[Senate Hearing 118-749]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-749
WRDA 2024: STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK ON USACE PROJECT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 29, 2023
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
62-306 WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Ranking Member
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
MARK KELLY, Arizona DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
ALEX PADILLA, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
Courtney Taylor, Democratic Staff Director
Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
NOVEMBER 29, 2023
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....................................................... 4
WITNESSES
Hague, Jimmy, Senior Water Policy Advisor, The Nature Conservancy 6
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Carper........................................... 20
Senator Fetterman........................................ 24
Wallace, Kirsten, Board Member, Interstate Council on Water
Policy......................................................... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Haase, Bren, Executive Assistant to the Governor for Coastal
Activities, Chairman of the Coastal Protection and Restoration
Authority Board................................................ 41
Prepared statement........................................... 44
WRDA 2024: STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK ON USACE PROJECT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2023
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Whitehouse,
Kelly, Fetterman, Ricketts, Boozman, Sullivan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works. I am happy to be
here with all of you. We warmly welcome our witnesses and
others in the audience.
Senator Capito, good morning to you and other members of
our committee.
There is a lot going on in the Senate today. You probably
do not believe that, but there is. We are getting stuff done. I
think just about every committee is meeting now. We will have
people coming and going. There is a lot of interest in the
issues we are going to be discussing here today.
We appreciate each of you for making the time to join us
after a grueling Thanksgiving holiday. I hope you had as much
fun on your holiday as my family did.
Today, we are here to discuss the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' Project Partnership Agreements. What exactly are
Project Partnership Agreements? I do not like acronyms a lot.
EPA is Okay, but sometimes people get carried away with
acronyms. I am going to ask you to refrain from the use of
acronyms for the most part, so I can understand what you are
saying. Sometimes people get carried away. Sometimes we get
carried away.
PPAs are documents signed by the Army Corps of Engineers
and non-Federal project sponsors that guide work that is
authorized under the Water Resources Development Act,
affectionately known around here as WRDA. These projects are
critical to coastal and inland flood risk mitigation,
navigation, and ecosystem restoration, among other purposes.
I will also say they are critical, because one of the major
roles of the Federal Government, and State governments as well,
and I say that as a recovering Governor, one of the major roles
of government is creating a nurturing environment for job
creation, job preservation. What we are going to be talking
about here today is one of the major ingredients for creating
that nurturing environment.
I like to help people, and I think one of the best ways you
can help folks is certainly making sure they have clean water
to drink and clean air to breathe, but also make sure that they
have a job, so they can support themselves and their family.
As many of us know, despite the Army Corps' exceptionally
important and challenging mission, the agency's funding needs
far outweigh its available resources. Why does this matter?
Well, the projects carried out by the Corps provide the
backbone of America's water infrastructure. That work includes
protecting communities from damaging floods, enabling billions
in commerce through our ports and through our waterways, and
restoring hundreds of thousands of acres of aquatic ecosystems.
Corps projects also help prepare communities for extreme
weather events, which we know are getting worse due to climate
change.
The importance of that work cannot be overstated. For
example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
estimates that the threat of sea level rise is going to
accelerate in the next 30 years if we do not do more about it.
That is certainly going to impact many of the roughly 40
percent of Americans who live in coastal counties, including my
own.
In addition, the seven most destructive storms since 2000
have cost American taxpayers over $1.3 trillion. Let me say
that again. I didn't believe it when I first saw this. I said
to my staff, go check that out. The seven most destructive
storms since 2000 have cost American taxpayers over $1.3
trillion.
These storms destroy homes and cars, and grind travel and
tourism to a halt, and oftentimes uproot people's lives and not
infrequently, take people's lives. Corps projects are there to
defend against these disasters.
Corps projects also help keep our economy moving, as I was
saying earlier. The Corps is directly responsible for operating
America's water highway, a 12,000-mile-long system of inland
waterways that are vital to domestic and international
commerce. Most of the markets for the products that we create
in this Country are not in this Country, they are outside of
this Country. The way we get, for the most part, our products
to other places, we send a lot of stuff by air, but mostly it
is on the water, and waterways that the Army Corps helps to
make available and of course that they help enable are
critically important.
Each year, that expansive system, that 12,000-mile system
of inland waterways, moves more than 500 million tons of
commodities, 500 million tons of commodities, including 60
percent of our Nation's agricultural exports. The Corps' work
to help operate and maintain that system results in an economic
benefit of nearly $14 billion each year.
Given the range of benefits of Corps projects, it should
come as no surprise that WRDA, the reauthorization of WRDA,
continues to enjoy broad bipartisan support. We do a lot here
in this room in a bipartisan way. Senator Capito and I
subscribe to an aphorism, and I think I heard from our guy from
Wyoming, it was right there where you are, Mr. Hague, and he
said in testimony, at his confirmation hearing, he said,
Bipartisan solutions are lasting solutions. Bipartisan
solutions, I believe that with every fiber of my being.
Our most recent WRDA passed the Senate in 2022 by a vote of
93 to 1. That does not happen every day in the Senate. It
happens almost never in the Senate, in a roll call vote, at
least. Ninety-three to 1, and that piece of legislation, that
WRDA legislation 2 years ago, ended up carrying with it to the
President's desk the National Defense Authorization Act which
the President signed into law. It is like WRDA was a
locomotive, and one of the cars that it was pulling was the
National Defense Authorization Act, which is a huge piece of
legislation.
Ranking Member Capito and I intend to continue this
bipartisan track record with WRDA 2024. We solicit input from
literally every single Senator, every State that is represented
in the U.S. Senate. Our colleagues have been great to provide
us with plenty of input, plenty of input. As many of you know,
the bill is currently under development, thanks in no small
part to robust input from many of our colleagues. Senator
Capito and I intend to move it through our committee before
next summer.
That brings us to today's discussion on the Corps Project
Partnership Agreements. Since kicking off the WRDA 2024 process
in July, Senator Capito and I and our staffs have heard
concerns that these agreements could be stalling critical
construction projects. We need to understand what is causing
these delays and what can be done about them.
As I stated earlier, a Project Partnership Agreement is a
guiding document between the Corps and a local project sponsor
that outlines both the Federal and non-Federal stakeholder's
roles and responsibilities for the construction and long-term
care of the project.
Since 2012, the Corps has dramatically changed the project
agreement process, developing templates and streamlining
requirements to provide consistency and fair treatment to
stakeholders. Having said that, not every Corps project is the
same. Stakeholders have raised with us, probably every member
of this committee has raised with us that these agreements need
to be made more flexible and that many of the requirements are
cumbersome.
Yet, given the importance of Corps projects for the safety
and well-being of communities, non-Federal sponsors feel
pressured to sign unfavorable Project Partnership Agreements.
Ultimately, it is our job in Congress to ensure that Federal
investments are protected. At the same time, we must also
ensure that non-Federal stakeholders can support the projects
and are not made to assume an unreasonable amount of risk.
Having said that, we look forward to hearing from each of
you, some of you have come a long way and we are grateful that
you have done that, and we are looking forward to hearing about
your experiences in working with the Corps to develop and
implement Project Partnership Agreements.
We also look forward to hearing your perspectives on what
is going well as well as finding what we can do better. I say
almost every day, everything I do I know I can do better. I
think that is true of all of us. The idea here is to improve on
what we have done before for many years.
Before we do that, I want to yield to Senator Capito for
whatever she might like to say. Senator Capito, we appreciate
the opportunity to work with you and your team on this project
again. This is a great one. I wish people around the Country
who think we can never work together, I wish they could see how
this committee works, especially on this issue. Thank you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are right; we
do have a great track record of working together on WRDA, and
we are going to continue that as we move into the next year.
I welcome our witnesses. In my short conversation with Mr.
Hague, I particularly welcome my fellow West Virginian. You
need to hear this, he is from Charleston, West Virginia and is
a proud graduate of Capital High School. Thank you for coming
and being a part of this, all of you, but a special shout-out
to my West Virginian.
If you didn't see it last night, and I know Senator
Ricketts was there, we lit the Christmas tree, the Capitol
Christmas Tree, the people's Christmas tree, which came from
the Mon Forest in West Virginia. I have just now thawed out
from watching that, because it was so cold out there.
[Laughter.]
Senator Capito. Anyway, since 2014, we have kept to the
biennial schedule of passing bipartisan legislation that
authorizes water resources studies and projects. WRDA also sets
national policies for the civil works program of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and I look forward to continuing that track
record, as I said.
This summer, Chairman Carper and I, he mentioned this in
his opening remarks, sent a letter to our Senate colleagues
soliciting their requests for WRDA 2024. I appreciate the
efforts of our Senate colleagues to submit their proposals for
our consideration. I am pleased to say we received a
significant number of requests, more than the last time, which
demonstrates the strong interest in and necessity of this
legislation.
I have said previously it is important any WRDA bill
supports the timely and efficient delivery of water resources
projects, while continuing to meet national priorities.
Flexibility is key to ensuring that the Corps can identify and
carry out solutions that are tailored to address the needs and
individual needs of our communities. Our Nation's water
resources challenges are diverse, and communities know more
about their unique needs than the policymakers here in
Washington.
We must also continue to preserve the role of non-Federal
sponsors in the project delivery process and maintain the
Corps' focus on its primary mission areas: navigation, flood
and coastal storm risk management, and ecosystem restoration.
Insight from our non-Federal sponsors on their experiences with
completed and ongoing projects helps inform what, if any,
modifications are needed to the Corps' authorities.
