[Senate Hearing 117-86]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-86
EXAMINING THE BENEFITS OF INVESTING IN
USACE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 28, 2021
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-187 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont Virginia,
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island Ranking Member
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
MARK KELLY, Arizona JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
ALEX PADILLA, California ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
JONI ERNST, Iowa
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
Mary Frances Repko, Democratic Staff Director
Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JULY 28, 2021
OPENING STATEMENTS
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 1
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
Virginia....................................................... 3
WITNESSES
Cordero, Mario, Executive Director, Port of Long Beach........... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 8
O'Mara, Collin, President and CEO, National Wildlife Federation.. 13
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Larson, Amy, Founding Partner, Larson Strategies LLC............. 32
Prepared statement........................................... 34
McCoy, Robert, President and CEO, Amherst Madison................ 39
Prepared statement........................................... 41
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter to Senator Carper from the Dredging Contractors of America 106
Letter to Senator Capito from the Dredging Contractors of America 108
Letter to Senators Carper and Capito from the Portland Cement
Association, July 29, 2021..................................... 110
EXAMINING THE BENEFITS OF INVESTING IN USACE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
PROJECTS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The Committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Whitehouse,
Duckworth, Kelly, Padilla, Inhofe, Cramer, Boozman, Wicker,
Sullivan, and Ernst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Good morning, everyone. I am pleased to
call this hearing to order.
I want to start by taking a moment to thank our Ranking
Member, Senator Capito, and her staff and other members of our
Committee here today for joining us to kick off this discussion
for the development of the next Water Resources Development
Act, affectionately known as WRDA.
I am very proud of our successful bipartisan work on water
infrastructure so far this Congress, including passage of our
Drinking Water and Clean Water Bill by a margin of 89 to 2 in
the Senate. Negotiations, I think, continue with respect to a
bipartisan infrastructure package. Color me more hopeful today
than I have been in a while, so we will see how that works out.
I am grateful for the opportunity that WRDA affords us to
review the Army Corps' operations every 2 years. This is an
agency facing an extraordinarily important and difficult task
with a list of worthy projects far outstripping the resources
that are available to it.
Indeed, due to a rampant underfunding for a number of
years, the backlog of authorized but not completed projects has
grown to over $100 billion. I think the number is $109 billion,
and that is more than 15 times the agency's annual operating
budget, which should be of concern to all of us.
Clearly, there is something wrong with this picture, and
when demand for projects so outstrips the supply of resources,
the Corps is placed in an untenable position. Moreover, its
decisionmaking process is growing far more difficult as we all
struggle to address the needs of small, rural, and often
disadvantaged communities, as well as the infrastructure
straining impacts of sea level rise, more intense storms,
pervasive droughts, and other climate change consequences.
My hope is that today's hearing will provide us with
important insights into all of these challenges as we begin to
work on the next WRDA Bill. I look forward to hearing
testimony, we look forward to hearing testimony from our
stakeholders today about their experiences with the Corps to
inform us as we set priorities for the next authorization bill.
Understanding that our concerns with the adequacy of Corps
funding are universal and will be a key focus of negotiations
with the Administration and our colleagues on the
Appropriations Committee, I would like to focus today on the
upcoming challenges presented by small, worthwhile, but
oftentimes overlooked projects and the magnifying problems
associated with changing climate.
For some time, I have spoken about how the current process
for evaluating benefits and costs of the Corps projects
shortchanges our abilities to address the critical needs in
smaller, economically disadvantaged communities, including
those in rural and tribal areas, sometimes referred to as ``the
least of these.''
Because the benefit to cost ratio, affectionately referred
to as BCR, does not account for the regional and local economic
benefits of a project, a number of communities that need
Federal investment the most are the last to receive it because
the benefits associated with the construction of projects in
these areas are not great enough to register as significant on
a national scale.
Thus, from the perspective of the White House Office of
Management and Budget, these projects oftentimes don't make the
cut.
In the 2020 WRDA law, our Committee provided the Corps with
flexibility and the authority to partner with rural and
economically disadvantaged communities; however, those 2020
provisions were just the tip of the iceberg of what is needed.
We need to do more for communities that depend on Federal
investment for essential flood and storm protection.
Along with a number of other States, Delaware and West
Virginia and Rhode Island have oftentimes ended up on the short
end of the stick when it comes to Federal investments in Corps
projects, Corps infrastructure.
We will continue to explore ways to expand the Corps'
programs to better reach the small, rural communities in States
that all of us represent.
We witness on an almost daily basis how the States of all
of us on this dais are being increasingly hammered by
increasingly powerful storms, more devastating floods,
encroaching sea levels, and seemingly endless droughts. The
Corps has been thrust into the position of prime defender
against these all too frequent and increasingly costly
disasters.
To be better able to respond to climate change, the Corps
needs to update its economic assessments as well as its
engineering standards to ensure the Nation's infrastructure is
resilient to these impacts of climate change. In short, the
Corps needs to take a longer view with climate consequences in
clear focus.
As my colleagues frequently hear me say, maybe too
frequently hear me say, the State of Delaware is the lowest
lying State in the Nation, as Collin knows. Our highest point
of land is a bridge, and we are acutely aware of the need to
develop solutions that not only work today, but also will
protect us well into the future.
Incorporating natural infrastructure into our resilience
efforts in Delaware has proven a critical element of those long
term solutions. We would like to see the Corps embrace and use
natural infrastructure solutions more broadly as a tool to
respond to climate change.
We also need for the Corps to plan for the new climate
reality that we face. Failure to do so is extremely costly.
From 1990 through 2019, the Corps received $53.9 billion, that
is $53.9 billion in supplemental appropriations. The majority
of that money was for flood risk projects, typically in
response to flooding disasters and severe storms.
Over the last decade, these funds have more than doubled
the Corps' construction program for flood risk reduction
projects. We shouldn't be waiting for the storms to address
these projects; we should be addressing these initiatives
before the storms ever arrive. The trick is to prevent these
massive losses in the first place.
So, let's begin our work on WRDA this year with equity and
climate goals more in mind than before.
With that, I want to turn over to Senator Capito for her
opening remarks, and say how much we look forward to working on
this legislative project together with her and members of this
Committee on both sides of the aisle, from Iowa all the way to
Rhode Island and back.
Thank you.
Senator Capito.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look
forward to working on this, as well.
It is that time again when the Committee begins the
biennial process of crafting water resources legislation. As
the Chairman said, WRDA, the Water Resources Development Act,
authorizes water resource projects and sets national policies
for the Civil Works Program of the U.S. Corps of Engineers.
The Corps' main mission area of navigation, flood risk
management, and ecosystem restoration support the lives and
livelihoods of millions of Americans and facilitates commerce
throughout this country and internationally.
As I noticed in the previous hearing, 2.3 billion short
tons of goods and commodities were transported over water in
the United States in just 1 year. This is made possible by the
Nation's ports and inland waterway systems constructed and
maintained by the Corps.
According to the Corps' own estimates, its flood risk
management projects have prevented over $1 trillion in riverine
and coastal flood damages, mostly within the last 35 years.
These projects and activities, in addition to other
important mission areas, are authorized and directed by
Congress under WRDA. The most recent WRDA legislation enacted
by Congress in 2020 included several provisions that are
important to the country and my home State of West Virginia.
Importantly, the legislation changed the cost share for
projects on the inland waterways system, included provisions to
support the development of projects in rural and economically
disadvantaged communities, and provided assistance to non-
Federal sponsors on identifying flood risk management project
deficiencies.
I was glad to secure an increase in authorization of $160
million for West Virginia's two environmental infrastructure
programs under the Corps, which help support our drinking water
and wastewater projects in the State.
But there is much more to do, as you said, Mr. Chairman,
and I look forward to working with the Chairman and my
colleagues to develop the next WRDA Bill. It is important that
future WRDA legislation supports the development and delivery
of water resources projects in communities that need them,
while continuing to meet our national priorities.
This is underscored by events such as the 2016 flood in
West Virginia, which claimed 23 lives and destroyed over 1,000
homes. We are still waiting on initial funding for a
comprehensive study by the Corps to assess existing flood
protection gaps and inform future projects in the Kanawha River
Basin where most of the damage in the 2016 flood occurred.
While I fully intend to see that this study receives a new
start, it will do little good if recommended projects are held
up due to analyses that sort of disregard the needs of certain
communities. In that same vein, it is also important that
Congress promote efficiencies in the Corps' project delivery
process to support its central missions.
The Corps decisionmaking process is often perceived as a
black box by non-Federal sponsors without the requisite
expertise or experience, and this should change. The Congress
should continue to encourage and enhance assistance on the part
of the Corps to communities and non-Federal sponsors.
People on the ground know what their water resource
challenges are, and the experiences and expertise of the hard
working men and woman at the Corps can help inform them of
paths forward to address those challenges.
As we make these changes and other changes, however, it is
important that we do not become too overly prescriptive. Our
Nation's water resources are diverse.
As I said, communities know better about their unique needs
than policymakers here. So we must preserve the important role
of non-Federal sponsors in the development and delivery of
projects.
In closing, let me reiterate my gratitude for our witnesses
for being here today, and I thank Chairman Carper for having
this hearing. The mission of the Corps is more critical than
ever, and the testimony we hear today will inform this
Committee as it continues its integral role.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a point and introduce a
friend of mine, but also a great West Virginian, who is on our
panel before we begin our testimony.
Senator Carper. I am not going to ask the witnesses to
stand up, but we have a couple really tall guys here, and you
are right between them. Take it away.
Senator Capito. Take it away. I am really pleased to have
with us today Robert McCoy from Sissonville, West Virginia.
Robert and I have known each other for several years. He is the
President and CEO of Amherst Madison, which employs over 350
people.
They are a marine transportation construction and repair
business. It has been in business since 1893.
Robert is a father of two, a daughter who is at the
University of Charleston, and a 14 year old son. He went to
West Virginia State University. He was born in Matewan, and we
are really happy, Robert, that you are here.
Mr. Chairman, you have to know, since you are the one who
can crack the funniest jokes, this is the real McCoy, right
here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Capito. I know. He has probably heard it a hundred
times.
Anyway, welcome Robert, and all the other witnesses.
Thank you.
