[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2026
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
______________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, AND
RELATED AGENCIES
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee, Chairman
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
KEN CALVERT, California
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi
MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas,
Vice Chair
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida
CELESTE MALOY, Utah
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio,
Ranking Member
JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
MIKE LEVIN, California
FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
SUSIE LEE, Nevada
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Cole, as chairman of the full
committee, and Ms. DeLauro, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Laura Cylke, Perry Yates, Richie O'Connell,
Raynor Buckley and Sykes Connell
Subcommittee Staff
___________________
PART 4
Page
Fiscal Year Budget Requests for the Army Corps of
Engineers (Civil Works) and the Bureau of
Reclamation............................................ 1
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-989 WASHINGTON : 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
TOM COLE, Oklahoma, Chairman
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky,
Chairman Emeritus
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
Tennessee
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
DAVID G. VALADAO, California
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
BEN CLINE, Virginia
GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
TONY GONZALES, Texas
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi
RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
ANDREW S. CLYDE, Georgia
STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida
JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona
CHUCK EDWARDS, North Carolina
MARK ALFORD, Missouri
NICK LaLOTA, New York
DALE W. STRONG, Alabama
CELESTE MALOY, Utah
RILEY M. MOORE, West Virginia
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut,
Ranking Member
STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
GRACE MENG, New York
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
PETE AGUILAR, California
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
NORMA J. TORRES, California
ED CASE, Hawaii
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
JOSH HARDER, California
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
SUSIE LEE, Nevada
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York
MIKE LEVIN, California
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ,
Washington
GLENN IVEY, Maryland
Susan Ross, Chief Clerk and Staff Director
(II)
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2026
__________
Wednesday, May 21, 2025.
FISCAL YEAR 2026 BUDGET REQUESTS FOR THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (CIVIL
WORKS) AND THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
WITNESSES
ROBYN COLOSIMO, P.E., ACTING PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
LIEUTENANT GENERAL WILLIAM H. ``BUTCH'' GRAHAM, JR., CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
AND COMMANDING GENERAL, U.S. ARMY OF CORPS ENGINEERS
SCOTT CAMERON, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE SECRETARY, EXERCISING DELEGATED
AUTHORITY OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Mr. Fleischmann. The hearing will come to order. Thank you.
I know this seems like deja vu all over again, but this
wonderful group was just before us just about a month or so
ago. So always welcome back. Thank you so much.
It is my pleasure to welcome acting principal deputy
assistant secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Robyn
Colosimo, thank you; and chief of engineers and commanding
general of the United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Lieutenant General Butch Graham, to discuss the fiscal year
2026. And I think I forgot somebody, didn't I? Oh, it is
further down. You took care of me. Okay, let's see. I am
equally pleased to welcome senior advisor to the Secretary,
Scott Cameron. Mr. Cameron. Good morning, sir. To discuss the
request for the Bureau of Reclamation and Central Utah Project.
We scheduled this hearing with the expectation that we
would have the full budget request for these critical programs.
I appreciate the challenge facing any new administration in
submitting a timely budget request to Congress. However, we
cannot do our work without those details. I hope we can expect
that information soon so that we can begin the important work
of funding our Nation's Water Resource Development programs.
In the meantime, the administration has provided a top line
budget request for the Corps and Reclamation, highlighting
specific areas where reductions are proposed. The request for
the Corps totals $6.7 billion, a reduction of $2 billion, or
roughly 23 percent. Within the total for the Corps 1.7 billion
is proposed for harbor maintenance trust activities, which is
approximately 1.8 billion below the maximum offset provided in
law. Consistent with prior years, the budget request does not
maximize investment in our Nation's ports and harbors.
One of my top priorities, continuing the progress on the
recapitalization of our Nation's inland waterway system. I was
pleased to see a $32 million included--$32 million included in
fiscal year 2025 work plan to award additional option for the
final contract at Chickamauga Lock, which is in my district. I
want to express my gratitude for the Trump administration's
prioritization of this important project. I look forward to
working with our witnesses to get Chick Loc across the finish
line. In fact, I am going to visit there again next week.
I appreciate the plan's robust investment in construction
on the inland waterway system more broadly, and I hope the full
fiscal year 2026 budget continues that support. We expect
significant outyear demands for this work and the longer we
wait to address today's need, the more difficult it will be to
manage tomorrow's.
For the Bureau of Reclamation and Central Utah project, the
request proposes a total of $1.2 billion, a stated reduction of
$609 million, or approximately 35 percent below the enacted
level. I am concerned that at this level we will not be able to
address the most pressing water resources needs across the
West.
Of particular concern is the ability to continue progress
on existing Indian water rights settlements. Upholding our
Nation's treaty and trust responsibilities is among the
Department of Interior's highest priorities. And we cannot
afford to fail delivering access to safe and reliable water
supplies across Indian Country.
We will wait for the details of the request to analyze the
proposal's impact on farmers, ranchers, and households across
the West that depend on Reclamation's water and power delivery
mission.
I appreciate our witnesses for being here today to explain
your budget requests and discuss the administration priorities
for these agencies. I look forward to working with you and my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to develop a bill that
addresses our Nation's most pressing water resource development
challenges.
With that, now I will turn to my friend, the distinguished
ranking member, Ms. Kaptur, for her opening statement. Ms.
Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
everyone. Thank you for joining us. You build America and we
respect that. I welcome this opportunity to examine recent
actions for the budget requests for the Corps of Engineers and
the Bureau of Reclamation.
Thank you to our witnesses for devoting your lives to the
Nation and for joining us today. Your agencies play a critical
role in developing the resources of our land while mindful of
our obligations to future generations. Your vital work
strengthens our economy, sustains life on Earth, and ensures
public safety against the now constant onslaught of both
increasing natural and human-caused disasters across our
country, which is growing in population headed to a half a
billion people.
For example, the Corps played a vital role in clearing the
waterways after the Key Bridge collapse in Baltimore. Thank you
so much. And you are currently carrying out wildfire debris
removal in Los Angeles County. Thank you for your exemplary
service to our country. You hold us together and all those who
serve in the Corps and the Bureau.
The proposed cuts to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
the Bureau of Reclamation are not just misguided, they are
dangerous. Slashing their budgets and eroding their workforce
endangers people's lives and public safety, undermines economic
growth, and weakens the national welfare of the country in the
face of climate change.
Let's start with the Corps of Engineers. Your work is not
just about dams and levees. It is about protecting lives and
building America's public infrastructure to manage flood
control systems that safeguard our communities from the
devastating effects of extreme weather. And we saw that this
past week with the terrible tornadoes from St. Louis and all
surrounding states. Along the shores of Lake Erie, the largest
freshwater system in the world, we know what is at stake:
erosion, rising lake levels, problems with algal blooms, and
increasingly violent storms threaten homes, businesses, and
public assets. We cannot build safety and a habitable
environment for our growing population on shrinking budgets and
shrinking staff.
In the Great Lakes region, modernization of projects, like
the Soo Locks, are a prime example of long overdue investments
that will turbocharge our economy. One hundred percent of
America's domestic iron ore passes through the Soo Locks. Think
about how important that makes this strategic infrastructure.
Steel is a $500 billion industry. It supports 123,000 middle
class jobs, and I am a strong advocate for reshoring the U.S.
steel industry and growing those numbers. But we have to
modernize the shipping lanes and the waterways and our ports
for today and the future. This project will ensure our
heartland's maritime, industrial, agricultural, and commercial
products are safe and efficiently moved.
Think about our region as the shortest distance by way of
the Atlantic Ocean to the ports of Northern Europe and beyond.
Canada, the Great Lakes, and St. Lawrence Seaway hasten global
trade. And President Eisenhower understood its place within our
continental enterprise and global defense. So must we as we
witness the dawn of the new Arctic age.
Similarly, the Brandon Road Project aims at arresting the
potential enormous economic and environmental damage that can
be unleashed by the invasion of the Asian carp. They could
exterminate local and regional aquatic fish and species, and
that would be devastating to our Great Lakes $7 billion fishery
and its $16 billion recreational boating industry. These are
astounding numbers.