Today, we will discuss, as the Chairman said, project
partnership agreements, PPAs. In general, PPAs are legal
documents between the Corps and a non-Federal sponsor for
construction of an authorized water resources project. These
agreements describe the project and the responsibilities of
each party.
The Corps has undertaken efforts to simplify this process
for executing PPAs by standardizing model agreements and
issuing guidance for certain types of projects. The Corps also
considers deviations from the model agreements on a case-by-
case basis.
However, Federal law requires certain provisions to be
included in the PPAs, limiting what modifications the Corps is
able to consider in some instances. One of those statutorily
required provisions is known as the hold and save clause. This
provision, mandated by WRDA 1986, requires non-Federal sponsors
to hold and save the United States free from damages due to the
construction or operation and maintenance of the project,
except for damages due to fault or negligence.
PPAs also describe the operation, maintenance, repair,
replacement and rehabilitation, or O&M, responsibility of the
Federal Government and non-Federal sponsors. O&M
responsibilities vary with project purpose. For certain
projects, the non-Federal sponsor will be responsible for O&M
activities in perpetuity, regardless of the useful life of the
project.
Some stakeholders have indicated that certain required
language in PPAs can delay the execution of these agreements. A
delay can extend the construction timeline for a project, and
potentially and probably would lead to increased costs.
This hearing will provide us an opportunity to learn more
about these concerns and listen to proposed solutions. It will
also highlight how non-Federal sponsors have successfully
negotiated PPAs with the Corps.
As we have this discussion today, it is important to
remember that these projects require significant Federal
investment in order to be realized. Ultimately, we must ensure
that any changes to PPAs appropriately balance each parties'
risks.
I want to thank our witnesses today for sharing their
perspectives on this topic. I would say anecdotally, in
discussing the topic of our hearing today, somebody said it is
in the weeds. You know, it is very wonkish as to what we are
talking about and how this is going to finally shake out in our
WRDA bill.
I would say as we look at the map of the United States,
every project that is done, whether it is done through a PPA or
not, is absolutely essential to the safety and the
environmental prosperity of every part of our Country. If the
weeds are not right, the projects are not going to be right and
the results are not going to be right.
I think that highlights how important a hearing like this
is today, and I thank the witnesses for coming.
Thank you.
Senator Carper. Thank you for those words, and thanks for
the greater partnership we have forged over the last several
years.
I want to say, we are only as good as the people around us.
We have great staff behind us, Democrat and Republican. We are
grateful for their work in bringing us all together today as
well.
I am going to introduce our three witnesses. We need a
lead-off hitter. I see somewhat of a famous name, like The
Hague.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Has anyone ever called you The Hague?
Mr. Hague. Yes, Senator, that has been a nickname at
different points in my life.
Senator Carper. I can only imagine. I can not tell you some
of the ones I have been called.
Jimmy Hague, Senior Water Policy Advisor for the Nature
Conservancy since, what, 2016? Is that right? Mr. Hague leads
the development of the Nature Conservancy's Federal Freshwater
Conservation Policy Priorities and coordinates advocacy across
the organization's chapters. You have chapters in all 50
States?
Mr. Hague. Yes, Senator.
Senator Carper. I thought so. We are glad you are here with
us today, and appreciate all that the Nature Conservancy does.
Please feel free to go ahead with your statement. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF JIMMY HAGUE, SENIOR WATER POLICY ADVISOR, THE
NATURE CONSERVANCY
Mr. Hague. Chair Carper, Ranking Member Capito and members
of this Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today. I am honored to present to you the views of The Nature
Conservancy concerning the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project
Partnership Agreements. As Senator Capito noted, I was born and
raised in West Virginia, so it is an extra honor to be here in
front of my fellow West Virginians.
Senator Carper. Where were you born?
Mr. Hague. In Charleston, sir.
Senator Carper. Okay.
Mr. Hague. I know you have great West Virginia roots
yourself.
Senator Carper. Yes. Her dad was Governor of my State when
I was born, when my sister and I were born.
Mr. Hague. The Nature Conservancy is a global conservation
organization dedicated to conserving the lands and waters on
which all life depends. Guided by science, we create
innovative, on-the-ground solutions to the world's toughest
challenges so that nature and people can thrive together.
In the United States, the Corps is critical to achieving
our goals for healthy and resilient rivers, lakes, and coasts.
The Conservancy has worked with the Corps on that mission
through dozens of projects and programs across the Country. We
contribute scientific expertise on the use, design and
evaluation of nature-based solutions, assist with program
implementation, and advocate for changes to modernize Corps
procedures.
The decades-long collaboration the Conservancy has built
with the Corps has supported our conservation goals. The work
we do together in communities across the Country has improved
flood risk resilience, economic development and environmental
protection. My written statement includes specific examples of
our work together with the Corps.
On a personal level, my work with the Corps has been some
of the most fulfilling and rewarding of my career. I am always
impressed by the dedication and skill of its staff at all
levels of the organization, both those in uniform and their
civilian employees.
The Conservancy appreciates this committee's efforts to
keep the Water Resources Development Act on a 2-year cycle
every Congress since 2014, as well as your efforts in recent
bills to emphasize nature-based solutions in the Corps' work.
Your commitment to investing in and modernizing our Nation's
water resources infrastructure in a bipartisan manner has been
critical to the success of our collaboration with the Corps.
The topic of today's hearing is an important one, since the
regular WRDA cycle you have established is authorizing new
projects for study and construction and is guiding the Corps to
build projects which deliver multiple benefits, enabling more
resilient communities. To achieve this goal, we should minimize
the barriers to non-Federal project sponsors who agree to share
the costs of building water resources projects with the Corps.
Unfortunately, we know many project sponsors who feel the
terms of the cost-sharing agreements are difficult to accept.
Most Corps projects cost tens of millions to hundreds of
millions of dollars, and at a 35 percent construction cost
share, non-Federal sponsors must take on significant financial
responsibility for a project, even though the Corps retains
ultimate control over many project design and implementation
decisions.
On top of that, some of the requirements of the cost-
sharing agreement all non-Federal sponsors must sign with the
Corps create open-ended obligations for the non-Federal
sponsor. First, the cost-share requirement remains the same,
even if projects go over budget for any reason, including
reasons beyond the non-Federal sponsor's control. Sponsors must
cost share any and all project cost overruns.
Second, project costs become the sole responsibility of the
non-Federal sponsor after construction is complete, and the
sponsor must operate and maintain the project in perpetuity.
The uncertain nature of total construction costs and the
unbounded commitment to operations and maintenance costs make
it difficult, if not impossible, for the sponsor to estimate
the true cost of a project and manage financial risks. Third,
the requirement in the cost-sharing agreement to hold and save
the Federal Government free from harm creates unbounded and
unquantifiable legal risks for project sponsors, and can
discourage them from sponsoring or agreeing to participate.
Some of these requirements are rooted in statute, and they
will need your leadership to change. This committee has taken
steps to address some of those barriers, including in last
year's WRDA bill, and I urge you to continue with that effort.
Given the variety of projects the Corps builds, and unique
local conditions and stakeholder needs, I urge you to consider
a variety of solutions that will help sponsors contain their
legal and financial risks. Non-Federal sponsors need your help
to rebalance how risks are shared between the Army Corps and
the non-Federal project sponsor of a water resources project.
Doing so will unleash the power of potential local sponsors
across the Country to partner with the Army Corps to deliver
more and better projects.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hague follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Thank you for leading off for us.
Next, we are going to hear from Kirsten Wallace. Ms.
Wallace is on the board of the InterState Council on Water
Policy, which is committed to stewardship of our Nation's water
resources. In addition to this role, Ms. Wallace is the
executive director for the Upper Mississippi River Basin
Association. We look forward to hearing about your experiences
and those of the Association with the Army Corps.
Before you give us your statement, tell us, where are you
from originally? Where did you start your life?
Ms. Wallace. I am from Minnesota.
Senator Carper. Now?
Ms. Wallace. Minnesota.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Got it right the first time. Good. Well,
welcome from Minnesota.
Your whole statement will be made part of the record. Go
ahead.
STATEMENT OF KIRSTEN WALLACE, BOARD MEMBER, INTERSTATE COUNCIL
ON WATER POLICY
Ms. Wallace. Thank you, and good morning, Chair Carper,
Ranking Member Capito, and distinguished members of the
committee.
My colleagues and I are here to urge Congress to remove or
modify unreasonable requirements that currently restrict or
deter non-Federal entities from participating as cost-share
partners in implementing important water resource projects with
the Army Corps of Engineers.
We are grateful for today's opportunity to underscore the
need to reform the Corps of Engineers' Project Partnership
Agreements, which govern the cost-share relationship between
the non-Federal sponsor and the Federal Government. We believe
that a more equitable approach to these relationships will
improve efficiencies in project delivery, improve partnership
relationships, and stimulate the Nation's ability to leverage
non-Federal resources.
My name is Kirsten Wallace. I am the Executive Director of
the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, commonly
referred to by its acronym, UMRBA, which supports the states of
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin in their
interState water resources planning and management of the Upper
Mississippi River basin. UMRBA is a long-standing member of the
InterState Council on Water Policy, and today, I am speaking on
behalf of the InterState Council on Water Policy and its
members.
The InterState Council on Water Policy was established in
1959, convening State and interState water resource managers
and planners from across the Country. The Council evaluates
policies affecting water resource management, develops
solutions to commonly held challenges, and works
collaboratively with Congress and Federal agencies to advance
those solutions.
Many of the Council's members and partners, States,
interState organizations, local entities, nonprofit and private
organizations, collaborate with the Federal Government through
the Army Corps of Engineers. As our Nation faces enormous
challenges to our water resources, we are even more compelled
to lean into our partnerships with the Corps to optimize our
resources, our networks, our knowledge, and our ability to
shape a future of prosperity.