Senator Carper. That was good. I understand we have been
joined by Mario Cordero remotely. Is that correct? He is
Executive Director of the Port of Long Beach, California. He is
also an attorney and the current Chairman of the Board of the
American Association of Port Authorities.
Mario, I was a midshipman many, many years ago in the Navy.
I was stationed on a big, 1,000 foot long jumbo oiler Navy ship
at the Long Beach Naval Station. So I have some fond memories
of Long Beach and the time that I spent there that year.
Mr. Cordero is also an attorney and current Chairman of the
Board of the American Association of Port Authorities.
Welcome. Bienvenido.
Our second witness is Mr. Collin O'Mara. Collin is the
President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Wildlife
Federation, America's largest wildlife conservation
organization with 53 State and territorial affiliates and
nearly 6 million hunters, anglers, birders, gardeners, hikers,
paddlers, and wildlife enthusiasts. That is a lot of people.
Prior to leading the National Wildlife Federation, Collin
led the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control as our Cabinet Secretary from 2009 to
2014. He did a great job. I have very fond memories of his
service in our State. I am proud to claim him as our own.
The third witness is Amy Larson. Amy is the Founding
Partner of Larson Strategies LLC and has more than 25 years of
water resources and waterways transportation policy and funding
expertise.
Now, we look forward to hearing from our panel, our
witnesses.
We are going to start with Mario Cordero.
Mr. Cordero, you are recognized for your statement. Please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF MARIO CORDERO,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PORT OF LONG BEACH
Mr. Cordero. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and
members of the Committee, I want to thank you for the
opportunity to provide remarks to the Environment and Public
Works Committee on Examining the Benefits of Investing in USACE
Water Infrastructure Projects.
I am Mario Cordero, Executive Director of the Port of Long
Beach. The Port of Long Beach is the second largest
containerized cargo port in the United States and is a major
economic contributor to our local, State, and national economy.
Maritime traffic moves in excess of 80 million tons annually
through the port, which drives $200 billion in annual economic
activity and supports 2.6 million U.S. jobs and more than
576,000 jobs in Southern California.
I am speaking on behalf of the American Association of Port
Authorities, AAPA, as its chairman. My remarks today will focus
on port experiences partnering with the Corps, planning for
resiliency, sea level rise, and priorities for future
legislation.
AAPA members appreciate that Congress understands the
importance of our seaports' role in the U.S. economy. Seaports
and their maritime partners sustain 31 million jobs and
generate economic activity representing 26 percent of the U.S.
economy. Constructing and maintaining the Nation's 21st century
maritime infrastructure is essential to the Nation's economic
future.
Public ports and their private sector partners are
committed to this challenge, with plans to invest upwards of
$155 billion by 2025 in port related facilities. These
investments can only be fully realized when the Federal
navigation assets managed by the Corps of Engineers are kept
modern and in a state of good repair.
I thank the Environment and Public Works Committee members
for their landmark WRDA 2020 legislation, which resolved the
long standing issue of the full use of the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund with equitable distribution for all ports: Small
ports, national defense ports, and donor and energy transfer
ports.
AAPA members are pleased that the House Fiscal Year 2022
Energy and Water Development appropriations bill has
established a precedent for supporting this funding level. We
look forward to the WRDA 2020 funds distribution approach when
full implementation is effective in September 2022.
Federal navigation channels are the foundation of global
freight movement. We have all witnessed the important role of
ports and the supply chain through the COVID-19 pandemic, where
ports and our labor partners were able to stay open and safely
move freight, like personal protective equipment. These
channels and port facilities must keep pace with the increasing
size of the global fleet of ships. If we don't, we risk losing
the water transportation cost savings that makes products like
agricultural exports competitive in the global marketplace.
At the Port of Long Beach, our Deep Draft Navigation
Improvements Feasibility Study, performed in collaboration with
the United States Army Corps of Engineers, was conducted to
identify opportunities to remove constraints, improve
efficiencies, and reduce transportation costs.
Based on fiscal year 2021 discount rate of 2.5 percent and
a 50 year period of analysis, the equivalent annual benefits
and costs are estimated at $20 million and $5 million,
respectively. The project is estimated to provide annual net
benefits of $15 million and a benefit to cost ratio of 3.6.
In addition to navigation improvements, we are embarking on
a $5 million project to repair wharves and have identified
approximately $140 million in maritime infrastructure repair
and replacement projects, including wharves, rock dikes,
bulkheads needed to prevent potential impacts to critical port
business operations.
The Port of Long Beach has been proactive in strategically
preparing for and adapting to climate change, including impacts
associated with sea level rise and coastal hazards through our
Climate Adaption and Coastal Resiliency Plan. This plan, the
first of its kind of a North American seaport, includes
adaptive measures to address sea level rise and other risks to
ensure continuity for port operations and protection to local
communities surrounding the port.
AAPA members report that WRDA legislation has led to
profound improvements in Corps processes. For example, the 3
year feasibility study process, partnering improvements with
non-Federal sponsors being actively involved in the Corps, and
aligning dredge projects will fill projects for the beneficial
reuse of dredged material.
AAPA has three key issues for the WRDA as follows. One:
Authorize for both new studies for navigation channel
improvements and proceed to as well as construct navigation
project improvements recommended by the Chief of Engineer
reports. Two: Visibility of the Corps' plans to restore and
properly maintain Federal navigation projects with the
increased funding for full use of Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
revenues established by WRDA 2020. Three: Continue to identify
process improvements for improved product delivery. AAPA will
submit the list of specific streamlining improvements soon.
Finally, I want to thank the Committee leaders, members,
and staff for their efforts to ensure that port related
infrastructure like Federal navigation channels, jetties, and
breakwaters are a part of any infrastructure investment
legislation being developed. AAPA estimates that $3 billion
would provide completion for funding of the Federal share of
current level navigation and channel improvements.
I commend the Committee and leadership for recognizing the
nexus between water resources development and economic
prosperity. I urge you to develop and pass both an
infrastructure package and WRDA legislation at the earliest
possible time.
I am happy to address any questions you may have.
Thank you so much for this opportunity to speak on behalf
AAPA.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cordero follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. We appreciate very much your joining us.
Thank you for that testimony, Mr. Cordero.
Next is Collin O'Mara.
Collin, you may begin when you are ready. Please proceed.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF COLLIN O'MARA,
PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
Mr. O'Mara. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member
Capito. It is great to be with all of you today.
Thank you for the invitation to testify on the vital issues
of improving the resilience of our water resources and the
communities and wildlife those resources sustain.
This conversation comes at a critical time. The flooding
that we are seeing, the above average hurricane season, and it
is time for some real talk, because we are facing real risks.
The Ranking Member talked about the flood of 2016; we can talk
about Hurricane Sandy. It is hitting every part of the country.
It is affecting lives, livelihoods, perpetuating historic
inequalities.
At the same time, we are seeing in places where we have
healthy wetlands, streams, rivers, shorelines, they are
protecting us from these extreme weather events. We are also
seeing the devastating consequences when these systems have
been paved over or degraded.
Unfortunately, despite this escalating damage that we are
seeing, resilience investments that are proposed are only maybe
1, maybe 2 percent of the infrastructure package, both
bipartisan piece and what comes after. This is woefully
inadequate. There is virtually nothing for the Army Corps in
many of these proposals right now of any magnitude. We believe
we need at least $36 billion to make these investments in the
coming years.
This is just simply pound foolish, as the Chairman laid
out. We know that every dollar that we spend in resilience is
going to save us $6 to $8 in avoided damages, avoided costs.
But because of our budget rules, we score the $1, we don't
account for the $6, and then you all fight with Appropriations
trying to get resources. It is costing us hundreds of billions
of dollars in impacts.
Because of these rules, it is easier to spend hundreds of
billions of dollars after the fact, after the disaster occurs,
than it is to invest in that ounce of prevention that could
have mitigated the damage in the first place.
As a result, we spent almost $300 billion in the last 10
years on supplemental disaster appropriations, a fraction of
which could have funded a lot of the backlog, a third of which
could have funded the backlog that Senator Carper talked about.
The evidence is incredibly clear that the best way to
protect communities most cost effectively is to restore the
natural systems. It is hard to believe that Hurricane Sandy was
almost 10 years ago, but since then, coastlines and flood plain
communities have been pummeled by disaster after disaster.
As we have shown in a recent report, The Protective Value
of Nature, prioritizing the protection and restoration of
wetlands and other natural systems would have saved billions
upon billions of dollars in the past, and would save even more
in the years ahead.
As Senator Whitehouse said just yesterday, this year is the
worst year of the last 10. It is going to be the best year of
the next 10. We need to avoid the unintended consequences,
also, that can be created by structural solutions that just
push the floodwater into other communities.
As we experience more frequent weather events, the Army
Corps really needs a new playbook, one that treats nature as an
ally. The Army Corps has been asked to fight against nature for
almost two centuries, embedding this approach into its
organizational structure and its very DNA. But we know now that
healthy systems are essential for our well being and our
survival.
Building upon the important provisions from the previous
Water Resources Development Act and ones before that, we must
accelerate this thinking toward natural systems, as Senator
Carper mentioned. We must overcome the Corps' entrenched over
reliance on structural solutions, overhaul the siloed approach
to project planning, and establish an integrated approach that
works with nature to bolster resilience and protect
communities.
We have four specific recommendations. First, we urge the
Committee to make critically needed reforms to the Corps cost-
benefit analysis, the benefit-cost analysis process. It is a
process that is fundamentally broken in several ways.
To make the best choice among alternatives, the Corps must
properly account for all costs and all benefits, including risk
reduction from flooding, water quality improvements, soil
stabilization, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, expanded
recreational opportunities. If these benefits are lost to a
project, they should also be counted as a project cost.
Second, we encourage the Committee to continue to focus on
environmental justice, as you have in the SRF debates a few
months ago, by directing the Corps to focus more on remediating
toxic pollution in industrial and urban waterway projects in
places like the Ohio River, the Delaware River, the Lower
Mississippi.
We encourage expanding the pilot projects in economically
distressed communities, as Senator Capito just mentioned.
We suggest establishing a senior advisor for environmental
justice and an environmental justice advisory council,
advancing innovation in this space, and hiring more folks of
color and contracting more minority businesses across the
Corps.