The Corps of Engineers has a return of investments of over
200-to-1 in terms of economic benefits for every dollar
invested. Ports, locks, and inland waterways maintained by the
Corps are vital arteries for our very large Nation and its
commerce. In the Great Lakes region alone, these investments
ensure that goods from American steel to Ohio soybeans can
reach domestic and global markets. And cuts to this work would
cause costly delays, limit our competitiveness, and harm local
economies.
Now, to the Bureau of Reclamation. Though it serves
primarily the western United States, its importance cannot be
overstated. The Bureau manages water supply for over 31 million
Americans in the dry, and I guess I would say coming from my
part of the country, drier Western states, irrigates 10 million
acres of farmland, and generates hydropower for millions of
homes. In this time of unprecedented drought and water stress,
we must bolster, not diminish Reclamation's capacity to invest
in sustainable water systems and innovative conservation
technologies. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover
understood what development west of the Mississippi would
require. So must we.
Let's be clear. Disinvestment in the Corps and Bureau now
will lead to higher costs down the road. Deferred maintenance
becomes disaster recovery. Preventable failures become national
emergencies. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle,
this is not the time to retreat. It is time to lead. We must
provide these agencies with the resources they need to protect
our growing population, strengthen our economy, and safeguard
our environment for generations to come.
Finally, I truly condemn the extreme politicization of
critical Army Corps construction funding decisions as we saw in
last week's work plan. It is yet another reminder that Congress
must reclaim its authority over funding decisions by passing
full year appropriation bills.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members and our guests. I yield
back.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur.
Once again, thank you to our witnesses for being here
today. Without objection, your full written testimonies will be
entered into the record.
With that in mind, we would ask that you please summarize
your opening statements in 5 minutes. And the significance of
that is I am sure we are going to probably have two rounds even
of questions and the like, but I want to make sure that
everybody has an opportunity to ask you questions.
With that, Ms. Colosimo, you are now recognized for your
opening statement. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF ROBYN COLOSIMO, P.E., ACTING PRINCIPAL DEPUTY
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORK)
Ms. Colosimo. Thank you, Chairman Fleishmann, Ranking
Member Kaptur, and distinguished members of the committee. I
want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today to
discuss the President's budget request for the Civil Works
Program of the Army Corps of Engineers.
As you know, the President's discretionary funding request
for the fiscal year 2026 was submitted to Congress earlier this
month. That request laid out the President's priorities for
discretionary funding with recommendations to reach balance and
restore competence in America's fiscal management.
The President's top line discretionary funding request for
fiscal year 2026 includes 6.663 billion for the Army Civil
Works Program. The Civil Works Program has dedicated its
primary missions of commercial navigation, flood and storm
damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The budget
focuses on opportunities to support these missions that provide
high return to the American public, such as facilitating
maritime commerce and addressing the most significant floods
facing communities.
The details of the President's budget, which will present a
unified comprehensive plan for America to address the
overlapping challenges we face in a fiscally and economically
responsible way, will be released in the coming weeks. I look
forward to discussing the details of the fiscal year 2026
funding request for the Civil Works Program of the Army Corps
of Engineers soon thereafter. Since the detailed budget for
fiscal year 2026 has not yet been finalized and released, we
will not be able to discuss capabilities of individual projects
or studies at today's hearing.
While the President's detailed budget request for fiscal
year 2026 has not been released, we did recently release the
fiscal year 2025 work plan for the Civil Works Program. The
work plan supports our coastal ports and inland waterways,
invests in projects that will reduce floods risks, and includes
446 million to advance the President's commitment to restore
Florida's Everglades. I would like to highlight a few examples
of the projects funded in the '25 work plan today.
The fiscal year 2025 work plan will improve commercial
navigation at our Nation's ports and waterways. It includes
264.13 million for the Sault Ste. Marie Replacement Lock in
Michigan; and 172.711 million in the Sabine-Neches Waterway in
Texas; and 33.436 million for the Houston Ship Channel in
Texas, to prepare and place--in that case, to prepare placement
areas for future dredging; and 1.62 million to complete the
validation study for the Matagorda Ship Channel widening and
deepening project in Texas. It also provides 32.19 million for
the Chick Lock and Tennessee River Project; 44 million for the
Upper Ohio, Allegheny, and Beaver Counties, Pennsylvania
project; and 122.9 million to complete the major rehabilitation
of the Illinois Waterway, T.J. O' Brien Lock and Dam. The work
plan also funds important dam safety projects, including
283.719 million for the Rough River Kentucky Project; 65.33
million for the Pipestem Lake, North Dakota, project.
Finally, the Work Plan advances reforms to bring better
value to the American public. For example, it includes 49.25
million for the hydraulic structures validation test bed in
Vicksburg, Mississippi, which will provide a new fiscal
modeling capability that will enable large-scale testing of
lock and down components. This facility will empower the Corps
to innovate infrastructure more efficiently.
The work plan also reflects on the Corps commitments with
its non-Federal partners to accelerate projects and create
efficiencies in their delivery through non-Federal
implementation where appropriate. To that end, the Corps is
developing guidance to implement Section 1043(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2014, as amended. This will allow
the Corps to transfer funds to non-Federal sponsors for the
implementation of projects. The President's '26 budget will
build on this momentum and continue to advance the primary
missions of the Corps.
Thank you for inviting me today and I look forward to the
discussion.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you so much for your opening
statement.
General Graham, you are now recognized, sir, for 5 minutes
for your opening statement. Thank you, sir.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL WILLIAM H. ``BUTCH'' GRAHAM,
JR., CHIEF OF ENGINEERS AND COMMANDING GENERAL, U.S. ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS
General Graham. Chairman Fleischmann, Ranking Member
Kaptur, and members of the subcommittee, I am honored to
testify before you today in regard to the President's fiscal
year 2026 top line discretionary budget request for the United
States Army Corps of Engineers, Civil Works Program.
Through the Civil Works Program, the Army Corps works with
our partners to study, build, and operate water resource
projects focusing on our three main mission areas of commercial
navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic
ecosystem restoration. The navigation program underpins the
national economy, ensuring that commodities can move reliably
and efficiently among 12,000 miles of inland waterways, 13,000
miles of intercoastal waterways, and into 1,000 coastal great
lakes and inland harbors. Our flood and storm damage reduction
program maintains 746 dams and over 13,000 miles of Federal
levees that provide over 200 billion, which is an astonishing
number, in flood damages avoided when averaged over a 10-year
period.
The Army Corps is also the largest owner-operator of
hydroelectric power plants in the United States with 75 plants
producing approximately 25 percent of the Nation's total
hydropower.
As Ms. Colosimo spoke to the Civil Works program is
performance based and focused on high-performing projects and
programs. The Corps uses a targeted approach to invest in water
resources which benefit the Nation now and into the future. The
discretionary request includes nearly 6.7 billion for the Civil
Works Program.
As we discussed when I was last in front of this committee
back in February, our objective every day is to safely deliver
quality projects on schedule and within budget. To this end,
our current, as of yesterday, on-schedule rate across the Civil
Works portfolio is an 81 percent. That is a low B. This
performance is influenced by factors both controllable and
uncontrollable.
Focusing on those things we can control, the Army Corps is
absolutely committed to procedural improvements in the
following three areas. We got to get the engineering right. The
focus here is on the maturity of the design. I remain committed
to my pledge that I made last time I was here to not request
project authorization unless the engineering design is at the
35 percent level.
Second imperative is to get the project management right.
Here we are focusing on crafting logical, fully resourced
schedules and sticking dogmatically to them, ensuring that we
are delivering these important projects with a great sense of
urgency.
Third thing is to get the team that is building these
right. We are striving to bring together the right mix of
talent either by onboard professionals within the Corps or by
leveraging the private sector.
So the path to success is clear. Plan projects thoroughly
and then build them rapidly with the right team of master
craftsmen. I look forward to working with this committee to
stay on that path.
Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today,
and I look forward to answering any questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Fleischmann. General, thank you for your opening
statement.
Mr. Cameron, good morning, sir. You are now recognized for
5 minutes for your opening statement. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT CAMERON, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE SECRETARY,
EXERCISING DELEGATED AUTHORITY OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Mr. Cameron. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Fleischmann,
Ranking Member Kaptur, members of the subcommittee, delighted
to be with you this morning to talk about the President's
fiscal 2026 budget blueprint request for the Bureau of
Reclamation and discuss what our team is doing to make America
safer, stronger, and more prosperous.
Reclamation's projects and programs serve as the water and
power infrastructure backbone of the American West,
constituting an important driver of economic growth in hundreds
of basins throughout the 17 Western states. Reclamation manages
water for agriculture, hydropower production, municipal and
industrial use, and provides flood control and recreation for
90 million people. Reclamation's activities support economic
activity valued at $64 billion and support approximately
500,000 jobs. Reclamation delivers 10 trillion gallons of water
to millions of people each year and provides water for
irrigation of 10 million acres of farmland, which yields
approximately 25 percent of a Nation's fruit and nut crops and
60 percent of the Nation's vegetable harvest.
Bureau of Reclamation's 2026 budget blueprint of 1.2
billion focuses on the core mission of maintaining assets that
provide safe, reliable, and efficient management of water
resources throughout the Western United States. The Water and
Related Resources Appropriations Account is a primary source of
discretionary appropriations for carrying out Reclamation's
mission to manage, develop, and protect water and related
resources in the Western U.S. This account supports the
planning, construction, operations, maintenance, and
rehabilitation of reclamation projects that deliver water for
agricultural, municipal, and industrial use; generate
significant amounts of hydroelectric power; and support
environmental stewardship and recreation. It also supports
programs that promote water conservation, improve
infrastructure reliability, and ensure compliance with
applicable environmental laws.
Within the Water Related Resources Account, appropriations
are organized into several functioning categories. Land
Management and Development covers the stewardship of Federal
lands associated with reclamation projects, including
recreation, cultural resources, and public safety. The Fish and
Wildlife Management Area Development support species and
habitat protection, ensuring compliance with the Endangered
Species Act and other environmental statutes. Facility
Operations ensures that Reclamation's dams, canals, and power
plants operate safely and efficiently to deliver water and
power generation to our communities.
As the chairman mentioned earlier, Indian water rights is a
significant concern for the Bureau of Reclamation, and within a
budget constrained environment we intend to do everything we
can to meet our obligations to Indian tribes.
The Central Valley Project includes multiple divisions,
including the American River Division, Delta, and the Trinity
River Division. Together they maintain and modernize facilities
and increase water conveyance to Southern California and the
San Joaquin Valley. The Klamath Project in Oregon and
California ensures operational flexibility for irrigation
deliveries and natural resource management.
The Bureau of Reclamation's work on the Colorado River is
increasingly important, especially in light of the 2026
expiration of a number of agreements. We are working very
closely at a senior level, very intensively with the governor's
representatives of all seven basin states to help them find a
mutually agreeable path forward, realizing that it needs to be
a state-driven solution.
In summary, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I
look forward to answering your questions and thank you for your
time.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Fleischmann. And I thank you, Mr. Cameron.
We will now begin with questions for 5 minutes. I am going
to ask everybody to please hold their questions to 5 minutes
because we have other people having to move in and out with
other hearings going on, beginning with my own.
General Graham, thank you again for being with us a second
time this year. You and I have already discussed the importance
of finishing the job on Chickamauga Lock serve. I was
disappointed with last year's setback caused by an
uncompetitive bid environment. Many projects have faced similar
challenges in recent years.
With the revised contract currently out for bid, what steps
has the Corps taken to enhance competition and avoid similar
problems? Are there lessons learned that can be applied across
the enterprise?
Finally, more generally, it seems like Chickamauga Lock is
out ahead of several ongoing inland waterway construction
projects. In what ways are you leveraging this project as a
learning opportunity to improve project delivery across the
Nation? Thank you, sir.
General Graham. Chairman Fleischmann, thank you for that
question. Specifically on increasing competition at
Chickamauga, a lot of our facilities are in remote areas where,
and as the ranking member mentioned earlier, the Soo Lock and
Dam is another example, where we have got to go and make the
steps necessary to attract contractors and the labor force to
go to these remote areas. So the lesson learned from the
unsuccessful last project award is we have a targeted marketing
campaign that we have had ongoing to reach out to the 26
largest prime contractors that do this work. The pool of
contractors, general contractors that do this work that have
the bonding capacity to do this level of work is fairly
limited. And we know who those are. So this time around, the
District and with support from its division were much more
targeted in reaching out to those contractors.
They held virtual site visits to attract talent. And I am
happy to announce we had 74 attendees join us for that virtual
site visit. And then they did, before the proposals went out,
they did on site pre-proposal site visits. And we had over a 2-
day period 75 contractors showed up on the first day, 24 showed
up on the second day. And so that is many, many more than we
have had at the pre-proposal visits in the past. And so that is
a best practice. And for all of our construction projects in
remote areas, Mr. Chairman, we plan to make sure that the
districts are following those best practices.
Sir, your second question was how are we getting better at
making sure that we have got the right team doing the design
work and doing the construction work? We have consolidated
that. Chickamauga and the Kentucky Lock and Dam, those two
Tennessee River projects, those are legacy projects. We haven't
done work that way for 10 years. What we do now is all the
design for the inland system is with one center, the Inland Nav
Design Center. Just like how you get good at anything, it is
reps and sets. And so we are not building locks and dams in all
the districts throughout the country. We are doing them in one
or two specific districts at any given time. And so that that
will concentrate the design reps and sets.
The second thing we are doing then is once you design it,
you got to build it. And so we are concentrating the
contracting and then the construction into two districts. And
those will be Pittsburgh and Rock Island. And that will give
them the reps and sets. In fact, Pittsburgh just took over the
construction of the Kentucky Lock and Dam. We are leaving
Chickamauga with the Nashville district with close oversight.
And we are confident that we will get that this contract
awarded this summer and we will get this lock up into operation
by '28.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. In my remaining time, Mr.
Cameron, thank you for your opening remarks about Indian water
rights and settlements. Very important to us and I think
members on both sides of the dais. Can you provide us a status
update for the subcommittee on ongoing settlements? And
recognizing you can't share the details about the request, can
you please speak to the administration's big picture plans and
vision for delivering on those commitments? Mindful we have
less than a minute.
Mr. Cameron. Mr. Chairman, we are focused primarily on the
statutory deadlines for fulfilling our financial obligations to
Indian Tribes. That is the top priority. The second priority is
working with Tribes to figure out how they might contribute to
a broader settlement of water rights issues on a regional basis
and water allocation, such as in the Colorado River Basin.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
At this time I would like to recognize the ranking member,
Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes for questions.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for your testimony.
General Graham, I wanted to ask your help, and you already
are helping with your FUSRAP program for the areas that have
been contaminated around our country. And one of these is in
Northwest Ohio, in the town of Luckey, not far from where I
grew up and still live today. The Toledo Blade, over the last
couple of months, has done superb reporting on the history of
this site and the whole horrors done to the workers and
surrounding community during the Cold War as part of the
nuclear weapons race under the purview of the former Atomic
Energy Commission.
Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would like to place on the
record two important articles from the Blade on this topic.
Mr. Fleischmann. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. General Graham and Ms.
Colosimo, as part of this reporting, the Blade discovered
radioactive substances in multiple locations around the Luckey
site which were above normal. You have been very proactive,
thank you, in communicating with me and my staff on this topic.
However, one of the things you told my office was that you had
confirmed that the radioactive materials discovered by the
Blade were not related to the Luckey site. Did we understand
that correctly? Is that still your position?
General Graham. Yes, ma'am, it is.