Our ability to partner with the Corps through cost-shared
projects is challenged by the liability provisions that govern
the partnership between the Corps and the non-Federal sponsor.
Project Partnership Agreements are legally binding documents
that outline the responsibilities of non-Federal cost-share
partners and the Federal Government for water resource
projects.
The key impediments include requiring the non-Federal
sponsor to assume complete liability for constructed projects
and operations, maintenance, repair, replacement, and
rehabilitation in perpetuity. This results in a completely one-
sided approach to the assumption of risk that is unsustainable
for the non-Federal sponsors to shoulder.
As a spokesperson for the InterState Council on Water
Policy, our members want to share with you our conclusions that
these issues of liability affect cost-shared projects
nationwide and all of the Corps' mission areas, and that
reforming project partnership agreements is in the national
interest.
The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies has created a
map, shown on the screen, depicting the States for which their
laws directly conflict with the liability provisions in the
Corps' agreements, the dark orange, or whether they have
indirect legal barriers, the light orange. As I had discussions
yesterday, I believe West Virginia should be dark orange.
As many as 22 States across the Country reported having
laws against assuming the legal obligations required by the
Corps. The InterState Council of Water Policy is joined by
several interState organizations who are also actively working
with Members of Congress and the committee to explain the need
for reforming the Corps' project partnership agreements given
the regional and local implications in their respective areas.
These groups include the Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, National Association of Flood and Stormwater
Management Agencies, Coastal States Organization, Delaware
River Basin Commission, the Great Lakes Commission, the
InterState Commission on the Potomac River Basin, the
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, the Upper Mississippi River
Basin Association, the National Audubon Society, Ducks
Unlimited, the Nature Conservancy, the Theodore Roosevelt
Conservation Partnership, and others.
My colleague Jimmy Hague with The Nature Conservancy spoke
to these issues from a nonprofit entity's perspective. My
colleague, Bren Haase with the Louisiana Coastal Restoration
and Protection Authority, will speak to these experiences in
implementing PPAs. I will speak generally to the issues
affecting the States nationally.
Indemnifying a third party, including the Federal
Government, is in direct conflict with many States'
constitutions and laws. It requires the non-Federal party to
promise financial resources for an indeterminate liability that
may occur at an unknown time, at an unknown cost, for an
unknown reason. Many State constitutions preclude agencies from
obligating funds without an encumbrance against an
appropriation and do not allow for incurring any indebtedness
of any nature on behalf of the State until an appropriation for
it has been made by the legislature.
In addition, indemnification requires a State to assume
liability beyond the extent to which many States' tort law
allows.
The current PPA terms legally obligate non-Federal sponsors
to undefined and unbounded operations, maintenance, repair,
rehabilitation, and replacement for water resource projects.
This is challenging for non-Federal sponsors legally to assume
because the obligation extends well beyond the period of
analysis and project life. This policy essentially creates a
permanent Federal hold on non-Federal property.
The liability terms are problematic for cost-share sponsors
in all Corps mission areas, water supply, flood damage
reduction, disaster recovery, and ecosystem restoration.
Although agreements have been executed and signed in many
areas, that does not mean they are not problematic for the non-
Federal sponsors. Sometimes non-Federal entities, States,
interState organizations, local entities, or private
organizations, will make the tough choice between securing
financial resources to resolve a very important water resource
problem over their own challenges in accepting the complete and
total liability and assuming requirements in perpetuity.
Sponsors for flood management projects and water supply
projects often use their revenue source to partially offset the
one-sided liability of the project terms and have to accept the
consequences of being perpetually beholden to the Federal
Government for the project structures. We must ask whether this
is appropriate; is shifting the liability from the national tax
base solely and completely to a smaller tax base appropriate,
especially if the project is found to be in the national
interest?
Who is that tax base? Is it equitable for the Federal
Government to push the complete risk to the non-Federal
sponsor, whether a State, local government entity, or private
organization? Non-Federal sponsors for ecosystem restoration
projects often do not have an associated revenue source for the
projects, so executing the agreements is much more problematic.
In 1986, Congress recognized the need for local sponsors to
have greater financial and decisionmaking roles and established
a new cost-share formula. My understanding is the Federal
Government was risk adverse to implementing flood projects on
non-Federal lands, and Congress added a requirement that non-
Federal sponsors fully indemnify the Corps.
Since then, we have gained substantial experience in these
non-Federal cost-sharing partnerships, and we better understand
the implications to non-Federal sponsors. We are now asking
Congress to reform this provision to create a more equitable
approach to sharing risk. This request is not to free non-
Federal entities from liability but rather to have the Corps
share in that liability.
We acknowledge and underscore the value of our
relationships with our partners within the Corps who are
working earnestly to advance important projects. These policies
tear at the fabric of our partnership by creating unnecessary
conflict and inefficient use of staff and other resources,
ultimately delaying, and in many cases preventing, critically
important benefits to the public.
In closing, my colleagues and I are here today to urge you
to remove or modify unreasonable requirements that currently
restrict or deter non-Federal entities from participating as
cost-share partners. We believe that reasonable and equitable
partnerships will increase opportunities to leverage non-
Federal investments to achieve local, regional, and national
water resource goals.
We call upon Congress to revise the statutes for which the
Corps is using to justify these provisions, and we offer our
assistance to work with you in resolving the impasse.
As Congress and the Federal Government continue to
prioritize non-Federal cost-share projects, we believe that
these challenges to PPA execution must be resolved so that
existing and newly authorized projects can be successfully and
efficiently implemented.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wallace follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Thank you very much.
Last but not least, we are going to hear from Bren Haase. I
understand you are the Executive Assistant to the Governor of
Louisiana. Who is the Governor of Louisiana?
Mr. Haase. Governor John Bel Edwards.
Senator Carper. Okay. I spoke to you earlier about him.
Give him our best. He testified, if I am not mistaken, before
this committee about a year ago. I think he sat in that very
seat. That is the Louisiana seat.
He is one of our favorites. Love it when our recovering
Governors come to the Senate.
I understand you are the Executive Assistant to the
Governor of Louisiana for Coastal Activities, is that right?
Mr. Haase. That is right.
Senator Carper. The chairman of the Coastal Protection and
Restoration Authority Board. Prior to this role, you served as
the Deputy Executive Director and Division Chief of Planning
and Research for the Coastal Protection and Restoration
Authority. I understand that you are the lead author of the
Constitution of Louisiana.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. No, that is a typo, I am sure. The lead
author of the 2017 Louisiana Conference Master Plan for a
Sustainable Coast. That is a mouthful. We thank you for that,
and we thank you for being here today and participating in this
hearing. We will learn from you and other witnesses in the next
hour or two.
Welcome. Your entire statement will be made part of the
record. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF BREN HAASE, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE GOVERNOR
FOR COASTAL ACTIVITIES, CHAIRMAN OF THE COASTAL PROTECTION AND
RESTORATION AUTHORITY BOARD
Mr. Haase. Thank you for that, Chairman Carper. I will be
happy to relay those pleasantries to the Governor. I am sure he
would extend the same to you as well.
Ranking Member Capito, members of the committee, thank you
for the invitation to testify today to provide feedback on the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Project Partnership Agreements.
As you mentioned, my name is Bren Haase, and I have the honor
of serving as Executive Assistant to Louisiana Governor John
Bel Edwards for Coastal Activities, as well as Chairman of the
Board for the State's Coastal Protection and Restoration
Authority, or CPRA.
CPRA was created by the Louisiana legislature specifically
to partner with the Corps of Engineers on coastal protection
and restoration projects. Our mission is to provide both
hurricane protection and ecosystem restoration for South
Louisiana. A strong partnership with the Corps is essential for
coastal Louisiana to meet its coastal protection and
restoration goals. We successfully partner with the New Orleans
District of the Corps to deliver some of the most
transformative coastal infrastructure projects in the Nation.
Since its establishment in 2007, CPRA has signed
approximately 15 PPA-related agreements and 25 feasibility
cost-share agreements, design agreements or memoranda of
understanding or agreements with the Corps of Engineers. These
cover a variety of project types, and our experiences with them
inform my testimony today.
To that end, I would like to emphasize five key points. The
first of those is the inertia of the status quo. This is often
experienced by CPRA when negotiating PPAs with the Corp. We are
generally presented with a take-it-or-leave-it scenario, a
model agreements that may not be best for either partner or
most efficient to advance a project. The alternative generally
is to negotiate changes to the model PPA through the district
up through the division and all the way to the headquarters, a
prospect that can be difficult, confusing, and of course, cost
precious time and money that none of us can afford.
Non-Federal sponsors should be true partners, able to
provide meaningful input on the terms of the partnership. More
flexibility should be delegated to district managers to
negotiate provisions that make the most sense for delivering
projects as efficiently as possible.
Second, land rights. Acquiring real eState rights and full
fee title is impractical and not reasonably needed for many
projects. Over 80 percent of coastal Louisiana's wetlands are
privately owned. To achieve widespread coastal protection and
restoration, we must partner with those landowners, most of
whom will give the necessary land rights to complete coastal
protection and restoration at no cost. We have been doing such
projects in Louisiana for decades without acquiring property in
fee title, and it has worked. There is no reason we can not do
the same in partnership with the Corps of Engineers.
Third, I will hit on O&M. There are several acronyms that
have been used. In deference to the Chair, I will not go
through that again.