Third, we urge Congress to establish a resilience
directorate to ensure that resilience measures, especially the
restoration of natural systems, are fully integrated and
leveraged across flood protection, navigation, ecological
restoration business lines, which is really essential to
protect communities, advance equitable solutions, and protect
wildlife. To be effective, this kind of inter-departmental
directorate should be within the Office of the Chief of
Engineers and have significant budget authority.
Fourth, we must vastly improve the condition and
collaboration with the Fish and Wildlife Service and State,
territorial, and tribal wildlife agencies to recover thousands
of at risk fish and wildlife species that live in Corps project
areas.
These reforms will take concerted bipartisan push to shift
centuries of planning and practices of the Corps, but they will
bear immense benefits to people and wildlife alike, saving
lives and money in the process.
On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation, I just want
to thank you for committing to making these types of reforms
and leveraging nature as an ally. I look forward to your
questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Mara follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Thank you. Thank you, Collin. Thanks so
much for joining us and for a really excellent testimony.
Our next witness is Amy Larson.
Ms. Larson, you are recognized for your statement. Please
proceed. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF AMY LARSON,
FOUNDING PARTNER, LARSON STRATEGIES LLC
Ms. Larson. Good morning, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member
Capito, and members of the Committee. It is a privilege for me
to appear before you this morning to testify on the benefits of
investing in Army Corps of Engineers water resources
infrastructure projects.
My name is Amy Larson. I am currently a consultant, but
previously served for 12 years as the President of the National
Waterways Conference, an association whose membership includes
the non-Federal sponsors of Corps Civil Works projects, as well
as the stakeholders who rely upon those projects and the
multiple benefits they bring to this Nation.
This morning, I would like to address the importance of
flood control and flood risk management measures to small and
rural communities. I will touch upon the opportunities those
communities may have, as well as impediments they face, and
offer suggestions for more effective planning and investment
strategies going forward.
We hear a lot about the traditional planning process, and
we know that it generally produces the recommended plan as the
one that has the greatest net economic benefit consistent with
protecting the environment. But a particular challenge with
this metric is that the BCR considers the value of real estate
in the proposed project area.
What that means is it is a clear detriment to regions with
lower property values. If we look at this Administration's
emphasis on equity and environmental justice, we know that we
need a more focused response to address flood risks in these
disadvantaged communities.
An alternative approach could be to consider, for example,
the number of homes, structures, and most significantly, lives
at stake, rather than simply economic benefits. Consideration
of life safety should be paramount, derived from the Corps'
focus on risk informed decisionmaking rather than a straight
economic analysis.
There is also a major disconnect, though, when it comes to
funding projects.
In establishing the Administration's budget priorities, and
this goes back over several administrations, OMB uses a BCR of
2.5 to 1 at a 7 percent discount rate. In practical terms, that
means many authorized projects simply won't be included in the
President's budget. So while the Administration's fiscal year
2022 budget would lower that to two to one, the unrealistic 7
percent remains a huge hurdle for many projects to get started.
There are other alternative funding opportunities that may
help these small communities that don't typically avail
themselves of the large planning process. So, the Continuing
Authorities Program is designed to plan and implement projects
of limited size, scope, and complexity.
Typically, the feasibility study here at $100,000 is 100
percent federally funded, and thereafter, if a decision is made
to construct there is a cost share model. If we look at the CAP
authorities, the Section 205, which looks at small flood
control projects, the cost share is 65 percent Federal, and 35
percent non-Federal.
While that is a great program, if we look at the actuals,
it is only estimated that about 20 percent of those projects
that go through the study phase go on to construction, and
there are pretty much two reasons for this. These small
communities simply do not have the funds for their local cost
share, and second, they don't have the technical expertise to
manage their end of the project.
So, in funding CAP in fiscal year 2021, Congress gave $69.5
million. That is compared to $3 million in the Administration's
budget. That is a good step.
And you have mentioned the WRDA 2020 provision, which
established a pilot program for these small and rural
communities at a 100 percent cost share.
What I would encourage you to do when you are at your town
halls is encourage your local communities avail themselves of
these CAP opportunities. Go to the local Corps district,
express interest in this project, because what happens is they
finally get a budget, and then the Corps has to ramp this up.
If there is a letter of interest with the Corps district, the
communities then will be called by the Corps and be able to
work and try to move forward on their CAP programs.
We can't forget, also, long term operation and maintenance
activities in order to have sustainable solutions for this. How
do they pay for that? That is one of the things that we know
falls by the wayside with these small flood control projects,
is the O&M.
I have looked at other programs within the Corps and other
Federal agencies that may provide this Committee guidance as
you seek to help these small and rural communities. The Corps'
Tribal Partnership Program, the Corps' CWIFIA Program, EPA's
WIFIA, TIFIA, Department of Agriculture, and HUD have zero to
low interest loans. They may provide some sort of model so that
these communities who are in need can get their cost shares for
construction and for O&M.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I look
forward to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Larson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. You were great to join us. Thank you for
that testimony.
Now, the real McCoy.
Mr. McCoy, take it away.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT MCCOY,
PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMHERST MADISON
Mr. McCoy. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
speak today on the benefits of investing in the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers water infrastructure projects.
Senator Carper. If I would close my eyes, I would feel like
I am back in my native State of West Virginia. A great sound.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McCoy. My comments today will highlight the
improvements made in the Water Resources and Development Act of
2020, also known as WRDA, and why a comprehensive
infrastructure bill that includes significant funding for lock
and dam modernization will provide and sustain more jobs,
increase efficiency, and make our inland waterway system more
resilient.
As Ranking Member Capito said earlier, my name is Robert
McCoy. I am the President and CEO of Amherst Madison. Amherst
Madison is a 100 percent employee owned company involved in the
transportation, construction, and repair business. We are based
on the Kanawha River in Charleston, West Virginia.
I also serve as a trustee of the National Waterways
Foundation and as a member of the Board of Directors of the
Waterways Council. WCI is the national public policy
organization that advocates for a modern and well maintained
system of inland waterways and ports.
Our Nation's rivers are the fourth R of a critical national
multimodal transportation system that also includes roads,
rails, and runways. The inland waterways system is comprised of
12,000 miles of navigable waterways in 38 States.
The United States has the largest navigable inland waterway
system in the world. Each year, this system typically moves
almost 600 million tons of freight, valued at approximately
$250 billion. River transportation is the safest, most
environmentally responsible and efficient mode of transporting
bulk commodities.
I would like to thank this Committee for continuing to
prioritize the biennial enactment of WRDAs, and I especially
thank you for Section 109 of WRDA 2020.
Section 109 of WRDA 2020 established an important new
statutory cost share formula for the construction and major
rehabilitation of inland waterways navigation projects
receiving an appropriation in the next 10 years. That provision
changed the construction and major rehabilitation cost share
for inland navigation projects to 65 percent from the General
Treasury, 35 percent from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. When
fully appropriated, it will deliver roughly an additional $100
million annually in construction funding for navigation
improvements. I cannot thank this Committee enough for your
support in adjusting the cost share.
The Inland Waterways User Board is a Federal advisory
committee established by Congress to give commercial users a
strong voice in the Corps' investment decisions. I have
included with my written testimony a copy of the User Board's
most recent report and recommendations.
Congress created the User Board to work with the Corps of
Engineers to help prioritize construction projects through what
is called the Capital Investment Strategy. In January of this
year, the Corps submitted the first update of the Capital
Investment Strategy that this Committee called for in WRDA
2014. The Corps' 2020 Capital Investment Strategy Report
illustrates that by completing 15 congressionally authorized
priority projects valued at $7 billion over a 10 year timeframe
rather than the expected 30 year baseline funding scenario, the
Corps will save $2.2 billion.
By including capital construction funding for the inland
waterways in a positive manner in the comprehensive
infrastructure legislation that Congress currently is
developing, you will create a sustainable advantage to American
industries that ship their products on our waterways, making
those industries more competitive at home and in the world
market.
Both WCI and the Inland Waterways User Board have
recommended at least $3 billion of infrastructure funds should
be appropriated in the comprehensive infrastructure investment
legislation for the Capital Investment Strategy list of 15
congressionally authorized projects.
That concludes my testimony. Thank you for giving me the
opportunity to be here today, and I will be happy to respond to
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCoy follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Mr. McCoy, great to hear from you this
morning. Thank you very much for joining us, and for your
testimony, as well.
I want to start off the questioning with a question for
each of our panelists. What I would like to ask each of you to
do, and we will start with Mr. Cordero, but just share with us
maybe the three top issues, maybe the biggest issues that you
believe we should be tackling with the next Water Resources
Development Act, maybe the top three, just briefly.
Mr. Cordero, would you lead us off, please, with that?
Mr. Cordero. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think what you
gathered here this morning is addressing the benefit to cost
ratio. Obviously, it is too rigid, and we need to have the
issue of including natural infrastructure as part of this
dynamic. We need to have a way to capture and quantify natural
infrastructure with regard to these assessments.
Going forward, again, I think you heard the very important
issues of climate change. Sea level rise is a big issue for
coastal communities and ports, so I think No. 1, that is
essential.
I think, going forward again, if we move forward to address
natural infrastructure, as an example, using sediment as a
result, what we get from our dredging projects in a more
environmentally friendly way for those purposes. So I think
those are a couple key issues that I want to leave with this
Committee.
Senator Carper. Good. Thanks, thank you for those.
Mr. O'Mara.
Mr. O'Mara. Thank you. In addition to just more resources
in general, I think there are some fundamental changes that are
needed. I think we have heard from the entire panel around the
benefit-cost analysis.
One specific change on that, making sure we count increases
in ecological services as a benefit, but also the loss of
ecological functions as a cost would make a lot of the numbers
pencil in a way that is more reflective of the impact of the
project, so that is one.
The second one is the idea of this resilience directorate
that I mentioned, this idea of shifting the way that we design
and execute projects across business lines.
Then third, really embedding environmental justice and
wildlife into the actual bones of the DNA of the Army Corps.
Those three would make a huge difference.
Senator Carper. Good. Thank you.
Ms. Larson, please. Same question, three, maybe a couple of
the biggest issues you think we ought to be tackling as we
undertake this legislative challenge.