Ms. Kaptur. Okay. Can you please explain to me what other
possible sources of this magnitude of radiation might be
responsible for its presence in this area if not for the Luckey
site?
General Graham. Ranking Member Kaptur, thank you. We remain
confident that no FUSRAP-related material has migrated off the
Luckey site and we are committed to a safe remediation of that
site.
Ms. Kaptur. I understand what happened in St. Louis is a
possible analog to what is happening in our area. In that case,
the contamination was migrating through the soil to the water.
Is that a possible explanation here?
General Graham. Not that I am aware of.
Ms. Kaptur. I am very concerned about this situation and
would like to have more clarity on what is in the water, what
is in the soil, and what the dangers are to this region. Can
you commit to me that you will get the water and soil tested?
General Graham. Working with our state partners, with Ohio
EPA, they are the ones that are currently doing the water
testing. And so we are being absolutely transparent with them
with what is on the Luckey site and our remediation plan.
Ms. Kaptur. Can you commit to me that you will continue to
keep us informed of everything that is going on out there, even
to do a public briefing at some point, in the region?
General Graham. Absolutely.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. I want to change topics to
Brandon Road. The Brandon Road Project is aimed at arresting
the economic and environmental damage unleashed by the
unfortunate migration of Asian carp species that will
definitely eliminate our massive fishery if allowed to proceed
up into the Great Lakes. It is vital that the Brandon Road
Project proceed in a timely manner.
Could you kindly, General Graham, tell us the status in
getting all Federal and state entities on the same page to
proceed with the project?
General Graham. Ranking Member Kaptur, thank you for that
question on Brandon Roads. The President had signed a memo in
support of that on the 9th of May, and on that same date,
Governor Pritzker had a press release saying that his needs are
net and that Illinois is working to get the necessary real
estate. So with that in hand, we released the solicitation for
contract 1(a) last Friday. And what that first contract is for
is for the bubbling system and the acoustic system. This is
part of a multilayered defense. And so that contract has been
released. And once that is awarded and constructed, that will
be the start of fish deterrence, which is great news.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. Is it possible for your staff to get
us the press release or whatever went out seeking contractors
in that area?
General Graham. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Kaptur. Appreciate that very much. Do we assume that
the fiscal year 2026 budget request will include the full
capability for the Brandon Road Project?
Ms. Colosimo. Ma'am, we are certainly going to put forth
the best estimate we can and have the administration consider
it. We do expect to have the fiscal year 2026 here soon, but
the President signaling his interest in this project, in
support of it, will be helpful action there.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. I am going to really
switch to another subject here.
General Graham, do you share General Spellman's goal of 70
percent use of dredge material for beneficial use by 2030?
General Graham. Absolutely.
Ms. Kaptur. You do. Thank you very much on that.
My time has expired. And thank you so very much for
answering our questions this morning.
Mr. Fleischmann. And thank you, Ranking Member Kaptur. We
will have a second round for anybody who would like to ask
additional questions.
At this time, I would like to recognize my friend Mr.
Simpson of Idaho. He is chairman of the Interior Subcommittee
of Appropriation and has also served as distinguished chair of
this subcommittee in the past.
Mr. Simpson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for
being here today. You are the largest construction company in
the world and you do a great job. And you have projects in
every congressional district, I believe. And we sometimes
complain, but we are really good at that. So I will start off
by complaining just a little bit. Not really.
I have been working on a project, Gooding, Idaho, the
Gooding Wall replacement, for about 20 years now. In fact, I
have been told by some of my constituents down there that I
can't retire and enjoy the rest of my life until this gets
done. So you are affecting my future by not getting this done.
The design for the project seemed to be moving along just
fine until the Corps recently had to increase its cost
estimates for the project. Now the city of Gooding will have to
consider alternatives, including shrinking the project's
footprint and attempting to get more funding in order to keep
the project moving forward. Seems to me we are going in a--we
are going a bit out of order here. Are there ways the Army
Corps of Engineers could do things differently or authorities
that Congress could provide you all that we have better ideas
of the true cost of these projects before we have funded them?
And along that same line, depending on how Gooding wants to
proceed, we may approach the 902 limit for the project. Should
we hit that limit, do I have your commitment that the Corps
will do its part in providing the information needed to
increase the project's authorized level and will continue to do
the work to express capabilities in future fiscal years?
General Graham. Representative Simpson, thank you for that
question. On the last part of the question first, absolutely on
the 902 limit.
On the cost increases, we absolutely have to do a better
job. Last hearing that was our commitment to this subcommittee,
and that all starts with getting the engineering right. No more
putting out a programming number where we are unsure about what
it is we are going to build. Right? You can say, hey, I want to
go build a house and put a number out there. But until you know
you want a three-car garage, four bedrooms, and three bathrooms
with a walk-in pantry, you don't really know with good
certainty what that construction project is likely to cost.
And in the past we have done that. We have asked for
authorization where we don't really have the scope defined
and--because we don't have the engineering advanced at least up
to 35 percent design. So on Gooding, that is a case where we
absolutely have to make sure we get the engineering right at
the beginning.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, I appreciate that. And just
remember, you are affecting my future and the enjoyment of my
future.
Anyway, one other question or a couple others. Snake River
quagga mussels, as you know, in 2023, we found quagga mussels
in the Columbia Basin starting in the Snake River, and the
Department of Agriculture in Idaho started an eradication
program. The Corps is currently partnered with the state of
Idaho in its efforts to control the spread of these quagga
mussels in the Columbia River Basin and is authorized to
provide up to 50 percent cost share for rapid response efforts
on quagga mussels. What is the current status of the Corps'
reimbursement to the state of Idaho for eligible expenses in
the quagga mussel treatment?
General Graham. Representative Simpson, thanks for that.
The Aquatic Plant Control Project remains currently funded, but
we will run out of funding in that program at the end of fiscal
year 2026.
Mr. Simpson. We will try to make a change in that.
Okay. I am going to ask a question about Albeni Falls Dam
in North Idaho on Lake Pend Oreille. The Corps has determined
that the locks are inadequate or are defective and that
probably all of them are, and so they are going to have to be
replaced. The community in North Idaho, I mean, this affects
the level of the lakes and so forth, and the community--
recreation is a huge issue up there. And so the lake levels
change because of that because you are conservatively
monitoring that. The communities are concerned that this--your
estimate that it may take till the end of the decade to replace
this. Is that where we still are, that it will take that long?
General Graham. Representative Simpson, we absolutely
understand that the risk reduction measures we have had to take
place by lowering the pool that that affects the users around
the lake and we take that very seriously. But the spillway
gates need repair. They are in design right now. And like I
said earlier, with a good engineering estimate, then we can put
a good construction estimate out there. But our commitment to
you is to get those gates repaired and get the lake level back
to its water control manual levels as soon as possible.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Cameron, one other question. I
am glad, as the chairman is, that you mentioned the Indian
water rights. It is going to eat the Interior budget. These
water rights settlements are enormous cost. We have wondered
why they don't come out of the judgment fund, like other
settlements do that the Federal Government engages in. But that
is something we will have to explore. But I wanted to ask you
what is the water outlook for Idaho right now for the upcoming
growing season?
Mr. Cameron. Mr. Simpson, the West is in chronic drought in
most places. It varies, obviously, regionally. My understanding
is that Idaho is probably not much worse than most of the rest
of the West. And some parts of the state are actually in better
shape.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you all for being here and for what you
do.
Mr. Fleischmann. Mr. Simpson, I thank you again, for all
you do and for your questions.
At this time, I would like to recognize my friend and
colleague, Mr. Levin of California, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Levin. I thank my friend, the chairman, and I thank you
all for being here.
The Army Corps Civil Works Program has a long history of
funding critical infrastructure work for water resource
development. In California, where I am from, that has often
included flood control and beach nourishment. And the Corps
strength as an institution rests in nonpartisanship and in its
ability to provide engineering and construction support
regardless of political affiliation. The nonpartisan nature of
the Corps ensures that projects are executed objectively and
meet the needs of the public. And I think that all of us in
this room can agree that our vital infrastructure simply should
never be partisan.