Senator Carper. The Chair wants to thank you for that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Haase. We certainly share the concerns expressed by my
colleagues here. There are other problems that sometimes arise
related to O&M in project design or construction, which are
generally led by the Corps of Engineers, that can carry over
into a finished project. Of the terms in most PPAs, the Corps
can require the non-Federal sponsor to conduct operations and
maintenance for such deficient projects.
The Corps should not be able to transfer a project with
problems to a non-Federal sponsor, particularly when those
problems have been identified previously during design or
construction of that project.
We also at times have paid for and conducted operation and
maintenance on projects that are fully funded by the Corps,
because they lack the necessary funding at the time to complete
those activities. PPAs are generally silent on how to treat
those expenditures. It would be helpful to have provisions to
allow the non-Federal sponsor to receive credit against those
expenditures for such works.
Fourth, indemnification. This has been discussed a great
deal, and I will just reiterate that we certainly agree with my
colleagues here at the table today, and would reiterate that
there needs to be a more equitable sharing of potential risk
among project partners.
Fifth, I will hit on cost-sharing. CPRA, like other non-
Federal sponsors across the Country, must ensure that our
limited financial resources are leveraged to the full extent.
The use of deferred payment agreements crediting MOUs and the
ability to perform work in kind have been extremely helpful in
partnering with the Corp in the recent past.
That said, some aspects of cost-sharing can be a challenge.
Financial transparency provided through PPAs is essentially a
one-way street. The Corps can examine the books of the non-
Federal sponsor in detail, while the non-Federal sponsors has
no such reciprocal ability. As a result, the non-Federal
sponsor has to meet an unknown cost-share requirement. This has
already been discussed. It just makes common sense for this
arrangement to be reciprocal, since both partners are bearing
the cost of implementing these projects.
In conclusion, CPRA recommends this committee encourage the
Corps to advance policies that align with the following two
general principles: giving greater voices to the non-Federal
sponsors, and increasing transparency. To do so, we suggest
greater delegation of authority to district commanders to
negotiate PPAs while allowing for streamlined appeals to higher
levels of the Corps when needed.
We certainly appreciate the Corps for being one of CPRA's
most important project partners in our mission to protect and
restore Louisiana's coast. We have been tremendously fortunate
to be able to work with the New Orleans District, which has put
on the ground some of the most transformative Corps projects
across the entire Nation through these agreements.
CPRA is confident we can work even more productively with
the Corps to deliver projects for our State and Nation with
improved PPAs.
Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to
answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Haase follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Thank you for your testimony. It is great
to see you, and to welcome all of you today.
The first question I am going to ask is for all the
witnesses. This is a question I am going to come back and ask
you to answer for the record, not today, but for the record. I
think in your testimony you had already begun to answer it
fairly well.
The question I am going to ask you to answer for the record
is, would each witness briefly elaborate on the challenges and
opportunities you see in partnering with the Corps? Your views
are particularly relevant as we are beginning to develop WRDA
2024. If you will do that for the record. We will have some
other questions for the record, and will talk about that at the
end of the hearing.
As my colleagues know, we are always looking for, when we
have a diverse panel, we are looking for consensus, like where
you agree. Sometimes people think, well, repetition is a bad
thing. Not necessarily. You have been pretty consistent talking
about cost-shares, and cost overruns, who bears the
responsibility. I think there is a lot of agreement on some of
the indemnification issues.
Let's just start off, Mr. Hague, with you. Just pick maybe
three areas that you think are important areas where you think
there is consensus amongst the three of you that is critically
important and that we should take seriously those points? Go
ahead. Give us three good ones.
Mr. Hague. Absolutely.
Senator Carper. Again, repetition is not a bad thing.
Mr. Hague. Absolutely. I will repeat a lot of the things I
think you have heard from the witnesses today, plus were
included in my statement. I think the hold and save clause, as
you have heard, is particularly problematic for all the
sponsors to agree to that really does seem to be an unfair
balance of a legal liability that we are forced to take on as
sponsors of these projects.
Two, that unbounded nature of the operations and
maintenance commitment, which I should also point out, you do
not always fully know the extent of that commitment until the
project is fully constructed and the Corps presents you with
the operations and maintenance manual. You have to agree, when
you are signing the agreement, before construction even starts
to those open-ended O&M obligations.
Those would be the two high points that I would emphasize,
and would love for you to focus on in this next WRDA bill.
Senator Carper. I want one more. You can think about it.
While you are thinking, we will turn to Ms. Wallace.
Ms. Wallace. I agree with Mr. Hague, the indemnification
hold and save clause is critical to reforming as well as
unbounded operations and maintenance. To echo Jimmy's point,
you sign onto those agreements when planning is 35 percent
done, and the Corps remains in control of the rest of the
project and who the construction contractor is, et cetera.
Those two issues are really necessary for Congress to act
on.
Senator Carper. You have one more. Think about it and we
will come back to you. You do not get out of here without it.
Mr. Haase?
Mr. Haase. Yes, sir, thank you, Senator. Yes, I want to add
to those the point that I brought up in my oral testimony
related to the transparency and what a final bill might
actually be. We talked about cost overruns, increasing costs
associated with negotiating PPAs, but also in project
implementation. It is often difficult for the non-Federal
sponsor to get a very clear picture of what essentially the
bill due will be.
There is a theme, I think, related to all these three
issues, and that is certainty and predictability. All three of
these things relate to uncertainty, which increases risks,
obviously, on a non-Federal sponsor in delivering these
projects and being able to make good on the commitments that we
make by signing those.
Senator Carper. Okay. Let me stick with you for another
minute or two, Mr. Haase. I think one of my questions was, I
was going to ask you to please let us know what you think the
Coastal Protection Restoration Authority considers before
signing an agreement with the Corps. I think you have spoken to
that. As a followup, how do you strike the balance between
moving quickly and moving deliberately to advance large scale
coastal restoration and protection projects?
Mr. Haase. That can be a difficult balance to strike, as
you all certainly are aware. As I mentioned in my oral
testimony, sometimes we feel like we are stuck with a sort of a
take-it-or-leave-it kind of approach, where we have a model PPA
before us, there is a tremendous need across the Country in all
of our States, certainly in Louisiana, where we have
experienced natural disasters just like other parts of the
Country, there is a tremendous need to respond to those and
protect our citizens from storm surges, flooding, and restore
our ecosystem for all the reasons that is important.
There is a calculus that has to be gone through essentially
to evaluate the risk of delaying those kinds of projects and
having citizens remain at risk into the future or going ahead
and in some cases basically holding our noses and agreeing to
terms that we might not particularly want to agree to, so we
can get projects done.
There is no science to that, that is probably more art than
science. In general, we have moved forward where we needed to
for the good of the citizens of the State of Louisiana to get
projects on the ground that will help reduce risk to them and
improve the ecosystem in which they live.
Senator Carper. Good, thanks. I am going to go back really
quickly, Mr. Hague, I gave you and Ms. Wallace the opportunity
to give us three areas where you think there is a great deal of
consensus and agreement. You have one more, each of you. do not
pass it by, go ahead.
Mr. Hague. I would love this committee to look at
flexibility in meeting the cost-share requirements. In the last
WRDA bill, you did tackle this a little bit in allowing
sponsors to use other Federal funds that meet the complementary
purposes of the project.
The other place I would love to have some attention is when
sponsors have material that they have received as a donation
that can be applied for the purposes of the project. A lot of
times the Corps does not give the sponsor full credit for
bringing those materials to a project. That could be a simple
thing for this committee to fix in the next WRDA bill and give
sponsors a lot more flexibility now to meet the requirements.
Senator Carper. Good, thank you.
Very briefly, Ms. Wallace, one more shot.
Ms. Wallace. Lean into partnerships and encourage the Corps
to provide collaborative leadership along with the local
sponsor.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Senator Capito, and after Senator Capito has asked her
questions, we are going to turn to the Senator from another
large State, Rhode Island. Senator Whitehouse, welcome today.
Then Senator Ricketts. Thank you.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Mr. Haase, you have in your capacity or prior capacity
actually negotiated one of these PPAs, is that correct? More
than one?
Mr. Haase. Yes.
Senator Capito. Okay. When you have had a disagreement, and
you say that you have to work out, you get the model and then
you try to, what is the length of time to try to overcome that
disagreement? Does it ever get to the point where you never
really do? How have you worked those out in the past?
Mr. Haase. We do have a lot of experience in negotiating
those, Senator, thank you for the question. It can take quite a
long time, it can take months to negotiate the terms of these
agreements, of course. That is where sort of the calculus of
weighing the advantages, perhaps, to negotiating better terms
for the non-Federal sponsor in these agreements, does it
outweigh the potential risk, of course, of not getting a
project done, or having that project being delayed and those
costs being increased or perhaps become infeasible in some way.
In terms of kind of the mechanism for negotiating those, we
work very closely with our local district, the New Orleans
District, obviously, to try to negotiate those terms. At times
we have had to bring those negotiations to the division and
again up to headquarters, often, as well.
Senator Capito. Have you ever walked away from one? Have
you been able to get disagreements put to rest?
Mr. Haase. I do not know if we have ever walked away from
one. That is a good question. I am not aware that we have. We
have signed many under duress, I would say. I do not know that
we have walked from any. I would have to get back to you.
Senator Capito. I was just curious.
Then, if you were a first-time non-Federal partner looking
at this, what one piece of advice would you give a first-time
applicant to become a partner with the Corps, under these
circumstances that we have now?
Mr. Haase. If I might take the liberty of mentioning two
things.
Senator Capito. Of course.