Ms. Larson. The BCR is at the top of the list for a lot of
non-Federal sponsors, and this is particularly true where non-
Federal sponsors are seeking to modify their projects and
include multiple benefits. You heard in the testimony last
month from Rick Johnson from the Sacramento Area Flood Control
Agency the challenge with modifying the flood control project
to include recreation, protection, irrigation, agriculture
benefits.
So, I think pulling apart and delving into how the BCR is
derived is really important.
But I would suggest we need to get this right, because we
do still need a planning process that is consistent, is
predictable, it is replicable. It should provide the planners,
Federal investments, and non-Federal sponsors some consistency.
What we don't want is, let's throw every possible benefit
into the pot and come up with a subjective mix, because that
will lead to a waste of Federal and local resources.
So a consistent, practicable planning framework, I think,
is really important. Part of that is how to quantify all of
these multiple benefits, so that, I think, is really important.
Similarly, considering regional benefits, how do we
quantify those and ensure that there is still a Federal
interest and Federal incentive to invest in these projects, and
what does that mean? Secondary and tertiary benefits, as well.
I would also say that there are a lot of ideas out here.
One of the false narratives, in my view, that typically comes
up, and we have seen this through WRDA 2014 up until now, is
this battle between gray and green. It is not a conflict. It
can be an all of the above solution.
So I think anything that goes forward is an all of the
above solution that doesn't add additional bureaucratic hurdles
to non-Federal sponsors and Federal planners alike.
Senator Carper. Good point, good point.
Mr. McCoy.
Mr. McCoy. The most relevant issue I see is continuing the
progress this Committee has achieved recently by securing
funding for the inland waterways priority projects. Currently,
over 50 percent of your locks and dams are older than their
estimated economic useful life, as determined by the Corps.
The inland river system is just that, it is a system. It is
not made up of individual autonomous segments.
So the system is as strong as its weakest link. With
structures, over half of your structures being older than their
life, I think that is a priority because inland rivers
infrastructure has economic features; it has environmental
benefits; it also has flood control benefits as well. Thank
you.
Senator Carper. Thank you. You finished, like, right on the
money. That never happens. That is pretty impressive. We have 7
minutes set aside for questions for the panel, and you finished
on a triple zero. That is amazing.
We have been joined here this morning by Senator Inhofe
from Oklahoma, former Chairman of this Committee, and by
Senator Cramer. We welcome you both. The questioning order
right now looks like Senators Capito, Whitehouse, Inhofe, and
Cramer.
Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
for the increased emphasis on improving the cost-benefit
analysis process as we are moving through with the Corps.
I think that is something that we hear from everybody, from
different sides, but from everybody. So I think that is
something that we need to prioritize.
Ms. Larson, you mentioned a lot about small and rural
communities with the flood risk management projects and how
difficult it is to get those funded and off the ground. How can
we improve that process? Is it capacity to develop these
projects? Besides the money issue, can you make some
suggestions there?
Ms. Larson. One of the challenges, well, there are multiple
challenges with these small and rural communities. One of these
challenges in these small towns is, you may have a director of
public works, a one person shop who is responsible for potholes
to levees.
So in the prioritization, at the community level, these
small flood control projects maybe aren't at the top of the
list. So, encouraging and educating on CAP and the other
authorities that are out there at least gets them in the door.
Submit the letter of interest to the Corps so that when the
local Corps district gets their funding through the
appropriations process, they have a cue. They know who is
eligible to do that.
The other part of this is, as we talk about BCR, and
looking at the life safety example, if it is based only on NED,
there aren't property values to allow that project to compete
appropriately. So we need to look at, what is the life safety
here, and what is being protected.
We see all too often that these projects with the higher
NED benefits are the ones that get the funding, or get a new
start, and so that has to be changed. So we need to look at
life safety.
Senator Capito. I appreciate that, and I appreciate that
you mentioned that in your opening statement.
Mr. McCoy, we championed the provision WRDA 2020 that you
mentioned in your statement that changed the construction cost
share for navigation projects on the waterways. What effect do
you think this will have, changing that cost share? Are you
seeing any of the effects of that? I know these things go into
a process.
But what kind of effect would you see on that, changing the
cost share?
Mr. McCoy. Changing the cost share had an enormous effect
on expediting construction costs on the priority projects of
the Corps of Engineers. There is no question. It saved the
Nation a lot of money in construction costs, and it has allowed
the Nation to also recognize the benefits sooner.
Senator Capito. And you are seeing that on the waterways
that you are using, the Upper Ohio, all the way down to New
Orleans? You go all the way down there, don't you?
Mr. McCoy. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Capito. Let me ask you this. I know that in the
Upper Ohio, a lot of the locks and dams in that area are very
old. You mentioned this in your last answer to the last
question.
Could you kind of quantify that for people? What is a very
old lock and dam, and when was the last time major maintenance
was done on those?
Mr. McCoy. Well, major maintenance is having to be done on
an annual basis, and it is costing this country a lot of money
because of the age and condition of the infrastructure,
particularly Montgomery, Dashields, and Innsworth Locks. They
are well over their design life, and they are in bad shape.
So they are certainly costing a lot of O&M dollars, whereas
expediting the construction process would save a lot of money
on that side.
Senator Capito. Does your business have delays and other
things that are associated with the inadequacy of those locks
to function, that holds up commerce?
Mr. McCoy. Yes. There are unplanned outages occurring on
the older infrastructure locks and dams that industry does not
have an opportunity to respond to.
Unfortunately, unlike the highway system, there are no
detours on a river. So when you have an unplanned outage or a
lock outage, traffic sits still for days, perhaps even weeks,
and it is costing the country billions of dollars and
ultimately, the consumers. It is also making us non-competitive
on the global market.
Senator Capito. I know you do a lot of other work besides
just transportation. Mr. O'Mara talked a lot about natural
infrastructure and how important that is, and then Ms. Larson
talked about green and gray, and all of that. As you are
conducting your other business applications at Amherst Madison,
what kind of considerations do you all take for natural
infrastructure? Is that something you think about?
Mr. McCoy. A large part of what we do is, as a contractor
for the Corps of Engineers, we dredge. We dredge out the river
to provide adequate river depths to allow commerce to continue
to flow. Beneficial use of that dredged material is what we
have got to do a better job as a country of finding. So, yes,
we do have to dispose of that oftentimes in incredibly
expensive manners by taking it to landfills. Sometimes, we have
got to get creative and use it to build environmentally
sensitive or environmental structures for fish habitat
structure.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Thanks for those questions, and for those
answers.
Senator Whitehouse, who is faithful in attending the
affairs of this Committee, hearings and business meetings, and
brings a lot of passion to this Committee.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Chairman. Thank
you for this hearing.
Any time the Army Corps is the subject of our attention, I
like to point out the studious way in which it seems the Army
Corps ignores the priorities and wishes of this Committee.
I don't think that just making noise from the Committee is
going to make any appreciable difference in that behavior.
So I think as we go forward to do WRDA, we have got to
think seriously about actually some protocol for directing the
Army Corps' attention to the priorities of this Committee. One
of my proposals has been to have a hearing for things that have
been designated as Committee priorities where the Army Corps
can come in and answer for the fact that they don't think it is
their priority, so they are not going to do it, and they will
explain to us why they are ignoring Committee priorities.
But I have been on this Committee a while. They have had
plenty of chances to change and improve, and I have seen zero
interest in doing that. I say that from a State where our local
Army Corps District is terrific. They really try as hard as
they can.
But up against headquarters, it is an uphill struggle. I
frankly am sick of it, and I think we need to have some formal
protocol of some kind to make sure that we are being listened
to so the Army Corps doesn't believe that it was created by
immaculate conception and all of its funding dropped on it by
divine intervention, that they understand that this Committee
has something to do and works pretty hard and needs to be
listened to. So, that would be point one.
As we talk about a new playbook, as Mr. O'Mara suggests, I
think the new playbook should be some form of protocol to make
sure that this Committee's priorities are attended to by the
Army Corps, or they come and make a solid explanation of why
they are not paying attention to us, why they think our
priorities are wrong priorities, which is fine. We can have
that debate.
The second is my customary concern with the so called Flood
and Coastal Storm Damage Fund. I repeat, Flood and Coastal
Storm Damage Fund, which, for fiscal year 2022, is proposed by
the Army Corps to spend $1.7 billion.
Of that $1.7 billion, $1.67 billion is proposed to be spent
inland. That leaves $37 million, not billion, million dollars
to be spent on coastal things.
We have talked about what is happening to our coasts; we
have talked about sea level rise. We have talked about
worsening storms; we have talked about the ancient
infrastructure. Mr. Cordero brings the view of the ports, which
are kind of, by definition, often on the coasts, and Mr. O'Mara
talked about a number of issues that are highly specific to
coasts. Forty-five to one is the current ratio; $45 inland for
every $1 on coasts.
It has been worse, believe it or not. In fiscal year 2017
it was $120 to inland for every $1 on coasts. I know we have
some inland States here, and I don't want to take anything away
from the inland States, but I don't think 45 to 1 is fair. I
don't think it is reasonable. I don't think it is consistent
with the risk profile that we face.
And as Ms. Larson and other witnesses talk about the
concerns of small communities, a hell of a lot of these small
communities are small coastal communities who need a lot of
support to understand what is coming at them, because they have
never seen this before.
As Mr. O'Mara said, this is probably the worst year of the
last 10 or 20 years for a lot of these climate consequences,
but it is also probably the best year of the next 10 or 20
years for these climate consequences.
It is these little, coastal communities that are not only
suffering from all of the disabilities that Ms. Larson
described, but they are also suffering from the disability of
being on the losing end of a 45 to 1 discrepancy that has no
justification whatsoever.
I will confess that my patience is at an end, as a Senator
from the Ocean State, with continuing to put up with passing
WRDA bills that countenance my State, the Chairman's State,
Senator Wicker's State, and other coastal States losing out by
45 to 1. That just isn't going to work for me any longer. So we
have to find a way through that as well.
I appreciate the bipartisanship of the WRDA bills in the
past. We have always tried to work together well.