So, Ms. Colosimo, I was shocked when I saw the Corps
released its fiscal year 2025 work plan last week, which zeroed
out funding for critical construction projects in California.
And when you dig deeper into the numbers, you see that the
administration has shifted more than $250 million away from the
construction of critical infrastructure projects in the so-
called blue states, like California and Washington, and moved
it to the so-called red states.
Ms. Colosimo, do you agree that the Corps should operate in
a nonpartisan manner?
Ms. Colosimo. Yes, sir. We should always be nonpolitical.
Mr. Levin. I appreciate that. I have the numbers right in
front of me that indicate that that may not be taking place.
The Corps decided not to fund projects in California that were
in the fiscal year 2025 budget request and included in both the
House and Senate bills on a bipartisan basis. That includes
$34.4 million for the American River Common Features Project,
$38.5 million for the Pajaro River Project, $10 million for the
San Joaquin River Basin Project, and $43.5 million for the West
Sacramento Project. It simply does not make sense that the most
populous state in the country should receive $0 for
construction work.
And this isn't limited to California. In total, the so-
called blue states saw a reduction of nearly half a billion
dollars, while the so-called red states saw an increase of $257
million. I am going to repeat, these Corps projects should be
nonpartisan. They should be focused on saving lives, reducing
damage to property, and spurring local economies.
And this is what I think a lot of us feared when we saw
that our colleagues rushed through the continuing resolution
that stripped Congress' ability to direct funds with state and
local input, and instead gave all discretion to the
administration to unilaterally decide how to dole out taxpayer
funds. I would hope that my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle find this as distasteful as I do. This is a lousy
precedent that is being set here.
Ms. Colosimo and General Graham, can you both commit to
standing up against efforts in future work plans and budget
requests that would further politicize the Army Corps budgeting
decisions?
Ms. Colosimo. Yes, sir. If I may, we always put forth the
best projects. In this case, it is a dicey situation, as you
said. You know, the House and Senate marks were around 3
billion and we were at the continuing resolution of about 1.8.
So they made hard choices, the administration did, and they had
that discretion.
Mr. Levin. Do you--reclaiming my time. Do you have any
other possible explanation for the way the administration wants
to distribute these funds other than partisanship?
Ms. Colosimo. They wanted to prioritize life safety,
flooding, and American prosperity.
Mr. Levin. And you think all of the projects in California,
Washington, and other states don't do that?
Ms. Colosimo. It is not my judgment to make. That was what
they prioritized within the funds that they had discretion to
allocate.
Mr. Levin. Right. General, would you care to comment on
this?
General Graham. I go with Ms. Colosimo.
Mr. Levin. I guess no, you don't want to comment on this.
Mr. Cameron, you want to comment on this?
Mr. Cameron. Sir, I have gotten no insight at all into the
Corps' budgetary process. I can tell you at Interior, the
Bureau of Reclamation, we try to invest our dollars where we
can manage--produce the greatest benefit and the greatest
public safety.
Mr. Levin. Based on the technical and the engineering
aspects of these projects, do you feel that that has been done,
that taking money, $250 million, away from the so-called blue
states, giving it to the so-called red states? Do you think
that that is consistent with solid engineering and technical
work that is been done on these projects? Do you really believe
that, Ms. Colosimo?
Ms. Colosimo. I believe all the projects put forth are good
projects.
Mr. Levin. That is not what I asked.
Ms. Colosimo. What I said was I believe they were all good
projects. How they stack against the projects one by one is
difficult to answer in one sound bite.
Mr. Levin. Well, you have 33 seconds.
Ms. Colosimo. I do believe they represent----
Mr. Levin. You have 33 seconds.
Ms. Colosimo [continuing]. The priority of the
administration of life safety, flooding, and coastal.
Mr. Levin. And you already said that. Try again.
Ms. Colosimo. That is what I believe.
Mr. Levin. Okay. You think that this was all on the level?
You don't think there is any partisanship at all?
Ms. Colosimo. I believe they had to make trade-offs that I
was not privy to.
Mr. Levin. Right. And those trade-offs were of a partisan
nature, weren't they?
Ms. Colosimo. I don't believe they were partisan, but that
is their decision.
Mr. Levin. You don't believe they were partisan? So what is
the explanation if it is not partisanship.
Ms. Colosimo. It is the priorities they placed that were
different than priorities than other projects. You would have
to ask them directly.
Mr. Levin. Okay. I am out of time, but I find your
testimony to be completely unbelievable. Thank you.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Levin.
Going in the order of how folks showed up, I now recognize
my friend and colleague, Ms. Lee of Nevada, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lee. I was waiting for a Republican, but, okay, thank
you.
Mr. Fleischmann. Give me these rules and I try to be
evenhanded, so.
Ms. Lee. All right. I like it. I like it. I will take it.
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being here.
Mr. Cameron, I obviously am concerned about the water
negotiations on the Colorado River. And as we gather here, as
you know, the American Southwest is confronting the effects of
the worst drought in 1,200 years. In fact, our local newspaper
just had an article on basically saying we expect Lake Mead,
the water runoff to be about at 55 percent of average in this
summer. So it is just getting worse. And so these negotiations
are incredibly important; 40 million people, including my
constituents, rely on the Colorado River. So, you know,
successfully coming to an agreement and implementing new
operating guidelines is incredibly important.
I heard you say, I just want to get confirmation, that the
Bureau is prioritizing a consensus-based approach to crafting
these guidelines as it has done during previous negotiations.
Is that correct?
Mr. Cameron. Absolutely, Congresswoman Lee. When I first
briefed the Secretary on the Colorado, he gave me three orders.
The first, is the Department's senior political leadership will
be working intensely with the seven states. The second priority
or second decision was he really wants a seven-state solution
and we are to work aggressively with the seven states to
achieve that. The third is in the unfortunate, we hope
unlikely, circumstance that the seven states can't come to an
agreement, he will exercise his responsibility as watermaster
in Lower Basin.
Ms. Lee. Great. You know, I would be remiss if I didn't
alert you to an amendment that was passed in the middle of the
night during the natural resources markup of this big bad bill
that is being negotiated in the Rules Committee as we speak.
And I may have to leave to go propose an amendment, but it sets
a precedent for the, one, for the selling of public lands,
which my colleague Mr. Simpson adamantly opposes. But more
concerning to our work is it sets the stage for a potential
water grab by the state of Utah, throwing a wrench into these
already enormously complicated negotiations.
And so I hope to get reassurance from you and the Bureau
that we can ensure that this type of water grab would be
addressed in these negotiations.
Mr. Cameron. Congressman, I am unfamiliar with what
happened last night. What I can tell you is as recently as last
week, in Sacramento, met with the representatives of seven
basin states and they were making substantial progress together
in a very cooperative fashion. And I have got to give John
Ensign, the Nevada state rep, credit. He has been a real leader
and been very creative on these things. So really value
Nevada's active involvement.
Ms. Lee. Absolutely. Well, you know, our economy and our
life depends on it. So I just want to alert you to that. I hope
that you and your staff will take that into consideration.
I want to now turn to the skinny budget that we saw that
saw a $609 million reduction for the Bureau, which is crazy.
And, you know, we didn't get too many specifics, but I am
hearing some concerning reports that this includes--may include
zeroing out funding for the Water Smart Program altogether. Now
listen, this is a highly successful program. When you want to
talk about dealing with these negotiations, I think we should
be doing everything possible for reduction and reuse of water.
But this basically allows the Bureau to work with Western
states to limit water loss by providing grant funding that has
been critical for projects in Nevada, such as converting 1.45
million acre feet--or square feet of athletic fields to water-
friendly turf.
You know, I hope--I just want to confirm am I hearing only
rumors or is this what is coming down the pike?
Ms. Colosimo. I'm not in a position, as you know, to talk
about the details of the President's budget at this point. I
can tell you that water conservation, particularly in the
Colorado drainage, is a priority of this administration. And we
will look--use every tool at our disposal to work with the
seven basin states to achieve the water conservation goals in
both the upper and lower basins.