Mr. Haase. I would say be aware of what other non-Federal
sponsors around the Country are agreeing to, know what those
other agreements look like around the Country, to learn from
those experiences and negotiations that other non-Federal
sponsors have gone through.
Second, I would say it is imperative to have a very good
working relationship with your local district, the district
commander. They of course are the ones that will elevate
disagreements to division and to headquarters, and they can be
your best advocates at times. Having a good, trustful working
relationship with the districts is very, very important.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
This is for the panel. This is on the hold and save
language. I mentioned in my opening statement, we have gone
through this, but I am going to dig down a little bit into it.
The 1986 law requires that PPAs include hold and save language.
This language indemnifies the Corps except for when damages are
due to the fault or negligence of the Corps.
In thinking about this, I am trying to think, Mr. Hague, I
will go to you first, what kind of circumstance could occur
that would not be fault or negligence that would be an
exception where the liability would fall to the non-Federal
partner? I am trying to envision this.
Mr. Hague. Thank you for the question. Right. It is a
difficult question to answer with specific examples. When I
have talked to lawyers about the hold and save clause, in a lot
of ways they are most worried about those sort of unforeseen
and unimaginable instances, which is why it is particularly
problematic, because it is a perpetual indemnification of the
Federal Government for any reason except where the non-Federal
sponsor, who has the burden of proof, can show that the Corps
was negligent.
I think that requirement is particularly problematic for
non-Federal sponsors for a couple of reasons that you have
heard today, one of which is, the Corps does retain a lot of
the authority for filing decisions around planning and
execution of these projects.
When you have a situation of a partnership where one
partner, the Corps, has so much control over project design and
execution, and the other partner has to indemnify them and
should have the burden of proving fault or negligence, that is
a really tough balance to swallow for a sponsor, not to mention
some of the State law objections that you have heard mentioned
as well. That creates specific challenges for States where
those conflicts exist.
Senator Capito. Right. Ms. Wallace, do you have any
examples of things that you have thought of, or your group has
thought of, that might hold to these exceptions?
Ms. Wallace. Yes, and I think Mr. Haase can answer that
question, I think he has examples. ICWP does not have examples
like that that we would want to speak to.
I can say from a State perspective that it still would
conflict with the constitutional law for States to sign up for
an unknown cost and unknown time for an unknown reason.
Senator Capito. Okay, so the States in red that have
conflicts, do they still go through with PPAs or are they just
absolutely prohibited because they have to sign this agreement?
Ms. Wallace. Some have, for the same reason that you spoke
to, which is that you stand in between a Federal resource,
Federal dollars, for an important project. More and more,
States are saying, we can not do this.
Senator Capito. Mr. Haase, do you have an example?
Mr. Haase. I do, in fact. A tangible example of this would
be for projects that we have been involved in where pile
driving, for example, is involved. Through the normal course of
pile driving, even if it is done correctly, there can be damage
to adjacent properties. It has been our experience that the
Corps has viewed that as being, that liability as being
indemnified, essentially.
We believe that should be a project cost. It is something
that occurs in the normal course of doing business of
constructing projects, and again, we think it should be a
shared project cost, not the responsibility of the non-Federal
sponsor.
Senator Capito. Thank you for that example. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Thank you, ma'am.
Senator Whitehouse, welcome. Good to see you.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much. Thank you for
doing this. I think particularly as we see sea level rise
accelerating, our coastal States have a real sense of urgency
about making sure that we can work effectively, timely and
fairly with the Army Corps of Engineers.
I would reiterate what I have told this committee before,
which is that the flooding funding of the Army Corps of
Engineers tends to be heavily, heavily, heavily biased toward
upland, inland river flooding. There have been years for which
every $100 spent on upland and inland flooding, $1 was spent on
coastal flooding. When you look at what climate change portends
for coasts, when you look at what our map in Rhode Island shows
our coast is going to look like in the decades ahead, this is a
very, very serious problem. We need to make sure that the Army
Corps is going to be responsive to it.
Let me particularly welcome Bren Haase here, because he was
kind enough to have dinner with Senator Cassidy and myself when
I visited Louisiana, what, 4 years ago now, to look at the work
going on down there to respond to Louisiana's rather
spectacular loss of property to sea level rise. I was grateful
for his time and expertise then, and I am grateful, sir, for
your time and expertise now. It is good to see you again. I
hope all is well.
We have heard about the sponsor share, requiring a certain
amount of investment and risk, cost overruns adding further
potential investment and risk, maintenance and operations being
delegated to the sponsor, adding further financial exposure,
and liability opening up and unknown can of potential risk,
worms. In addition to that, it strikes me that even with all of
those difficulties, if you could plan in an orderly way through
time what an Army Corps project was going to look like and how
it was going to roll out, that would make it a lot easier on
the local sponsors.
My experience has been that the timing of Army Corps
projects is very much also uncertain, often, and certainly
unknown when you try to begin. You have the additional variable
of not knowing when you are going to have to spend the money,
in addition to not knowing how much you are going to have to
spend in all of those four areas.
Is that an observation that is unique to Rhode Island? Or
is that an observation that you have seen in your worlds as
well? Mr. Haase, let me start with you.
Mr. Haase. The short answer to the question is no, it is
not just an observation from Rhode Island. It is certainly
something that we have experienced as well.
The when, again, is an extremely important factor in all
this, and it gets back to the theme I mentioned earlier, which
is predictability and certainty on all of these things. With
less predictability comes less certainty that we are going to
be able to be good partners and deliver what we have agreed to
deliver on. That is something that we certainly have
experienced in Louisiana.
Senator Whitehouse. You mentioned that when the Corps is a
partner in a project, the Corps can seem inflexible and overly
committed to the status quo. I think that is a very important
signal, particularly when the future is unknown. You do not
know how quickly things are going to roll out. It can be very
hard to get into the Corps bureaucracy and get real responsible
answers on any kind of a reliable or timely basis.
The last thing I will mention, I see my friend Dan Sullivan
here, who does not quite have this exact problem, but small
States and communities that have big projects. The other
question here is, I think what banks would call leverage. If
you are in the State of California, if you are in the State of
Texas, if you are in the State of New York, and there is a very
significant Army Corps project that goes in and you are the
sponsor, the non-Federal sponsor, then how that turns out as a
percentage of your State's budget or local community's budget
can be a very minor thing. If it triples or doubles or gets
moved from year to year in ways that you can not control, that
is a little bit more manageable.
Rhode Island is looking at having to build an entirely new
hurricane barrier to defend our capital city from predicted
flooding that will flood right through the downtown business
zone, so that existing buildings will be underwater, not in the
upper stories, but their front doors will be underwater. The
main entrance to city hall is up a grand staircase. Well, the
grand staircase is predicted to flood up to a certain point.
All the operating doors along the sides that people use would
flood out. You would presumably have to arrive at the city hall
of Providence stairs in a boat and climb your way up.
Getting that fixed by having a proper hurricane barrier is
a really big deal. That is going to be enormously, enormously
expensive. For small States with huge projects, we have a real
problem that I would like to flag as I close out.
Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Carper. Just to reiterate the point that Sheldon is
making, I do not know if this is correct or not, but I have
been saying it for years, every 100 minutes they lose a piece
of land in Louisiana the size of a football field. Is that
still true?
Mr. Haase. Yes, sir, on average that is true.
Senator Carper. That is amazing. That is incredible.
I need to take a phone call, and I will be right back.
Senator Capito is going preside for now, and I will be right
back. Thanks very much.
Senator Capito.
[Presiding.] All right. Senator Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Chairman Carper, and thank
you, Ranking Member Capito. Thank you to our witnesses for
being here today to share your perspectives. I have often
talked about the Army Corps of Engineers and my problem when I
was Governor about their performance, anything from how long it
took them to issue permits to how they were managing water
storage that actually increased the chance for flooding, and
then what they were doing with regard to flood control.
I am anxious to use WRDA to improve the governance of the
Army Corps of Engineers, especially focusing on the fact that
these projects need to be led by natural resource districts,
municipalities and local communities. Flood control, in my
opinion, needs to be the first priority for the Army Corps, and
especially along the Missouri River. They should not be
undermining that.
Before I get into some of these other topics, though, one
of the things that the Army Corps of Engineers has rolled out
is their permit finder. As we review the permit finder, it
seems to be outdated already and lacks updates. If we are going
to be able to manage these projects, it seems we have to have
the proper information in there to be able to, and that needs
to be prioritized, these tools to monitor the progress.
For all the witnesses, I would love you to share your
experience with the Army Corps' permit finding data base. Have
you tried to navigate this? What has been your experience?
Mr. Hague?
Mr. Hague. Senator, thank you for the question. I do not
have any experience navigating the permit finder just yet, but
I would be happy to followup with our conservation staff on the
ground to see if they have, and report back to you.
Senator Ricketts. That would be great. I would appreciate
it. Just contact our office. I am not looking for a big, long
essay, I just want to know about your experience with it.
Ms. Wallace?
Ms. Wallace. We have also not had experience with the
permit finder data base. I didn't know it existed.
Senator Ricketts. Oh, Okay, maybe that is part of the
problem with the Army Corps of Engineers, they didn't get that
tool out there. That is why they are not updating it, because
nobody knows it exists.
Mr. Haase?
Mr. Haase. Yes, sir, thank you, Senator. We do have a
little experience with the permit finder data base, and have
found it actually to be relatively good in our case. Most of
our permits and our actions that are pending are included in
the data base and we are able to find those and query those
well.
Senator Ricketts. I would also note that I have had
problems with the Army Corps in the past. The relationship
between the State of Nebraska and the Army Corps is improving
with the leadership we have had there for the last couple of
Colonels that have come through. That has been a good deal. I
think Colonel Hudson and Colonel Newbauer have all done a good
job.