But there comes a times when you got to draw a line, and it
is really preposterous to have a budget for flood and coastal
storm damage out of which $1.67 billion of the $1.7 billion is
going purely to inland, and only $37 million is left for
coasts.
Thank you for the hearing. I hope somebody at the Army
Corps might even be listening to this, and certainly I hope
that my Committee members are listening to this so that we can
find a way to pull together and solve these recurring problems.
Senator Carper. Your message is loud and clear and
received. Thank you.
OK, next up, Senator Inhofe. After Senator Inhofe, Senator
Cramer.
Senator Inhofe. Well, thank you.
Thank you, and I say to my friend, Senator Whitehouse, that
it is loud and clear, and we have heard this.
First of all, let me thank you for the respect that you
paid to our fallen brother, Mike Enzi last night by staying
there and observing the tribute to him.
Senator Whitehouse. You gave a great tribute, Chairman. I
was pleased to be there.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
Now, we are, obviously, we are inland, and we are
concerned, and I think that I have been complimentary in the
past, and the equal treatment, I have felt, has been given.
But in the WRDA 2020, I was Chairman of the Committee at
that time, and I was able to include the authorization for the
West Tulsa levee system. We had a devastating flood at that
time. I think everyone in the country was aware of that.
It is an old levee. You talk about something, one of the
witnesses talking about something that was 50 years old, that
levee is 80 years old and is far beyond its useful life, and I
think finally we are going to be getting some action.
Ms. Larson, in your testimony, you note that consideration
for life and safety should be paramount when evaluating the
benefits of flood risk projects. Ms. Larson, how can the Corps
take a more expansive view on the benefits of flood risk
projects, such as what they did in the Tulsa Levee? I really
think we could be used as a model for the successes that we had
at that time. Any comments about that?
Ms. Larson. The chief's report was successful there because
they got an exemption to the standard requirement to pick the
NED project, and that was based on life safety risks, comparing
the life safety risks versus the NED.
I would suggest that that should not require an exemption.
That should be one of those selections that is available so
that you don't have to go through what sometimes is a
cumbersome process to get that exemption.
A challenge going forward I see is that OMB is loath to
fund or give new start status to those projects that aren't at
the NED level. So I think a lot of advocacy continues to be
needed to move forward.
Hopefully, that will serve as a model going forward, that
intercommunity that is protected there that could be better
protected because of the degraded levees, that you need to look
at the life safety, what is being protected, the people, the
industry, utilities that are behind that levee and take a look
at that. Use that life safety metrics.
I would say, this will require a complex and deliberative
approach. The underlying planning documents, that I use to tell
NWC members, I read so they didn't have to, are close to 1,000
pages. They are a bit mind numbing, and they look at how do you
measure navigation projects through the transportation cost
savings, how do you look at urban flooding projects, what is
the protection to, say, land use.
So, this will require a long term effort to review those
underlying planning documents, make sure that life safety is
not an exception, but is part of the rule.
Senator Inhofe. OK. I am sorry, I am running out of time
here, and I would suggest to you that you give those 10,000
pages to Senator Cramer, and he will explain them all to us.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cramer. I can't wait.
Senator Inhofe. Real quickly, I do want to get one comment
in to Mr. McCoy. The American Society of Civil Engineers has
given the inland waterway system an overall grade of D-plus.
That kind of is a little bit revealing, and somewhat
inconsistent with some of the things we have heard.
It is clear that we need to address the aging
infrastructure and critical maintenance of our Nation's inland
waterways.
On the MKARNS alone, we have $230 million in backlogged
maintenance, and I have led a delegation letters to the Corps,
and they have submitted congressionally directed spending
requests to chip away at that backlog.
Mr. McCoy, they put as the benefit of investing in and
maintaining our inland waterway infrastructure, you know, we
are all concerned about it. We live with it on a daily basis,
and it happens that a frailty in that system can cost lives. It
is a very serious thing. What is your thought about where we
are right now?
Mr. McCoy. The benefits, sir, in investing in the
infrastructure is twofold. You create a resilient system that
is more reliable. It creates jobs. It does so, and promotes an
industry that is environmentally responsible. It does so in a
manner to reduce future O&M responsibilities. With new
structures or newer structures or rebuilt structures, your
operation and maintenance costs are going to be reduced.
I have had the pleasure of visiting Murray Lock and Dam on
the MKARNS, and I have seen those gentlemen from the Corps of
Engineers do more with less than most other districts in the
country.
Senator Inhofe. I agree with that. That is excellent. We
will stay hooked up with you.
You know, I can't even tell you right now what percentage
of that waterway that goes through Arkansas and Oklahoma is
actually a 12 foot channel as opposed to a 9 foot channel
because we have been at this thing for so long. But we will
continue to work together, as we have in the past, with
successes.
Thank you very much.
Senator Capito [presiding]. Thank you.
Senator Carper, Chairman Carper had to slip out for a
minute, so he has handed me the gavel, and I am going to go to
Senator Duckworth, who has joined us on Webex.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Chairwoman. I am very much
appreciative of the hearing that we are holding today. We
advanced--and I am just so proud of the work that the Committee
has done this year. We advanced, and the full Senate passed
overwhelmingly our bipartisan Drinking Water and Wastewater
Infrastructure Act.
Along with AWIA, our bipartisan Surface Transportation
Reauthorization Act is the foundational element in the broader,
bipartisan infrastructure framework effort, and we are
embarking today on another reauthorization of water resources
legislation. This Committee recognizes the tremendous societal
benefits that modern, efficient transportation systems support.
Unfortunately, our inland waterway system continues to lag
behind what the 21st century global marketplace demands, and
many of our riverine ecosystems continue to degrade faster than
they can be restored.
Mr. McCoy, one of my top priorities in the last WRDA bill
was improving the Federal cost share for inland waterways
projects from 50-50 to 65-35. Please describe some of the
benefits this cost share change will have on navigation,
interstate commerce, and global competitiveness.
Mr. McCoy. Thank you very much for your question, and thank
you very much for supporting the cost share improvement to 65-
35.
It has created jobs on the construction, on the front end
of these priority projects that have been congressionally
authorized and throughout construction.
Then at the completion of construction, it has created a
more efficient system that has allowed each of the States or
the companies that locate and ship products by river, to do so
in a competitive manner, not only for United States
consumption, but for the world market.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
Now, Mr. McCoy, WRDA 2020 included a provision that limits
the improved inland waterways cost share to 10 years. What, in
your view, would consequences be with this 10 year sunset on
future projects?
Mr. McCoy. Should the system revert back to the 50-50 cost
share, you are going to see a slowing of the new construction
or the authorized spending on the 15 priority projects, and
revert back to a system that is inefficient, and that Federal
dollars will, for the construction, will increase as time it
takes to build the projects. It is an inefficient, it has
proven to be inefficient, and the new cost share has proven to
be much more efficient in delivering infrastructure that is
more reliable to the country.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
Mr. O'Mara, the Upper Mississippi River System, which
includes the Illinois River, is the only river system
designated by Congress as both a nationally significant
commercial navigation system and also a nationally significant
ecosystem.
This Upper Mississippi-Illinois waterway transports more
than 60 percent of America's corn and soybean exports. It is
home to 25 percent of North American fish species and is a
flyway for 60 percent of all North American bird species.
I often talk about the Corps' Navigation and Ecosystem
Sustainability Program, otherwise known as NESP, in terms of
lock and dam capacity and infrastructure reliability.
But really, NESP ecosystem restoration components would
also provide tremendous economic benefits by improving quality
of life for local communities and reinforcing the waterways'
$25 billion tourism and recreational industry that supports
more than 400,000 jobs.
Mr. O'Mara, how do ecosystem restoration projects translate
into economic benefits for local communities, and how does
degradation of riverine ecosystems further marginalize
disadvantaged communities?
Mr. O'Mara. Thank you, Senator, for your question, and
thank you for your incredible leadership of the Mississippi
River Restoration Resilience Initiative which should hopefully
do a lot of the work that you just highlighted.
The economic benefits are huge, and I can talk until I am
blue in the face about the flyways and duck hunting and all
kinds of things in your neck of the woods.
But at the end of the day, restoration means jobs, and
every $1 million we spend on restoration can create up to 30
jobs. There are huge benefits to the outdoor recreation
economy. There are huge benefits for having clean water that
requires less treatment downstream.
The flood protection values that come from having healthy
wetlands that can absorb 300,000 to a million gallons of water,
rather than having that flood water wind up in somebody's
basement or worse are huge.
So restoring the healthy systems, and I think there is,
frankly, no better place to pilot some of the large landscape
scale investments that we need to do at scale in the middle
part of the country than in the Upper Mississippi right now.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. O'Mara.
I yield back, Chairman.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Cramer.
Senator Cramer. Thank you, Chair Capito. Thanks also to
Chair Carper.
It is interesting. Here we are, it is sort of unofficial
infrastructure week in the Senate, I think. Who knows for sure.
But I think we are approaching a vote later today, on at least
proceeding to the measure on the bipartisan negotiated
transportation infrastructure package.
I just came from a meeting of some of the negotiators. And
I want you to know, Senator Capito and Senator Carper, and the
team here, the staff, that I asked a very direct, specific
question: Does the unanimously passed EPW Surface
Transportation bill still serve as the foundation, every word
of it, every word of it, and they assured me that it still is.
So, I hope that is what you are hearing as well, but so
here we come. Here we go, and we are off to the next big
infrastructure discussion with you all here as we talk about
WRDA.
We have had a lot of discussion, obviously, appropriately,
in the Committee and today already related to the calculation
of the benefit-cost ratio that the Corps uses.
I am sure every member, as you can tell by the way they--as
Senator Whitehouse's testimony or questioning attests, nothing
unites Republicans and Democrats like the Corps of Engineers.
We have to give them a lot of credit for that.
But anyway, the end result, frankly, of their process is
often that local communities look at the Corps as being out of
touch, tone deaf, lacking common sense; I don't know why we
pick on the Corps. It has been my observation that most of
bureaucracy comes off that way.
But it is really important that local needs, and for my
case, especially rural needs, are not disregarded. A lot of you
have testified very well to that.
But with that in mind, I want to describe a situation in
some detail that we face in North Dakota and get some input, if
there is time.