Ms. Lee. All right. You know, it is already been, just
before I close out, it is been brought to my attention that
existing Water Smart funding opportunities have been under
review. So I hope we can get your assurance that these already
appropriated Water Smart initiatives will still remain open for
application.
Ms. Colosimo. Congresswoman, I believe actually we are--
sometime this summer we are going to be coming out with the
fiscal year 2025 Water Smart Notice of Funding opportunity. So,
yeah, they are in the pipeline.
Ms. Lee. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Fleischmann. Ms. Lee, I thank you for your questions.
At this time I would like to recognize my friend, the
distinguished gentleman from California and the chair of the
Defense Subcommittee of Appropriations, Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Great, thank you, thank you. And General,
thank you for what you are doing in L.A. I know you are ahead
of schedule, I hope to be done but by July, I understand, on
the cleanup part of that disaster. And so we want to work with
you to make sure that it is done. Right. Most of the people
signed up for just a de minimis number, unfortunately did not.
But so it looks like it is on schedule and you are going to get
it all done by July?
General Graham. We are on track right now to meet that
need. I know that it was important to try to get Pacific Coast
Highway open, and we are working with the governor of
California on that as we speak.
Mr. Calvert. And I understand that some of your facilities
are going to be used for the '28 Olympics. And so are they
budgeting for that? Is the budget going to support the Corps
involvement in that national effort?
General Graham. Representative Calvert, I don't have the
answer to that question right now, but as soon as we know that,
we will share that with you.
Mr. Calvert. Let us know. And regarding these negotiations
with the upper and lower basin states here in California,
obviously, California is, like, always a donor state. And so,
you know, with the water rights primarily with Imperial
Irrigation District and other agencies in Southern California.
So I know those negotiations are ongoing, but obviously you
have to recognize those previous water rights. And we love our
friends in Nevada and Arizona and elsewhere, but that has to be
worked out delicately. More water lawyers involved in that than
I can count.
But to make up for that, we are going to need additional
water delivery from the north to the south, and obviously the
San Joaquin Delta and trying to move this conveyance system
along. How are we--how is that moving along?
Unfortunately, we didn't go with a dual pipe system. We
would have had it built by now. But nonetheless, how is the
single pipe system coming?
Mr. Cameron. So, a couple thoughts, Mr. Calvert. The first
is, I can assure you, I am reminded almost on a weekly basis of
who has got senior water rights everywhere in the Colorado
Basin. So it is not something anyone lets me forget, and, you
know, we are very mindful of that.
Speaking in terms of the Delta and the Central Valley
Project more generally, the administration is working very hard
with the water districts both north of the delta and south of
the delta to come up with a water management regime that will
allow more water to head south. We are lucky this year, Shasta
is fairly close to full, which is a good thing. But it is
unlikely that that will be the pattern, you know, year after
year after year. So we definitely need more water storage in
California. There is no doubt about that.
We have got no particular position on the governor's latest
proposal for an additional conveyance. We are watching that
closely. We are interested. Anything that creates more
flexibility in terms of how we manage water in California would
be very helpful and very much appreciated.
Mr. Calvert. Well, obviously we need to build sites. I am
going to have a meeting on that later today and, you know,
hopefully that is going to be--all the approvals are going to
be finalized here very soon and that we are actually going to
get that under construction. And of course, I hope Shasta, you
know, to me as we have been going through the permitting
process for so long on Shasta, that hopefully we can get an
agreement. We are initially going to raise that, what, 16, 18
feet, but that delivers about 600,000 acre feet of wet water.
So it also works well for water management. So I hope we can do
that, also.
One last question to you, General. Obviously the L.A.
district's been actively involved in several projects in my
district. The Prado Dam, Murrieta Creek Project, which I would
like to hopefully see completed in my lifetime, not just like
Mr. Simpson's time in Congress, within my lifetime. So how are
we doing on those projects?
General Graham. Representative Calvert, on Murrieta Creek,
Phase 2-Bravo should be awarded in June of this year. So we are
excited to see that move forward and we are reengineering the
Phase 2-Charlie and we will work to fit that in within
available funding.
On Prado, delighted to see that the base preconstruction
service contract was awarded in April of this year. And what
that allow us to do is to make sure that we have a construction
contractor looking at our design and they will have an
opportunity to go ahead and do the construction which we hope
to get out next year.
Mr. Calvert. Just one final comment if I can, Mr. Chairman,
but I was around when we had the devastating floods in the
early '90s that wiped out all those helicopters at Camp
Pendleton. Santa Margarita Creek overflowed and it is a huge
cost when--I forget the number, but it was a big number. So we
don't want that to happen again. So I hope we can keep Murrieta
Creek on track and finish that up.
General Graham. Sure.
Mr. Calvert. Great. Thank you. And that does have
downstream consequence, even to my friend Mr. Levin, because
that goes into his district. So there is a project I hope to
get funded in California.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you Mr. Calvert.
At this time I would like to recognize my friend and
colleague from Indiana, Mr. Mrvan, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mrvan. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Panel. I want to
follow up on a line of questioning from our oversight hearing
in February.
There is an issue with finding storage for contaminated
sentiment in the harbors. This is extremely costly. In the case
of the Michigan City harbor, this hampers the Corps ability to
dredge the entirety of the channel. When I asked Major Condrey
about the issue in February, there was not clear answers on the
path forward to address this issue. Specifically, what is being
done to find additional capacity for dredged materials and what
are some of the specific challenges that you can point to that
Congress might be able to helpful--be helpful in addressing?
General Graham. Representative Mrvan, thank you for that
question. And we are tracking closely the dredge material
disposal site at the edge of the Calumet River where it meets
Lake Michigan. With the change of support from Illinois, what
that has allowed us to do is to--and the lawsuit being
dismissed, now we can have open discussions with the state
which are ongoing right now, which is, okay, what is next? We
weren't able to do that before, so we got that cleared out of
our way. And so those, those discussions are ongoing.
Mr. Mrvan. What are the discussions? What are the hurdles
that have to be overcome with those discussions?
General Graham. It is location, location, location. Where
is the material going to go?
Mr. Mrvan. What are the options?
General Graham. I don't have that at my fingertips, but we
can get that to you.
Mr. Mrvan. What is the timeline in which a decision might
be made?
General Graham. I don't know.
Mr. Mrvan. Okay. What as a Member of Congress can we do or
Congress can we do to find new capacity? What is your
percentage of that working out with Illinois?
General Graham. So right now, we have nowhere to put that
material, I believe, as you well know. And our commitment is to
continue to work with the state to find a viable solution.
Mr. Mrvan. So you are working with the state of Illinois
for a viable solution?
General Graham. That is correct.
Mr. Mrvan. If that is not a viable solution, what is option
B or C?
General Graham. We have taken a look to see if we can use
other CDFs around the area, particularly maybe down in Indiana.
But the district reports that the capacity for those are
already claimed, so that is not viable right now.
Mr. Mrvan. Okay. As my colleague mentioned, it is viable.
Obviously, this sentiment is going to keep coming up when we
talk about commerce, when we talk about the steel industry,
when we talk about having the navigable ability to be able to
get through those waters, it all is contingent upon the
dredging of the sentiment. But yet we don't have an answer to
where that sentiment might go, which is holding up projects.
General Graham. Absolutely agree. The importance of the
Great Lakes harbors to the economy of the region is
tremendously important. Also acknowledge that there is a great
deal of concern out there that from the legacy pollution that
is in those sediments that the public rightfully fears that
they don't want that to do any more harm. And so, that is our
commitment. And I know that is not your----
Mr. Mrvan. We are absolutely on the same page.
General Graham. Right.
Mr. Mrvan. I want to protect the community first.
General Graham. Absolutely.
Mr. Mrvan. Clean waterways second.