Ms. Wallace, you talked a little bit earlier about project
partnerships, especially for small, local communities. How does
the current PPA structure deter sponsorships? In Nebraska, we
have primarily natural resource districts. We have 23 of them
across the State that are all locally funded by property tax.
How does the current PPA discourage something like a small
entity like that from getting involved in a PPA?
Ms. Wallace. Exactly. I think on one side you have Federal
investment that meets what the local entity can put together
for an important water resource project. You have a lot of
energy and motivation toward signing that PPA. On the flip
side, you have long-term consequences of fully indemnifying the
Federal Government and taking on perpetual O&M, basically,
having a Federal hold on your property and your tax base. It is
shifting from a larger tax base, that consequence to a much
smaller tax base for a project that is in the national
interest.
That comment earlier rang true. Who is that tax base and
can they afford it, the project?
Senator Ricketts. Right. Maybe you can expand upon that a
little bit just about, if you are a small taxing base, and you
are attempting a big project, and you have to take on full
liability for the operations and maintenance as well as any
sort of problems, especially, you said, 35 percent of the way
through the project, you are actually taking this on.
Talk about that a little bit more, if you could. Have you
seen specific instances of that where communities or small
entities have said, hey, we are not going to do this because it
is just too much?
Ms. Wallace. We have had States, organizations, entities
say they cannot sign Project Partnership Agreements because of
the unknown costs and time of that cost, the reason for that
cost, and what that means for them long-term financially.
Senator Ricketts. In your estimation, would some of these
projects be in the national interest, as you have described
before?
Ms. Wallace. Correct.
Senator Ricketts. The idea here is that we have small
entities where you are taking on, the local property taxpayers,
in the case of Nebraska, they would have to take on these huge
responsibilities to be able to meet the current requirements.
That is just not going to be possible sometimes.
Maybe projects that are in the national interest are not
being done because of the requirement to have that local
participation? Is that fair?
Ms. Wallace. That is exactly correct.
Senator Ricketts. Thank you very much, Ms. Wallace. I think
Mr. Haase also mentioned this, about the flexibility, having
flexibility with the Corps. Certainly my experience as Governor
was the Corps often has its rules and does not feel like it has
the flexibility to be able to change those, to get up the chain
of command takes time, all that sort of thing. I think there
are some opportunities here for us to be able to take a look at
that and see what we can do.
I appreciate your comment about having the local districts
have more flexibility in negotiating these agreements, because
they are the ones on the ground there, and certainly when you
have local entities, they know exactly what their communities
need. I think more flexibility would also help us to be able to
get that done faster.
Thank you.
Ms. Wallace. Thank you.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Cardin?
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me thank our
witnesses.
Army Corps projects are critically important to my State of
Maryland. We recognize the challenges with Project Partnership
Agreements. Senator Ricketts mentioned, as many, the loss of
opportunity because of the affordability and risk factors that
we are not able to take full advantage of the Army Corps
projects.
I want to take it from a little bit different angle. These
projects in many cases have also national significance. It is
not just the local benefit of the project to the entity that is
submitting the project, but also to our Nation. The Chesapeake
Bay I have talked about many times in this committee. It is a
national resource, it is a national treasure, the largest
estuary in our hemisphere. It is endangered, and it requires
constant attention.
We have had Army Corps projects, partnership agreements, to
deal with the Chesapeake Bay. The largest, from the point of
economic impact, was Poplar Island. It was novel in its time,
the first environmental restoration using dredged materials in
order to restore an island in the Chesapeake Bay.
You go back 100, 150 years ago, there were several
habitable islands in the Chesapeake Bay. They are almost all
gone because of erosion and weather circumstances, et cetera.
Poplar Island at one time was habitable. It was down to just a
few acres, and we restored it through using dredged material,
through an Army Corps project, through a Project Partnership
Agreement.
It is critically important for the economics of our region,
because we are keeping our harbor and the channels dredged at
the proper level, and having a place to dispose of the material
that is not only without controversy, it is popular. People
want it.
At the same time, we are restoring an environmental island
that is now a major area for migratory birds, it has restored
wetlands which are critically important to filter the pollution
in the Bay. It has all these positive impacts.
Now, we are just about at capacity at Poplar Island. We now
have Mid-Bay. Mid-Bay is now moving forward, another island
that disappeared that will be restored, that will have benefit
for the economics of the ports through the channels and will
also have a major impact on our commitment to our environment
moving forward.
Mr. Hague, I would ask you this question. Yes, I am
sensitive to the needs of easing the liability requirements.
Should not there be special consideration given to those
projects that have a national significance, such as
environmental restoration? I know that at the Nature
Conservancy, that is your mission. Should not we be having some
considerations given in these partnership agreements when there
is more than just the local benefit from the project?
Mr. Hague. Senator, thank you for the question, and thank
you for your championing the Bay. You are exemplary in that
role. Certainly, we have worked with you and your office over
the years on a variety of Chesapeake Bay work with the Corps.
Nature Conservancy has been involved on oyster restoration in
the Bay for many years with Maryland DNR and Virginia Marine
Resources. That is a global model for how to do oyster
restoration.
Re-using dredged material, as you said, is an excellent
opportunity to align where that dredged material is coming from
in the Bay versus where it should go or can go for a lot of the
multiple purposes that you have identified. We appreciate your
support for all those options with the Corps and the Bay.
On your question, there are certainly examples of Congress
looking at restoration projects and saying it is of national
significance and should be a Federal function and making those
costs 100 percent Federal. As you were thinking about reforms
to the PPA, that could be a way to look at it, that a lot of
these projects are unique and that some of them are of national
significance, and may be very amenable to the kind of approach
you are talking about for nationally significant eco-projects.
Senator Cardin. I might point out, oyster restoration is
another good example where we used partnership agreements.
Blackwater, trying to restore inlands in Blackwater through the
use of dredged material. All those are Army Corps type projects
that could be subject to consideration as to their importance
to our Nation, not just to the local community. Blackwater is a
national refuge, so it is not really local from that point of
view. We will be looking at those types of considerations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper.
[Presiding.] Senator Cardin, thank you very, very much, not
just for joining us but you are a highly valued member of this
committee.
I would say to our witnesses, we talked a little bit about
backgrounds, and Senator Sullivan, the witnesses who were good
enough to share with us where they are from, and a little bit
about themselves personally. I would say, to turn the tables
here, we have three people sitting up here who are retired
military, a retired Marine colonel, Senator Kelly, a retired
Navy captain, and the last time I checked, I am a retired Navy
captain.
We just celebrated about a month or so ago the anniversary
of the birthday of the Marine Corps. That is a big day. In
order to get someplace, the Navy provides the transportation
for the Marines, the last time I checked.
All right, Senator Sullivan. That was my introduction.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
that.
I am going to tee up a more specific question than we have
been working on here, with the Chairman's good help. Mr. Hague,
I am interested in the Nature Conservancy's view on this in
particular. It is something I am actually working on with
Senator Kelly right now as we speak.
This involves indigenous lands, tribal, Native lands in
Alaska. In 1971, Congress passed what is called the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act, ANCSA. I will not go into all the
background, but it is the largest indigenous land claims
settlement probably in the world, certainly in America, 44
million acres of land in Alaska went to the Native people to
manage and own, actually in fee simple. It is not like the
lower 48 reservation system. It was very innovative, helps with
the development of these communities.
Unfortunately, Congress gave a lot of this land, 44 million
acres, I think that is bigger than almost every State in the
Country, a lot of the land was contaminated, like severely
contaminated. Here you go, Native people. Here is your land
settlement. Oh, by the way, it is completely contaminated.
Believe it or not, for years, the EPA under CERCLA was
going to hold these Native communities, Native corporations,
liable for the pollution, like we are going to sue you to clean
up the land that we gave you that was polluted. That was
absurd. It took a bill, Senator Carper and I got it passed in
2017, to say no, come on Feds, do not be stupid. The Native
people are not liable for cleaning up contaminated lands that
the Feds gave them contaminated.
We fixed that. It only took several years. I really
appreciate the Chairman weighing in on my amendment, co-
sponsoring it. He said it was righting this wrong.
Here is the next idea. We all care a lot about mitigation
banking. My State has 65 percent of all wetlands in America.
These are big issues for us. We are trying to work with the
Corps in this committee to get legislation that would say Okay,
when you do mitigation banking, wetlands, if you are doing
that, and let's say you actually are mitigating in terms of a
cleanup of a previously contaminated land in Alaska, that that
would count with the Corps. It is complicated, but it is an
innovative idea.
The idea that the Feds are going to come to Alaska and
cleanup all this contaminated land that they gave the Native
people, it is probably never going to happen, because it is
literally in the tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions
of dollars. It is not going to happen. We have to get some
cleanup from the Feds. This is an innovative approach.
Senator Kelly and I are looking to introduce legislation
that would have that provision and a second provision
championed by Senator Kelly to establish a pilot program to
allow the Army Corps to enter PPAs with Indian tribes to allow
them to provide full project management control for the
construction of eligible projects.
I know you guys at the Nature Conservancy say you are
experts on these kinds of mitigation banks. What do you think
of an idea like that, that helps Native indigenous people
cleanup their lands, but maybe from a source that involves
mitigation bank, not from the traditional way, saying the Feds
are going to clean up, which they should have, they should have
never given the lands, 44 million acres, half of it was
polluted? What do you think of that?