The Snake Creek Embankment was constructed by the Corps of
Engineers at the edge of Lake Sakakawea. Lake Sakakawea is a
part of the Missouri River System and created by the Garrison
Dam. The embankment creates a separate pool of water that is
known as Lake Audubon, and that can be kept at a higher level
so that the Bureau of Reclamation can manage that water for its
intended uses, such as irrigation, municipal water supplies,
rural water, and the Lake Audubon Wildlife Refuge. Again, very
good multiple use asset, there.
But anyway, a few years ago, the Corps realized that they
were experiencing some foundation problems with the embankment.
The relief wells that they put in place were not properly
maintained over the years.
Rather than getting to the root of the problem, and despite
local objections, which were loud, the Corps decided to
implement a water control plant that would limit how much
higher the water level in Audubon could be, of course, than
Sakakawea.
So, in a severe drought like we are going through this
year, it can starve our largest city's water supply. It
certainly hurts the shores of the wildlife refuge and misses
every priority.
So, when this was brought to my attention, the Corps simply
said they couldn't account for water supply, irrigation, or the
needs of other Federal agencies in determining the importance
of the project, even though the end users were the main reason
the embankment was built in the first place. So, back to my
previous comments, when North Dakotans hear this from the
Corps, they see a total lack of common sense.
Now, thankfully, General Spellmon and his team have been
working with me on this. They have been very attentive, but
progress is slow, and it has been my experience that they will
find every reason possible not to do something before they ever
get to doing it.
So I am not going to ask you to comment on the specifics of
this project, but as we start working on another WRDA bill,
what is the best way for the Corps to include issues like water
supply and irrigation as it prioritizes project decisions?
Mr. O'Mara, I would be interested to start with you,
because I think you probably understand our situation.
Mr. O'Mara. Thank you, Senator Cramer. I know the wildlife
refuge very, very well up there, and it is great hunting. It is
good hunting, usually.
I think this is just another example of why we need a
broader benefit-cost analysis.
I would like to see the impacts on the ecosystem actually
accounted for in a major way. The loss of the hunting and
fishing revenue that comes from that part of the State, that is
not going to be there if it is dry. I think your outdoor
economy is about $40 billion, $50 billion across the State or
across maybe both Dakotas.
So we would like to work with you on this, because I think
it is replicated all across the country.
Frankly, if you had a bunch of McMansions that were worth
$3 million apiece lining the shore you would qualify better
than this amazing habitat that is one of the most important in
the country.
Senator Cramer. Anybody else, quickly?
Ms. Larson.
Ms. Larson. Congratulations, you stepped on the third rail
of water supply. One of the things, in particular, with water
supply, not one of the primary mission areas, these authorized
projects have multiple, often competing uses, and so there is
this trade off analysis.
While the Congress seeks to address it, I would also
suggest there are so many regional priorities. Water in the
Upper Missouri Basin States has different priorities than say,
the Southeast, than the reservoirs in Oklahoma and Texas, and
then Western water issues have their own character, as well.
So, we know that this is really complex from an ill fated Corps
rule that was withdrawn a few years ago.
So this particular issue really needs to strike the balance
between consistency on these rules and flexibility to address
local conditions. I don't have the answer for you, but I do
sympathize with this plight, because it is particularly
challenging when you have these control manuals with competing
issues.
Senator Cramer. Thank you all. Well said.
Senator Capito. Senator Padilla.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am excited to be part of this kickoff of the WRDA
process, and I want to welcome, I don't know if he has joined
us virtually, but Mr. Cordero to this Committee hearing.
While Mr. Cordero is testifying in his capacity as Chairman
of the American Association of Port Authorities, he and I go
way back, having first met when I was a member of the Los
Angeles City Council.
So I know from my State and local experience with him how
critical the Port of Long Beach, in particular, where he
serves, is for the economy and for job creation, both locally
and regionally, as well as nationally.
I am familiar, because of him, with the kinds of proactive
investments that ports, both Long Beach and Los Angeles, and
others up and down the State of California are making to
prepare for the impacts of climate change, which in many ways
are already being felt. We are not planning for the future; we
are responding to what is happening today.
So we no longer have a choice whether or not to deal with
the impacts of climate change.
The Port of Long Beach is one that is helping to lead the
way. The Port of Long Beach was the first seaport in North
America to develop a coastal resiliency plan to address sea
level rise and extreme storm events and to mitigate impacts to
port operations, as well as local communities. In fact, their
2016 Climate Adaptation and Coastal Resiliency Plan predicted
that extreme heat events and resulting outages could stress the
regional electrical grid that port operations rely upon. Just a
few weeks ago, California faced historical triple digit
temperatures.
Mr. Cordero, can you spend a minute telling us how members
of the American Association of Port Authorities are preparing
for and adapting to the increasing frequency of extreme weather
events, including having learned from your experience in Long
Beach?
Mr. Cordero. Yes, Senator, and thank you for your question.
It is a very key and important question.
No. 1, I think as you have referenced, the whole discussion
now with regard to the impacts on climate change has elevated
to a very high level, whether we are talking about inland or
coastal communities.
But to be more specific, I think as it relates to ports,
the AAPA's concern is with regard to the impact on ports.
With regard to the whole question of weather conditions,
extreme weather conditions, sea level rise, and another issue
that ports very much are concerned about is, of course,
stormwater related projects and the funding necessary to
address that.
Let me be more specific with regard to sea level. As you
know, in the State of California, coastal communities here are
of great concern. So, for example, the State right now opines
through a report that was released in the last few years
regarding by 2030, sea level rise is estimated to be to about a
foot or half a foot.
The real concern here is at the end of the century. Some
years ago, we were talking about 5 or 6 feet. Now, it is 7, and
many people believe it is a 10 foot rise, so what does that
mean for coastal communities?
For California to address the mitigating impact on housing,
we are talking about building or the recommendation of 100,000
housing units annually to address this issue.
So I think that addresses again some of the severe impacts
not only with regard to coastal communities, but of course, the
major ports across the country in terms of what that impact is
as a result of the severe weather conditions, climate change,
and related topics.
Senator Padilla. Great. And just one follow up question,
and I know in research, in planning, not only for mitigation,
but a lot of that is driven by research, data which has come
under fire in recent years, sadly.
But with the new Administration and new leadership, how
else can the Army Corps and this Congress, for that matter,
play a role in supporting your climate adaptation and coastal
resiliency planning efforts?
Mr. Cordero. A big role that they could play with regard to
what has been testified to this morning is, again, addressing
this whole issue of benefit to costs ratio to include what the
local and regional circumstance should be taking into account
with regard to this formula, as opposed to just a national
perspective here.
Second, as has been referenced, the American Society of
Engineers recently has now included natural infrastructure as
an important component to look to. More specifically, when you
look about the grades that are being given with regard to
stormwater, for example, concerns, that grade is a D.
So I think, again, these are avenues where I think the Army
Corps could be, and I will say that for the Port of Long Beach,
we have a very good rapport with the L.A. District and the
South Pacific Division. I recognize that many other ports may
not be able to say the same.
But in that regard, I think we need to address an important
component of how we further the environmental benefits of, for
example, as I testified, even when we do the question of
sediments, you know, result of our dredging projects, what do
you do with that sediment? That is a natural infrastructure
resource that we could use in a more beneficial way for
environmental purposes.
Senator Padilla. Thank you for your responses.
I know my time is up. I appreciate the acknowledgements of
the increased use of natural infrastructure and increased
beneficial use of dredged material and other things.
On the natural infrastructure, I know back home-home, in
the San Fernando Valley with some of the tributaries into the
Los Angeles River, there is some tremendous potential for some
visionary, forward thinking projects there.
Last, but not least, I heard somebody take a knock at
engineers earlier in this hearing. Engineers and scientists
have to sit together. Where would we be without engineers and
scientists?
Right, Mr. Kelly?
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Kelly.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. O'Mara, good morning. I want to see if you can expand
upon your recommendations for how the Corps should better
account for the importance of investing in rural and
disadvantaged communities.
One important project in Arizona is the Little Colorado
River at Winslow Levee Project, which was authorized by
Congress last year. The entire town of Winslow lies within a
flood plain, and current flood control measures do not protect
the town from floods.
The town has a poverty rate of 23 percent, and more than a
third of the residents are Navajo and Hopi. On paper, this is a
competitive project which will provide significant benefits to
the community, yet the project hasn't been fully funded because
of the Corps' policy of making funding decisions based on a
project's benefit to cost ratio, or BCR.
Mr. O'Mara, what do you believe are the best ways we can
ensure that communities like Winslow can secure funding for
projects such as this?
Mr. O'Mara. Thank you, Senator Kelly. It is good to see you
again.
I think there are two pieces. There is the broader benefit-
cost ratio analysis that should include more of some of the
natural elements, some of the economic impacts, beyond just the
very top line numbers.
But to piggyback on something Ms. Larson said, I do think
that we have to have an equity variable that looks at the
values of the properties that are impacted in a different way.
In the Delaware example, we can do a beach nourishment
project in Rehoboth Beach much easier because there are
multimillion dollar mansions there, as opposed to up the bay,
where you have lower income communities. It is the same thing.
So I think we would like to work with you and the Ranking
Member and the Chairman on getting these equity pieces right,
because I think we are going to have these injustices where it
doesn't score quite right because the underlying economics are
a little different, but they are equally important to, and
frankly, more important, in some cases, for loss of life.
Senator Kelly. Yes. Well, thank you, and my office will
reach out to work with you on that.
Mr. O'Mara, also for you, I want to discuss the importance
of the Army Corps collaborating with the Fish and Wildlife
Service. While the Corps has done good work in recent years to
combat the spread of invasive aquatic species, one growing
challenge that we face in Arizona is the spread of invasive
plant species, and in particular, the salt cedar, which
outcompetes native desert plants for scarce water resources.
It grows very quickly, it changes flood plains, creates
flooding risks, and it burns hotter and faster than native
plants, creating a significant wildfire risk.
So, these plants are invasive, and they are in the Salt and
Gila Rivers in the Phoenix Metropolitan area. The removal of
these plants is a growing priority for the Rio Reimagined
Initiative, which was started by Senator John McCain, who
previously held this Senate seat.