General Graham. Absolutely, sir. Absolutely. And so right
now, or before, we had a roadblock that we couldn't advance
discussions with the state because of the lawsuit, that
roadblock has been cleared, and so now those discussions are
ongoing. So if we believe that and more engagement by any of
the Great Lakes congressional representatives would be helpful,
we will certainly reach out.
Mr. Mrvan. Okay. What I am asking for and getting to is
that we have an open line of communication that my office,
along with the department, and the Army Corps is able to
understand what the path forward is. So the impact that it has
on those projects going forward we have an understanding of
what will be going on and the protection of our communities.
General Graham. Absolutely.
Mr. Mrvan. And then on a micro scale, Northwest Indiana is
near Chicago. Chicago headquarters was on the list to be
eliminated. It is now off the list. There is a small office in
Griffith that allows people to use as a workstation, that is on
the list. What is the current situation with obviously to
assure me that the Chicago headquarters stays there, because
that is the capacity that the Federal building didn't have the
ability for them to move into. And then secondly, what is the
Calumet office and Griffith's future look like?
General Graham. Representative Mrvan, the district is
staying put. The area office, we are still working this with
GSA, but we have our own real estate authorities that I can
enter into year by year by year leases if we need to, and we
will exercise that real estate authority if we have to. We are
trying to find a more efficient way.
Mr. Mrvan. Okay. If we can find an efficient way to keep
that, simply because it has to do with the--the productivity--
--
General Graham. That is right.
Mr. Mrvan [continuing]. Of what goes on in my district. And
I thank you very much for your time. I yield back.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Mervyn. At this time, I
would like to recognize my friend and colleague from
Washington, Mr. Newhouse, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate that very
much. Thank you all for being with us this morning, and thanks
for your work, such an important topic in the arid West. I want
to direct my first question to you, Mr. Cameron. First of all,
appreciate your response to a letter that my office sent to
you, as well as some of my colleagues co-signed the letter
regarding the imminent failure of the Yakima Titan Irrigation
District Canal. It is in my district. Certainly look forward to
working together with you to find solutions to prevent this
canal from devastating impacts of impending failure. I know the
Bureau's aware of the current state of the canal and certainly
the importance to the area and the lives and livelihoods
literally hanging in the balance because of the situation
there.
What I would like to do is just respond and what some of
you mentioned in your letter, that you have directed the Bureau
to provide any assistance necessary to the district to prepare
and submit an application for the aging infrastructure account
and to further evaluate whether the activities qualify as an
emergency extraordinary operation and maintenance work, and
that you expect a final decision sometime very soon by this
fall, so that work could commence as early as 2026. I just want
to tell you how important it is to adhere to the timeline in
order to prevent the catastrophic impacts of failure of this
canal, which, you know, usually we like to say it could happen.
This is imminent. It is just the situation is such that it is
not a matter of if, but it is a matter of when, and so we have
to be as prepared as possible. So would just love to have your
commitment to continue working with my office and the
Irrigation District to make sure that this work happens.
Mr. Cameron. Mr. Newhouse, you are absolutely correct. It
is a very bad situation. I have met with representatives from
the area on at least one, maybe two, or three occasions,
actually. We were able to provide a small emergency grant. We
were able to provide a loan. And as you indicated, there will
be an opportunity to submit a proposal. It is a very bad
situation, and we are monitoring carefully. We want to be as
cooperative as we possibly can to reduce the public health and
safety risk and the economic risk to the area.
Mr. Newhouse. It truly is an all-hands-on-deck situation.
So I appreciate your commitment. Thank you. Then I would like
to direct a question to you, General Graham, Lieutenant
General. Thank you for being with us this morning. I wanted to
draw your attention to two very important construction projects
that are imperative to the movement of over $31 billion--
billion--worth of cargo annually on the Columbia Snake River
system. Certainly, the first of that is the South jetty located
at the mouth of the system that requires at least $30 million
in additional funding to complete the rehabilitation project,
which is certainly critical for preventing sand from impeding
the navigation channel in the event of a breach.
Second, it is my understanding that the gate replacement at
Bonneville and McNary Locks is being planned for 2030. As you
know, an unplanned outage could be detrimental to the entire
system, and there are no redundant locks. I must acknowledge
the men and women of the Corps who perform regular maintenance
on this infrastructure that is critical to prevent an outage
that impacts navigation on the entire system.
These projects were not included in the recently released
fiscal year 2025 work plan, and I am concerned that the work
will extend beyond the 2030 date target because of a series of
components and systems that need to be repaired or replaced in
sequence between now and then to stay on track. So, just a
question as to how you will work with the Portland and Walla
Walla districts to ensure they are able to complete the jetty
rehabilitation that was started almost 10 years ago, I believe,
as well as stay on track for the 2030 gate replacements in a
planned and coordinated fashion.
General Graham. Representative Newhouse, thank you for
those questions. Absolutely committed to making sure that the
Columbia River system is maintained as a reliable engine of
commerce for the Pacific Northwest. I have got a daughter that
lives in Portland, and so I get out there as often as I can.
Mr. Newhouse. It is a great state.
General Graham. It is. It is amazing. So our commitment to
make sure that the South jetty work, critical work, that
continues, as well as on Bonneville and McNary, making sure
that the cranes are in good repair to be able to move the gates
and that the gate maintenance and is on track for 2030. And we
will continue to work with your office to keep you informed.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay. I look forward to that as the work plan
moves forward. So thank you very much. Again, thank you all for
being here. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Fleischmann. And I thank you, Mr. Newhouse. At this
time, I would like to recognize my friend and the Chairman of
the House Ethics Committee, Mr. Guest of Mississippi, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To our witnesses, thank
you for joining us today. As we begin, I want to first mention
the incredible work of the research and development that we see
the Army Corps conducting at your ERDC sites across the
country. Know that there are seven labs across four states: New
Hampshire, Illinois, Virginia, and my home state of
Mississippi. So I always want to take a moment to brag about
the incredible work and what I believe is a substantial return
on investment that those sites provide not only to the Army
Corps of Engineers, but the American public as a whole.
As we start looking at fiscal year 2026 budgets, I see
that, at least the information we have, we see a reduction in
the Army Corps of Engineers budget. And while I, and other
members of this committee, want to be good stewards of taxpayer
dollars, I believe that the funding of the Army Corps of
Engineers is an investment. It is an investment for the
American public. Unlike some other spending that the Federal
Government may authorize, the money that we spend on the Army
Corps of Engineers is extremely important, and you do some
amazing work.
And so, as we look at the potential of a reduction in
budget going into the next budgetary cycle, I know that the
Army Corps manages a large portion of the portfolio of
infrastructure across the country. Some of that infrastructure
is aging. And so can you talk just generally about how we are
going to make sure that with the reduction in budget that we
are delivering on the commitments that we have made to various
communities across our Nation?
Ms. Colosimo. So, if I may, I think just like we were
talking about earlier with Mr. Levin, we are going to continue
to focus on the priorities of the administration, right? So I
would expect those same priorities to be focused on life,
safety, flooding, and American prosperity. That extends a broad
net. It doesn't mean other things aren't included. But we
believe that will be the initial umbrella under which we will
fall. And there are many, many investments there.
Mr. Guest. And then I want to talk just about one instance
specific to my district. I know that as we continue to move
forward, we have issues at times with staffing, with personnel.
A press release came out just today from the Army Corps of
Engineers Mobile District announcing the closure of roughly
half a dozen recreational sites across their area of control.
One of those there in my home state of Mississippi, in which is
a 3,800 acre lake, about 11,000 total acreages within the
recreational area that has been closed, at least temporarily,
no timeframe as to how long those closures will last as we come
into Memorial Day, as we come into the Fourth of July, the
summer months where people would be much more likely to use
these recreational areas. And also, these recreational areas
have an economic impact on the businesses that serve those. I
am concerned that these temporary closures may last through the
summer, well into the summer, again, the times in which these
facilities would be most used. We see at least this facility
that I am talking about specifically is being shuttered
indefinitely.
