[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]