The last WRDA reauthorization took some important first
steps to provide the Corps with resources to combat invasive
plants species. But as we look forward, what more should be
done to ensure that the Corps has the resources to combat not
just aquatic invasive species, but invasive plant species as
well?
Mr. O'Mara. Thank you for the question. I think the salt
cedar as an example is particularly egregious, just given the
water consumption that it does. I think, across the broader Rio
Grande, you are probably looking at 25 billion to 40 billion
gallons of water being sucked up by these trees. I mean, just
imagine what that would do to flows across the entire region.
Senator Kelly. Let me say, I did not appreciate the problem
until I flew over the area in a helicopter and looked at the
Rio Reimagined and looked at how many plants there actually
are. It is pretty incredible.
Mr. O'Mara. [Remarks off microphone.]
Senator Carper [presiding]. Microphone, microphone?
Senator Kelly. Thank you, and Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Senator Carper. Senator Kelly, thanks for joining us very
much.
Senator Boozman, and then Senator Cardin.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank
you for holding this important hearing here, and Ranking Member
Capito.
Mr. McCoy, our Nation's inland waterways are considered
water highways. The American Society of Civil Engineers reports
a $6.8 billion backlog in construction projects and ongoing lot
closures that harm industries such as agriculture that rely on
the inland waterway system to get their goods to market.
Also, we have other areas that are developing, and you need
the on and off ramps to get onto the inland waterways, which
again, construction is so important. So, delays within the
system cost an estimated $44 million per year to the
agriculture sector alone.
What are the barriers to addressing that backlog and its
associated impacts?
Mr. McCoy. The barriers, I see, the benefit of investing in
the infrastructure of the waterways plays so many benefits in
the economy, in the environment.
So I don't see barriers other than bureaucracy. If there
are any, that could be the only barrier. The inland waterway
system ticks nearly every box, from the economy to jobs to the
environment.
Senator Boozman. Very good.
Ms. Larson, when looking into infrastructure investment, we
must consider the lives of all Americans in every State. While
extreme climate events in California are certainly different
than extreme climate events in Arkansas, we all have a common
goal in our investment decisions, and that is to incentivize
projects that are effective and long lasting.
A common complaint I hear from Arkansans is how they are
frustrated with the slow permitting and review processes and
how it ultimately is affecting projects that would improve
people's lives and their communities. Will you elaborate on the
importance of speeding up the Federal permitting and reviewing
processes so we can finish infrastructure projects in a
reasonable time frame?
Ms. Larson. Certainly. Thanks for the question, Senator.
Recall back in WRDA 2014, what that bill did was codify the
Corps' Three by Three by Three Program, which is a study of 3
years, $3 million, and three levels of review.
As part of that process, what builds in there is the
environmental review.
The Corps implemented a 2 year environmental review
process, and part of that was then included in what was known
as One Federal Decision, which requires all of the agencies to
come to the table at the beginning; don't wait until the end of
the day and raise an objection, because then that causes
additional delays.
So, if we look at places where that model was used, it
means that the study process is completed efficiently and that
all of the agencies are at the table first.
So I think that is a really good model. I recall it was the
Norfolk Coastal Study which did that, so it was the Corps, it
was Fish and Wildlife. Virginia has its own historical board.
Everybody got to the table at the beginning of the process to
look at the project, to look at the permit, raise objections up
front so that you can resolve those, and then issue the permit
or the planning documents in a timely fashion.
So, something like that to compel agencies to get together
up front and stakeholders, voice your concerns, that will go a
long way.
Senator Boozman. Going along with that, I think that
Federal policies should not give preference to any one solution
over others when addressing water resources issues. I know that
the stakeholders in Arkansas would prefer the Corps to use
solutions that work best for a particular project and have the
support of the non-Federal sponsor who is required to
financially support the project.
Do you believe traditional infrastructure should only be
used if the non-Federal sponsor can demonstrate that natural
infrastructure is not viable for a particular project, or
should the non-Federal sponsor have more of a say in what works
best for their particular project?
Ms. Larson. The planning process is structured, and if it
works as intended, it is to include all viable options, and
viable means, what does the non-Federal sponsor want to commit
financial resources to? And so, if this process works
efficiently, include all of those option, including the locally
preferred option.
Earlier today, we spoke a bit about, particularly, flood
control projects, the life safety component. So ensure all of
those things are at the table.
So as we are looking to, on the one hand, streamline the
processes, the permitting and the planning process, I think we
need to be careful, we collectively, not to impose additional
regulatory or bureaucratic burdens on this process. That just
slows it down. And take into consideration what the local
communities want.
Senator Boozman. Very good.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. You are welcome, and thank you.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and
the Ranking Member for this hearing and our witnesses.
As we start to take a look at the next round of WRDA
authorizations, I know we are not quite finished with our WRDA
bill yet for this year, but I think it is important that we
take a look at these issues.
It seems to me the benefit to cost ratio needs to be an
issue that we really drill down on and take a look at how it
impacts. I can tell you, in my State of Maryland, projects in
smaller harbors are very much impacted.
I know, Senator Capito, you raised the issue about the
rural parts of our States. These dredge projects are so
important to local communities, and they get a hard time
getting noticed by the Army Corps because of the cost-benefit
ratio issues.
We had the environmental restoration projects. We have, I
think, the showcase one on Poplar Island in the Chesapeake Bay,
which restored 1,000 acres that had disappeared as a result of
sea level rises and erosion, which has an incredible beneficial
impact for the environment. We have environmental justice
issues, and then we have the beneficial use of dredged
material.
We have a very successful program at Blackwater, where they
were surprised how quickly we were able to restore some
wetlands. But there is cost associated with it. We don't get
the benefit. So the cost-benefit ratio is something we really
need to deal with.
I know this has been brought up before, but let me start
with Mr. O'Mara, if I might. We have our second project coming
along, which is Mid Bay, which we are expecting to be able to
get some funds in this cycle for construction.
As we look at ways to look at the benefits to our
environment or social justice issues or smaller communities
justice, what recommendations do you have on how we can modify
the cost to benefit ratio analysis?
Mr. O'Mara. Senator Cardin, it is good to see you. I
appreciate the question.
I was actually at Blackwater the other day, and the marshes
look fantastic.
I think for too long, we haven't accounted for those costs.
When I was Secretary in Delaware, there was nothing more
painful than having good, clean dredge fill go to Killcohook,
the landfill in New Jersey, because it was going to cost
slightly more to apply it in smart ways to our inland bays, a
very similar situation for the Chesapeake.
I think showing, having good quantification of the storm
resilience benefits, the habitat value for a range of species,
the water quality benefits, the recreational tourism economy
benefits, having all of those numbers basically in the benefit
side of the equation.
On the flip side, if we didn't do the project, or if we did
something harmful in that area, having those costs show up in a
real way would level the playing field. I think it would be
much more equitable in real ways.
And then also, as you have heard from many panelists, I
think we do have to think of a different way to incorporate the
value of life. It has been property safety. That is not simply
just the value of the property itself, because right now, we
are pushing investments in places where there are just higher
income communities are compared to environmental justice issues
that you mentioned.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, and we have to really see how we
do that from an authorizing point of view, because it is
challenging to the Army Corps dealing with the budget people,
and we really need to give some direction.
Ms. Larson, I want to ask if you have any advice as to how
we can try to accelerate the small harbor projects that we have
on the cost to benefit ratios. We have a huge backlog.
Now, one way is to just put more money into the program. I
understand that, but there are not unlimited resources.
Is there a way that we can give a higher degree of priority
to our smaller harbors and dredging without compromising the
basic structure on how we make these decisions?
Ms. Larson. I know through various WRDAs that disbursement
of Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund funds allocates a percentage
to the small and emerging harbors, and I know that that is a
priority for many folks in small, coastal areas.
The formula, I am not exactly sure of, and Mr. Cordero,
sorry Mario, I am batting it to you, may be able to talk in
particular, on those small harbors.
But I do think it is critically important when we are
considering the BCR and those maintenance dollars, what other
benefits accrue from using those small harbors, as well.
Senator Cardin. Then last, on beneficial use itself.
As you pointed out, Mr. O'Mara, dredged material can have a
positive impact. I know some careers have been started in
politics by opposing dredge sites. Certainly in Maryland, we
can give you some examples of that. Here, you have a product
that can be used, put to beneficial use, make it a plus.
We really do need to have a statement made by Congress as a
preference to use dredged material in a positive way rather
than trying to find a site that nobody really wants to locate
for the dredged material.
Mr. O'Mara. Yes, I think one of the things that we proposed
in our recommendations is this idea of a resilience directorate
that would allow the business lines across the Corps to work
together.
Because in a lot of cases, we will have the dredging
project of the navigation project kind of cost one amount, and
then they will have a separate line for the ecological
restoration of flood protection that costs a different amount.
Or if you put the two projects together, and you use the
clean fill in appropriate places, ecologically sound, to
actually do the rest of the restoration work, that actually
provides flood abatement value, it would be much cheaper than
trying to do them individually.
But we are kind of penny wise and pound foolish still on
this front, even though this Committee has actually made great
progress in the last 10 years on this issue. Before 10 years
ago, it was a complete mess, and now it is better, but we need
to push even faster.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Thank you very much.
I have a couple quick questions, and Senator Capito
indicated that she doesn't have any more. I am not sure, I
don't believe any other members are going to join us, so this
should be mercifully brief.
Again, thank you all for joining us today.
For Mr. Cordero, the question on environmental justice.
Your biography mentions that in your previous capacity as
Long Beach Harbor Commissioner, you led an effort to promote
and expand outreach to the local community. I think it was
called Green Port Policy Initiative. It worked with the local
community to improve the Port of Long Beach's environmental
stewardship, and it is a nationally recognized and globally
influential program to outline sustainable ethics for all port
operations.
My question would be this: Would you explain some of the
features of this program and how it created a better outcome
for the environment for the community and for the port, please?
Go ahead.
Mr. Cordero. Thank you, Senator, and absolutely, I think
that was an important milestone here for Long Beach.
As you referenced, the Green Port Policy was formalized
back in January 2005. The plan of action was to address some of
the environmental concerns that confront urban ports like the
Port of Long Beach, and we did. Primarily, the goal to reduce
emissions from port operations, and as a result, part of it was
community engagement. I think that was engaging with
stakeholders, community associations, neighborhoods.