Mr. Hague. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Sullivan. I know you do not have the details, but
in general. You guys do this a lot, so I am curious. We want to
try and get this over the goal line in the committee. The
Chairman has already worked with us, the staff is working on
this, it is a big, innovative idea that we think is really
important and timely.
Mr. Hague. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I
certainly appreciate your leadership on fighting on behalf of
your constituents. I know from our chapter up in Alaska that we
have been in contact with folks on this kind of topic, the
brownfields team, the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, I
believe. We are definitely looking to build a partnership there
for remediation of these kinds of lands. It is something we are
looking into very seriously.
Of course, the Nature Conservancy has a lot of experience
with mitigation banking nationally, setting up banks and
running banks in different States. It is an approach that we
embrace quite strongly as a way to get innovative financing
approaches to the kind of conservation work we need to get
done, where there is not an obvious source of funding elsewise.
It is a concept I would love to look at, if we are able to
share the details, and report back to you.
Senator Sullivan. Good. We will do that as a part of this
committee's followup. We are working through the committee
here, staff, Senator Kelly and I and our bipartisan bill on
these innovative issues, to try and help tribal indigenous
communities that need help. A lot of them are unfortunately on
lands that are polluted. Then they can not undertake economic
development and other things like that.
We would welcome your interest and eventually your support
if you want to take a look at the language we are working on
with the staff of this committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a big issue that hopefully
we can resolve.
Senator Carper. Thanks. I appreciate the chance to work
with you and your team on this.
Senator Kelly, welcome. Good to see you.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Sullivan, I
look forward to getting this across the finish line as well. It
is really important in the State of Arizona as well. We have 22
Native American tribes, and often have similar issues with
polluted land or land that needs to be cleaned up.
We have had some success with tribes working with the Army
Corps. I was with Governor Stephen Lewis of the Gila River
Indian Community just on Saturday at a football game,
University of Arizona versus Arizona State. The annual in-State
bowl game went very well for UofA, not so well for ASU.
Senator Sullivan. Who do you root for in that game?
Senator Kelly. I have mixed feelings. I live close to the
University of Arizona. My eldest daughter is a student at the
University of Arizona, my younger daughter is a graduate of
ASU.
Senator Carper. My wife is a graduate of ASU, Appalachian
State University.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kelly. They are both great schools. I am going to
have to get one of those jerseys like Kelce's mother has, half
on one side, half on the other.
This hearing is really important to identify other ways
that the Corps can partner with communities on projects. One of
the things that I have championed with Congressman Stanton,
also from Arizona, was the creation of Section 595, the Rural
Arizona Water Infrastructure Program. This was about 3 years
ago, one of the first things I did when I got to the U.S.
Senate. I am coming up on being here for 3 years. It has gone
by pretty quickly.
This 595 helps small and underserved communities in Arizona
partner with the Army Corps to build drinking water, water
conservation, flood control, and wastewater infrastructure.
When he has appeared before this committee in the past,
Secretary Connor has pointed to this program as an example of
how the Army Corps can help make investments in the west to
respond to long-term drought conditions.
There is just one problem here, and that is that many
projects funded through this program still do not have
finalized PPAs with the Corps. In fact, we have some
communities like the city of Buckeye, Arizona, which has been
waiting for more than 2 years to finalize a Project Partnership
Agreement.
These projects are often rather small dollar projects,
usually less than $3 million. Especially for projects that help
Arizona communities respond to drought conditions, years is too
long to wait.
Mr. Hague, you mentioned in your testimony that the Nature
Conservancy does lots of work with the Corps and local project
sponsors. What challenges are faced by local sponsors when it
takes years for the Corps to finalize a Project Partnership
Agreement?
Mr. Hague. Thank you for the question, Senator. When you
have a project that is delayed like that and it takes many
years, there are a variety of problems, of course, that could
come up.
You do think about the issue of time being money, and
certainly with the Army Corps, that is the case as well. We
have been involved in projects where if there is a very long
gap between when a project is authorized, originally
envisioned, and when you can sign a PPA and start construction,
things like the cost of the real eState necessary for the
project can go up dramatically. We have actually had instances
where we have had to come back to Congress and get a project
reauthorized at a higher level because of those kinds of
delays.
The quicker you can get to signing the easier it is. There
are a lot of internal obstacles for that. I think any time that
you are trying to negotiate a Project Partnership Agreement
that requires on up to say, headquarters level for approval, we
do see significant delays, at least of a year in how long that
review at headquarters takes.
Senator Kelly. Have you seen communities just get
frustrated by this and give up?
Mr. Hague. I do not have an example specifically of where a
community has walked away. A lot of communities I think are
either, they are faced with a choice of a take-it-or-leave-it
in a lot of cases. They have a great need that they can only
achieve these kinds of projects with the Corps.
They either need to take the agreement as is, and maybe
take on terms that they are really not comfortable with, or
push for those kinds of higher level reviews that can delay
projects for years and drive up the cost of doing business.
Senator Kelly. What are some of the tools available, here
in my remaining time, that the Corps could use, administrative
tools that they could use to sign these agreements?
Mr. Hague. The Corps has developed a bunch of model
agreements, a couple of dozen model agreements. These are
different template models that you could use for an
environmental infrastructure project like you are discussing,
an ecosystem restoration project, a flood control project.
There are a variety of different models. As long as you are
sponsoring or willing to accept that model sort of as is, you
can get it done very quickly.
Any time you want to seek a deviation from that model, even
a non-substantive deviation, that is going to require review by
the division, and if you are looking for a substantive
deviation, that is going to require review by headquarters.
That is where things can really get delayed.
They do have these model agreements, and have delegated
some decisionmaking authority from headquarters down to
division. Those have helped. Any time you are seeking
deviations, it slows things down, and you can not get around
the indemnification and operations and management challenges we
have discussed here today, either way.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Hague.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Kelly.
Senator Fetterman, I am going to yield to Senator Capito
for a couple of questions, and we will come to you next. Thank
you.
Senator Capito?
Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator Fetterman.
I just have a quick question. We have kind of dug down deep
on the indemnity thing, I think I understand that issue. Let's
talk about the operation and maintenance responsibility in
perpetuity, trying to figure out ways to improve that. You
said, I think Ms. Wallace or somebody said that you have to
sign these agreements at the 35 percent design phase. Is that
correct?
Ms. Wallace. That is even in the planning.
Senator Capito. Even in the planning, Okay. How would you
improve that, besides just wiping the whole thing out? That is
not going to happen, we do not think. What would you say, Mr.
Hague, that would have meaningful impacts?
Mr. Hague. Right. I believe in your opening statement you
referred to the useful life of the project. I think that is a
concept that might be very helpful to latch onto. We have
talked a lot about the operations and maintenance
responsibility. I think in truth it is operations, maintenance,
repair, rehabilitation and replacement responsibility. It is an
even longer acronym, if you pull it out.
That final R of that acronym is replacement. That kind of
requirement also can be particularly problematic for a sponsor
when they are signing a PPA very early on in the process to
consider having to replace a project over and over and over
again.
Our experience mostly in the ecosystem restoration realm,
you can imagine situations where you have a useful life of
project, you have achieved the project purposes, you have sort
of restored natural functioning, and it would be tremendously
helpful for the sponsors if there was a way to tie the end of
their obligations some way to that useful life of a project, so
that we know going on that there is an end point somewhere down
the line.
Senator Capito. Good suggestion.
Ms. Wallace?
Ms. Wallace. That undefined period is so important, as Mr.
Hague said, there is an obligation, and that obligation is to
the Corps for the design manual, the O&M manual.
Senator Capito. Right, that they give you at the end. Okay,
I got that.
Ms. Wallace. Yes, at the ribbon cutting. The question
becomes, can the sponsor then decide what to do with that
replacement, or is it beholden to the Federal Government.
Senator Capito. I see.
Ms. Wallace. At the end of a design period, at least there
is a cap on who that obligation is to, if it is to their local
tax base, or to themselves or to the Federal Government.
Senator Capito. Mr. Haase, do you have any suggestions in
there?
Mr. Haase. I would reiterate Mr. Hague's comments that the
useful, reasonable sort of life of the project is the operative
language that should be used.
Senator Capito. Is that a standard that you can find? Is
that something that the Corps, you would say, Okay, this dam is
going to last 45 years, that is the useful life? Are those
measurements out there to be able to figure that out?
Mr. Haase. They are. The projects that we are involved in
with the Corps typically have a design life and a period of
analysis associated with them. That is well defined, yes.
Senator Capito. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and thank all of you. I am sorry I have to duck out. I
appreciate it, and it is good to see everybody.
Senator Carper. Senator Capito, thank you so much.
Senator Fetterman, welcome. Good to see you.
Senator Fetterman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
say that I am a gigantic fan of the Army Corps, really. I wish
I had a shirt that I could say that, but they do not have it in
my size.
I live literally right on the Mon River, and I have seen
the kind of work you have done. I have actually been at the
ribbon cuttings for some. The important work you have done has
generated another century of commerce on the river. Again,
thank you for that. I could never figure out how you get it
done, but you guys do. You get it done, and I am really in awe
of your work.
Now you are working with our delegation to work on the
lockage on the Allegheny as well, and that is important as
well. We are grateful. Now I am here to talk about other
important issues in which you are involved.
I am the last speaker, and this is not exactly as sexy or
as interesting as who Taylor Swift is dating. We are here to
talk about a really important issue in counties all across
Pennsylvania, whether it is Clinton or Elk or Northumberland.
They have significant issues of acid mine drainage. Not on the
tip of the tongue of a lot of Pennsylvanians or Americans. It
is really important in Pennsylvania.
