Vineyard and Powerline FRS. The Vineyard FRS 
project began first under a three-phased approach. As the design phase 
progressed, estimated costs rose significantly, and an additional funds 
were requested. A Phase 2A construction contract was awarded in March 
2017, but because of the increased cost estimates, the NRCS issued a 
Cease and Desist Order to FCD in April 2017, halting progress. In April 
2019, NRCS requested FCD de-obligate $31.1 million for the Powerline 
and Vineyard projects. As an alternative, the FCD requested the 
projects be phased, but NRCS rejected this approach, noting that 
phasing of rehabilitation projects would no longer be allowed and, as a 
result, all funding would need to be in place before work could 
proceed.
    I am concerned that delays due to funding shortfalls and the lack 
of program flexibility are slowing progress on these critical projects 
and leaving the residents of Maricopa County at risk.
    Question 1.a. Is NRCS willing to re-evaluate its position to allow 
large-scale projects to be phased so that critical projects, like those 
in Maricopa County, can proceed?
    Answer. Although NRCS prefers that rehabilitation of dams be 
completed without phases, NRCS does allow for a phased approach. All 
phases must be identified in the authorized plan and associated 
Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, and there 
must be a final NRCS approved design prior to the start of 
construction. When phasing a project, the local sponsor must show they 
have resources to commit to the entire project for the construction to 
be completed in a timely manner. Each phase must be constructed in a 
manner that will result in a structure that will independently function 
in a safe manner until the remaining phases are constructed. The 
completed phase must be operated and maintained by the sponsor to 
ensure a safe structure until subsequent phases can be completed.

    Question 1.b. If a phased approach is not possible, will you commit 
to working with me and the FCD to identify options to advance these 
critical flood protection repair projects in a timely manner?
    Answer. If a phased approach is not possible, NRCS is committed to 
working with the local sponsors to identify viable options to complete 
the rehabilitation of aging infrastructures so that communities are 
provided the critical flood protection necessary to ensure the safety 
of those who live, work, and enjoy recreation in these watersheds.