Suffice to say that after a number of years and in
combination with what came later, the Clean Air Action Plan as
a result of our partnership with the Port of Los Angeles, we
were able to reduce particulate matter from truck operations by
upwards of 88 percent, NOX by 59 percent,
SOX by 97 percent.
In addition to some of the actions that we did, we moved
forward in 2008 with a clean truck plan to replace a rather
dilapidated truck drayage that we saw here in port gateways.
Today, we have a new dynamic with regard to what these trucks,
in terms of what they entail.
So, the substantial reduction in emissions that I have
referenced, and our goal is to have by 2035 zero emission
trucks, and by 2030, zero emission cargo handling equipment.
And as Senator Padilla referenced, we also moved forward in
2016 with our Climate Adaption Coastal Resiliency Plan to
address issues of climate related issues and coastal hazards.
Today, actually next month, we are going to inaugurate now,
we are completing our grand endeavor of the last decade, the
Long Beach Container Terminal, which would be the world's
greenest terminal in terms of an electrified operation. As I
referenced last, again, for 2017, we are moving forward with a
zero emission plan of action.
All of this, we have been very successful, primarily
because again, the outreach that we have and engagement with
our community, and more particularly, the stakeholders here in
the Greater Southern California Gateway.
So I think beginning with the Green Port Policy, it
exemplified, at least from our perspective, we were way ahead
in terms of environmental social responsibility that we have
exhibited.
Going forward, again, I think we are very proud of our
environmental stewardship leadership with regard to addressing
not only air emissions, but of course issues like, as I
referenced already, stormwater projects and water quality
issues.
And of course, very many important issues in relation to,
as I referenced, here in the State of California, being
partners to address the sea level rise. I think it is
concerning not only to this gateway, but all ports across the
Nation.
Senator Carper. That is a lot of encouraging news. Thank
you for that, and for setting a good example for the rest of
us.
Last question would be for Collin O'Mara. It deals with
natural infrastructure ecosystem restoration.
You may not admit this, but you are regarded as an expert
in natural resources management and conservation. As you know,
ecosystem restoration is a primary mission of the Corps of
Engineers, but the concept, many times, gets stuck in that
silo.
These projects often include nature based design features
combined with gray infrastructure to provide net gains,
including degraded ecosystems.
But we ought to be doing similar efforts in other projects
where the primary focus is flood control or navigation, much
like Poplar Island and Mid Bay projects that we are hearing
about in Maryland.
In your opinion, what needs to change at the Corps to break
down these silos so that the multi-purpose projects become
commonplace, the rule, not the exception?
Mr. O'Mara. Thank you, Senator, and Mr. Chairman. I think
this Committee has made great progress on this issue over the
last many years.
It just needs to be an equal playing field. I think Ms.
Larson said it perfectly. There are places where the natural
solutions make sense; there are places where the man made
solution makes sense, and there are places where you want kind
of the green and gray, sage, if you will, kind of solution.
We would love to see much more focus on the navigation and
on the flood protection side.
But the idea that we put forth before, this idea of a
resilience directorate that would look at solutions
holistically across systems.
One of the things we have seen, and we saw this in Delaware
after Hurricane Sandy, the places where we had healthy dunes,
the places where we had healthy wetlands, fared better than
places that only, in New Jersey, fared better compared to our
friends in New Jersey that only had seawalls in some places.
So having a place where you can actually think holistically
at a landscape scale about all the different tools and doing
that early in the process in a way that is efficient in getting
the permitting right.
But there has to be that place where folks can talk and
break down those siloes. Because right now, unfortunately, you
kind of get down a path, and then you end up with, you know,
kind of a 1950s solution in a kind of 21st century kind of
reality that we are living in.
I think breaking those silos down through this kind of
resilience directorate, combined with the cost-benefit piece
you have talked about is the key.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
We have been joined by Senator Sullivan. I think he will be
our last member asking questions.
Senator Sullivan, welcome.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just ask the witnesses very quickly on a topic that
has a lot of bipartisan support here. It actually has more
bipartisan support in cities with mayors and States with
Governors.
That is the opportunities that exist to streamline project
delivery in terms of the ability to actually get projects done.
Unfortunately, our country, relative to other
industrialized democracies on almost every measure, ranks last.
We all know the kind of parade of horribles. Nine to 19 years
to permit and build a highway in America; 9 years, I think, on
average to permit a bridge in America. It took 20 years to
permit a gold mine in my State, the great State of Alaska.
The list is very long, and it doesn't help the country. I
think the only thing it helps is trial lawyers and far left
extremist environmental groups who don't want any projects
built.
So, can I get a sense from all of you on how important that
is? We don't want to cut corners.
But you know, a 2 year, maybe a 3 year period as a goal for
permitting, not 9, is really important. What do the witnesses
think about that?
Ms. Larson. I will start with that. Thank you for the
question, Senator, and congratulations to your State for your
first gold medal in swimming.
Senator Sullivan. Oh, yes. Wasn't that great? She was
amazing. Seventeen years old, from Seward, Alaska, and they
don't even have an Olympic sized swimming pool, right? It is
just--a real amazing young woman.
Ms. Larson. It was amazing to watch. Really amazing.
So, we talked a lot about the planning program and the
permitting process, and then the funding component of that. In
terms of the planning and permitting process, back in WRDA
2014, the Committee codified the Corps' Three by Three by
Three, which is the planning process to get it done in 3 years.
Part of that is the environmental review process, and there
were benchmarks, including one set by a Federal program called
One Federal Decision.
Senator Sullivan. Do you agree with that, One Federal
Decision?
Ms. Larson. I do.
Senator Sullivan. So do I. Good idea. It shouldn't be
controversial. President Biden got rid of that EPO.
Ms. Larson. Well, I think, you know, whatever else was in
the Executive Order, I don't know. I am a nerd who wrote a
paper for the American Bar Association on One Federal Decision.
But there were many examples that where the resource agencies,
every agency and State entities got together at the beginning
of the process, raised concerns, it was a much more productive
and timely and efficient process. The Norfolk Coastal Study is
a good example of that.
But I think that you can do that up front. Don't wait until
the end of the day to raise concerns, so I think that is an
important component.
Senator Sullivan. That is a great idea. Good.
Anyone else have a thought on that?
Mr. O'Mara. Thank you, Senator. You and I have both run
natural resource agencies in our past, and I think having that
kind of coordination on the front end is important. We also
just have to recognize that the agencies have been hollowed
out, in a lot of cases. I am really worried about the amount of
investment we are talking about, just not having the bodies and
the capacity to actually process things quickly.
Senator Sullivan. Yes, that is a good point.
Mr. O'Mara. So, how the sequestration over the last decade
kind of lands in this infrastructure conversation should be
there.
But I think a combination of coordination on the front end
and then also I think there are additional, I think there are
some kind of policy pieces we should talk about offline for how
to make some of the pieces still comply with NEPA, like you
said, not cutting corners, but being much more efficient in
terms of the timelines.
Senator Sullivan. Good. Well, we want to work with you on
that.
Let me ask another question. This is an issue that I think
should concern this Committee, Mr. Chairman and Senator Capito.
I have raised it with the OMB Director; I have raised it with
the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works for the Army Corps.
But in the President's budget, it says that they will not
fund work that directly, the Corps won't fund work that
directly subsidizes fossil fuels, including work that lowers
the cost of production, lowers the cost of consumption, or
raises revenues retained by producers.
When I asked the Corps this, you know, so much of the work
that the Corps does is ports, harbors, pipelines. Some
estimates of this prohibition would be 40 to 50 percent of the
Corps' overall work. That is a remarkable statement.
I don't think the Corps of Engineers agrees with it, but
what do you guys think of that? You are talking about ports or
pipelines, that is a lot of the work that the Corps does that
delivers hydrocarbons, yes, we still need oil and gas. It is
not bad.
If you are a worker in that industry, I applaud you. I know
you are vilified right now by a lot of people in this
Administration.
But these are Americans who have built this country, made
it strong.
What do you think of this prohibition that would undercut
probably 50 percent of the entire Corps of Engineers' budget?
Any views, Mr. McCoy?
Senator Carper. I am going to ask you to be fairly brief;
we are well into a vote, and we don't want to miss is. Go
ahead. Please, quick, just answer the question.
Senator Sullivan. Or you can submit your answer for the
record.
Mr. McCoy. Quickly, basing investment decisions upon types
of cargo moved could put other types of cargo on the river
system in jeopardy, at a disadvantage, because the river system
is just that; it is a system. We move agricultural products,
salt, aggregates, in addition to hydrocarbons.
Senator Sullivan. Maybe I can get a question for the record
on that question I just posed from the witnesses, Mr. Chairman,
just to be respectful of the time. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Yes, no problem. Thank you.
Senator Capito, any closing thought?
Senator Capito. Yes. I just wanted to thank the panelists;
in particular, Mr. McCoy, for coming from West Virginia.
Great last question from Senator Sullivan, as I see Mr.
McCoy's barges go less than a quarter of a mile past my house
carrying West Virginia coal.
And we should be able to have our waterway systems free and
available for that type of economy, So thank you. Thank you.
Thanks, Robert.
Senator Carper. Senator Capito, our thanks to you and your
staff, to our staff, for all the work in putting together
today's hearing.
I want to really thank our witnesses, Collin O'Mara, it is
great to see you, Mr. Secretary.
Mario out there in Long Beach, and Amy Larson, and Robert
McCoy, the real McCoy. We are delighted you could all join us
for this time.
We have a lot of work to do, a lot of work to do, and this
Committee works together. We are work horses, and I am looking
forward to tackling it and working with the bipartisan staff to
do more good work with respect to the Army Corps.
I have one final housekeeping item. I would like to ask
unanimous consent to submit for the record a variety of
materials that include letters from stakeholders and other
materials that relate to today's nomination hearing.
Is there objection?
Hearing none.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Senators will be allowed to submit
questions for the record through close of business on
Wednesday, August 11th, to our witnesses, and we will compile
those questions and submit them to you, and we ask you to reply
by Wednesday, August 25th, if you could.
Anything else?
Hearing nothing further, thank you all, and this hearing is
adjourned.
Thanks so much.
[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]