Now I want to ask you about the kind of support we would
need from the Corps. That is why I am proud to work with my
colleague, the best Senator in Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, on
this kind of work.
Mr. Hague, what can we learn from the Corps, from other
environmental programs, to ensure that the Corps works are
effectively working within communities to address this acid
mine drainage?
Mr. Hague. Thank you for the question, Senator. I am also a
huge fan of the Army Corps. We at the Nature Conservancy have
done incredible work with them over decades doing ecosystem
restoration across this Country. I was also born and raised in
West Virginia, not too far from your State. I really appreciate
your focus on the acid mine drainage issue. It is something I
am familiar with.
The Corps is perhaps uniquely capable in this world of
doing some of the largest, most complex ecosystem restoration
work that there is. Training the resources of the Army Corps on
the issues of acid mine drainage might be particularly helpful
for your home State.
Apropos of the topic of this hearing, one of the things I
might suggest is thinking again about, if there is a way to,
the ways to constrain the sponsors of those kinds of projects,
constrain their financial or legal risks. I think particularly
with acid mine drainage, where you might have an ongoing
discharge of contaminated water, you might want to think
specifically about how we can encourage non-Federal sponsors to
join in those efforts by finding some ways to articulate an end
point at which they can plan around their financial
commitments.
Senator Fetterman. Limits on the financial resources, are
there laws on the books that are working against that kind of
an outcome? Or whether some of the abandoned mines--is there
anything more specific that is driving it?
Mr. Hague. Yes, Senator. A lot of the problem is that
sponsors of all projects, and I think this would apply for
restoration in the acid mine drainage context as well, do have
to sign these Project Partnership Agreements that have similar
requirements in them that are rooted in law. To hold and save
the Federal Government harmless is something that is rooted in
statute as well as this commitment to doing operations and
maintenance on these works is something that is rooted in
statute. Those things would be particularly powerful if this
committee could address them in WRDA 2024.
Senator Fetterman. We do not have the time to really drill
down on that. I do not do much well, but I do hire people that
are a lot smarter than I am. I have a staff that is very much
part of this, and very much educating me. We would like to
continue to have that conversation so we can be most effective
in addressing that specifically, what is really at the root of
some of these challenges that we have, to be more informed and
to be a more effective Senator, to address this. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I have 23 seconds left, and I cede that back
to the Chair.
Senator Carper. Well, I am going to use those 23 seconds
well. You talked about surrounding yourself with people smarter
than you. When I was elected Governor, a former Governor came
to see me. He gave me some great advice. He was an older guy,
probably about 80 years old by then, Bert Carvel, from Laurel,
Delaware. He said, ``Governor Tom,'' I had been Governor for
all of a month, and he said, ``I have some words of advice.'' I
said, ``What are they?'' He said, ``First one is, the main
thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.'' The other
thing he said is, ``Always hire people smarter than you.'' I
have tried to do both of those. Obviously, you come from the
same school as I do.
Senator Fetterman. I am honored to be a member of your
committee. Thank you.
Senator Carper. The honor is ours, thank you. Thanks for
being here today.
In baseball, they have a term they use, telegraphing a
pitch, the way you hold a ball, the pitcher holds the ball,
releases the ball sort of gives the hitter an idea of what the
pitcher is throwing. I am going to telegraph a pitch, unless
another member of the committee shows up.
The last question I am going to ask you today is just to
see if there is anything else you would like to add. Looking at
this hearing, looking back, thinking about what you have been
asked, what you have not been asked, maybe a closing thought or
two from each of you. We will do that.
In anticipation of that, let me just say, we talked earlier
about every 100 minutes Louisiana loses a piece of land the
size of a football field. I do not know about you; I watched a
lot of football over the weekend. Louisiana is a pretty big
State, but it can not last forever at the rate we are going.
Having said that, the economy, we do not think often about
good news in this body, or maybe even in this Country. There is
a way to look at things negatively, we are pretty good at doing
that. Finding the good news is sometimes buried.
With respect to the economy, it is pretty darned good. I
have been around for a while and I have seen some really bad
economies, you have too. It has been pretty darned good in the
last 3 years or so. I have been saying it is like 10 million or
11 million, I learned today it is over 13 million jobs that
have been created in the last 3 years or so, which is pretty
astounding. Our unemployment rate, I think for the last 3
years, has been coming in under 4 percent. I think the
unemployment rate today for our Country is about 3.9 percent.
Historically, that is a really good stretch. Hopefully, we can
keep it going.
I am told that our employers in this Country have added in
the last couple of years about 240,000 jobs a month. Think
about that; 240,000 jobs a month, about a quarter million jobs
a month for our economy. The number of people that are
unemployed looking for jobs is small compared to the number of
jobs that are out there going on. We hear those numbers every
week or so from the Department of Labor.
GDP had a good month, a good year, 3 percent is considered
really good GDP growth. For this quarter, it has been over 5
percent, over 5 percent. That is the good news.
The reality is strong economies do not last forever.
Eventually we will fall into recessions, the whole world falls
into recession sometimes. What we want to make sure of is when
that happens the recessions are as shallow as can be and as
short as can be, and we get back on the right track. One of the
ways to make sure that we get back on the right track is to do
the kind of things for our Country, for our States that we are
talking about here today.
A big part of it is the ability to ship around the world
the products, the goods that we create here in all of our
States. Without the Army Corps of Engineers doing the work to
help enable shipping to move through our waterways throughout
this Country, on our coasts, in our ports, like the Port of
Wilmington is one example, but without that, we are not going
to come back from a recession as quickly in the future. We want
to make sure that our economy remains strong and the capability
to do more with even less is realized.
The other thing I want to say is, most of us have heard of
the golden rule, we are a Country of a lot of different
religions. As it turns out, every major religion on the planet
has a golden rule in it. If you are Protestant, Jewish,
Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, they all have it. When I
give commencement addresses, I say to the graduates, I give
them a couple of rules to keep in mind to be successful, aim
high, tell them to work hard, tell them to embrace the golden
rule. I tell them do not quit. Aim high, work hard, embrace the
golden rule, do not quit.
I tell them that the golden rule is in every major religion
of the world, and if it is something that is in every major
religion of the world, maybe we ought to pay some attention to
it. Nobody has invoked the golden rule here today, but actually
I think part of what we are talking about is treating other
people the way we would want to be treated, and at the same
time, making sure they can have a better quality of life in
States across America.
Any last thoughts that any of you would like to share with
us before I wrap it up? Mr. Hague?
Mr. Hague. Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity. I have
not had a chance today to thank this committee enough for the
work you have done to reform these PPAs in the past. I would
refer you to my written statement, which does include several
of the improvements that Congress has made to help sponsors
through these processes.
One of them that I would point out is from WRDA 2016. We
have talked a lot about the operations and maintenance
requirement. That WRDA bill in 2016 did create a little bit of
a relief for the operation and maintenance for the non-
structural elements and non-mechanical elements of the
ecosystem restoration projects.
That might be an opportunity for you in your upcoming WRDA
bill to look at leveraging that authority, perhaps expanding it
to other project types with the structural elements and
ecosystem restoration. I think that is a really good starting
point for thinking about ways to give non-Federal sponsors some
certainty that there is an end date to their financial
obligations.
Thank you.
Senator Carper. Good. Thanks for that.
Ms. Wallace, a parting thought or two.
Ms. Wallace. Thank you. I want to reiterate my appreciation
to the committee for this important issue.
We are missing out on the benefits of investments on
important non-Federal lands. We are not fully realizing the
potential to improve our Nation's water resources, because we
are limiting the possible locations of those investments. If
Congress does elect to resolve this issue, we could place our
investments where the need and resulting benefit are the
greatest.
Thank you.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Mr. Haase. Thank you, Senator Carper.
One thing I would mention that we have not yet today is
that it would be good for the Corps of Engineers to update its
guidance for local cooperative agreements for local partners.
That has not been updated since 1989. If done in coordination
with a group of non-Federal sponsors from across the Country,
it might be a good launching pad to implement some of the
things we have discussed here today.
Then last, I would just leave you with a thought that while
we are talking about PPAs, we are talking about indemnity, we
are talking about some of these weedy things, these are all
related to projects that have real impacts to communities and
to economies across the Country. They are important that we
address in order to support all those things for our States and
for our Nation.
Thank you.
Senator Carper. All right, good. Thanks.
I said at the beginning of the hearing, if it is not
perfect, make it better, and bipartisan solutions are lasting
solutions. As hard as we try, every 2 years when we pass the
WRDA bill, it is not perfect.
We know there are perfections out there somewhere, and our
determination is to get closer every couple of years to that
perfection and make sure that we are laying the groundwork for
a stronger economy, a better economy, more jobs for people, and
frankly, doing the right thing by our environment.
I want to close; we want to give you some followup
questions. I mentioned we want to submit some questions for the
record, as you might know, and might expect. I am looking at
this, by 4 p.m. today, we would like to have the responses
tomorrow. Well, that is not true.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. We are going to ask our colleagues to
submit their written questions for the record by 4 p.m. on
Wednesday, December 13th. That is when we are asking our
committee to have their questions for the record. We will
compile those at the committee level, working with our friends
on the Republican side, we will send those questions to each of
you and we will ask you to reply by next year, January 3d.
With that, I once again want to give my thanks to Senator
Capito and all our colleagues who have been able to join us
today, and especially to the members of our committee staff,
both minority and majority. We would not be able to have these
hearings without them.
We are going to take what you provided us today, in
addition to that which comes from our questions for the record,
and see if we can not come up with an even better WRDA the next
time around.
Anything else? With that, as we say here, in Senate
language, it is a wrap. With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]