And so I just ask one, and I hope that this is the
exception to the rule, that we don't see widespread closures
across the country. But I would just ask for a commitment from
each of you that you would look into the closings of this
facility and the facilities in general to see that these
facilities reopen as quickly as possible, knowing that we need
to make sure the facilities are properly maintained, that we
are providing safety for those individuals that use those
facilities, but balancing maintenance and public safety also
with the use of those facilities. And so if you all would each
promise me that you all would look into the reopening of these
facilities as quickly as possible. I would greatly appreciate
it if anyone would like to respond further, would be happy to,
but not asking for a more thorough response than that.
Ms. Colosimo. I would like to respond briefly if that is
okay. Appreciate you raising this, right? Recreation is an
incidental mission for all of our projects, right? But a huge
one to the local economy, and what people see every day in
their lives. And yet, we find ourselves in the situation where
we are downsizing our workforce because of voluntary departures
from Federal service, and that has hit some places hard. And
recreation is the first one that is really coming about. And
so, we are working with the corporate Corps to work through a
process to figure out how we can start to bring folks on during
a hiring freeze. It is challenged by how close this was
happening as the Memorial Day to Labor Day season opens, right?
And so that seasonal workforce is hard to gather. We are still
hoping to get some of it, but we are working through it with a
goal of at least partial opening, knowing that we are going to
have some workforce challenges across. And to the workforce
point, broader workforce, we are just now starting to see the
numbers. And so we are actively managing it across portfolios,
including recreation.
Mr. Guest. Well, thank each of you for being here today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Guest. At this time, we are
going to engage in a second round of questions. Consistent with
the first, I would ask that folks keep their questions to 5
minutes so that we all can ask additional questions. I will
begin with myself.
General Graham, a matter that has been discussed earlier
but of prime importance to me and members on both sides of this
dais, is Asian carp. It is of tremendous importance to my home
state, the great state of Tennessee, in preventing the spread
of invasive carp further into the Tennessee and Cumberland
Rivers. Program implementation has faced repeated and avoidable
delays despite robust funding provided by Congress. I
appreciate the Nashville District's renewed commitment to this
work. Time, however, is of the essence on this, and we cannot
afford to be discussing this program development this time next
year. Sir, where are we on finalizing the program
implementation? And as a follow-up to that, what steps are you
taking to work with the state, state of Tennessee and other
prospective sponsors so that projects can be ready for funding
and execution as soon as the program management plan is
finalized? Thank you, sir.
General Graham. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question.
And we absolutely--our commitment is to do everything we can
using our facilities to help limit the spread of invasive carp
both into the Great Lakes and throughout the Tennessee and
Cumberland system, and down through the Alabama and Tennessee
Tombigbee Waterway. And so this program is tremendously
important to us. And Chairman, the direct answer to your
question is we will continue to work with the states to see if
we can get them to act as a non-Federal sponsor. We will
continue to work with great partners in the Tennessee Valley
Authority to make sure that when the programmatics are ready to
go, that we aren't trying to figure out the PPAs, and that
ideally that those are on the shelf ready to go.
Mr. Fleischmann. And I thank the General for his comments.
And I just want to comment by saying as issues come up from
time to time throughout the district, this is an issue that I
literally hear from constituents throughout the year. They have
meetings to discuss the invasive carp species, and they are
literally scared environmentally, economically, because where
the carp have become a major problem, it has been extremely
devastating. So I thank the General for his efforts, but we
really want to get that done because I am doing my best to
assure these constituencies that I and the Corps and all the
other partners are doing their very best to address this--this
pressing concern. And I thank you, sir.
And in that regard, and in the interest of time, I am going
to recognize my dear friend again, Ms. Kaptur, the Ranking
Member, for 5 minutes for her questions. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, you know, I share your
concern about the Asian carp. And I do wonder whether we have
the right architecture as a country to solve this. In other
words, you have got the big burden on your back as the core.
But, for example, in terms of genetic research, I don't know if
the Vicksburg lab of the Corps is sufficient. I look at other
instrumentalities that we have at NOAA, at the Department of
Commerce. I keep thinking about our own research labs at DOE.
We need a genetic solution, perhaps. I don't know. But it just
seems like the carp are getting ahead of us, and we have a
fish-out strategy working with the Department of Interior. And
I don't think it is enough.
And I had one member from your state, Mr. Chairman, I won't
say who it was, he came up to me. He never cared about it until
it hit his district, and then all of a sudden he went crazy.
Okay. So I really do need your advice, not now, but think about
who else could help across the government of the United States.
What can we do to stop this spread? We are going to put up
engineering barriers. That is part of it. But there are
probably genetic controls. We can't seem to get to the
scientific answer. And so I am just asking for your advice
there. Who else would you like to have partners around the
table? I don't know how you feel about it, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Fleischmann. Well, I share the ranking member's
sentiments. And of course, for years, the ranking member has
been a champion for the Great Lakes watershed, and I thank her
for that. God forbid these invasive species get there. So I
will commit to working with the ranking member and anybody who
will work with us in Congress on this issue to get a viable
solution. I yield back to the gentle lady.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, and just we
really appreciate your advice and welcome your advice, General,
in this area. I wanted to just switch for a second on the
dredge material issue also. In our region, we have the largest
budget in the Great Lakes for Lake Erie, as you well know. It
fits--every year, if you were to put all that material
together, it would rise 400 feet high in the Cleveland Browns
stadium. And some people have said to me, well, you should fill
the Cleveland Browns stadium. But, you know, when you think
about that year after year after year, and I think of our
scientific capabilities, my goodness, what can we do with that
dredged material?
I keep thinking, can we put--Cleveland has the largest
sewage treatment plant in all of Ohio, and it does amazing
things. Because of science, we are able to produce fertilizer
at the end of the process that the EPA approves. And I keep
looking at this dredge material. Again, I go to the high
science. We have all these research labs. Is there a bigger
answer here where we can use the dredged material? We wouldn't
have to go to, you know, the 20th-century solution of confined
disposal facilities, but where we can put it through tubes,
right? And we can figure out whether there is dissolved
reactive phosphorus, whether there is beryllium in there,
whatever it is. It seems to me that there is a way for
detection. If we are going to Mars, you mean to tell me we
can't decide what to do on Earth with our dredged material?
Again, I ask you for your scientific and engineering
recommendations that would guide us as mere house
representatives here from our region, trying to do the best for
the people going forward. If you put a consortium table
together with the EPA, with our energy research labs, with
Vicksburg, whatever, let's go after this from another way that
is perhaps more promising going forward. Maybe it is
impossible.
And in this regard, I will just put on the table this
interesting fact. As we try to look at new forms of power, we
are realizing we are wasting a lot of power, and this committee
is energy and water. We have solutions nobody else can come up
with. The Cleveland sewage treatment plant, in one year, throws
into Lake Erie the equivalent of 400,000 barrels of oil and
waste heat. Imagine if we could use that power all across
America, all across the Great Lakes, and create a sub-utility
to help process this very stuff, this dredge material. Imagine
if we could do that. We are thinking in the past. We have
nuclear power plants along our shore. I believe by regulation,
they throw that waste heat into Lake Erie at a temperature of
93 degrees. That is wasted thermal heat. We have the ability to
do things that other centuries haven't had. But I don't see the
thinking across the government. I think it is too stovepiped
into different agencies rather than sort of cross-bred. And I
just share that with you as we try to figure out what to do
with this dredge material.
So please answer a question about if you could reshape how
we find the answer to both the Asian carp threat and to the
contaminated sediment. Help us. Help us put that architecture
together across the Federal Government.
Final question, Mr. Chairman, real quickly. In terms of
enlistment in the Corps, do you have skills that you are short
and have you considered creating a program like Starbase that
works across DoD to help encourage young people to come into
the sciences, engineering, solving real problems for this
country? There is one called Starbase that is used in different
places, that is already authorized. I would love to have your
suggestion on what we could do through the Corps. You touch
every community in the country. I mean, you have an
unbelievable ability to draw young people in, and I just want
to push you a little bit in that direction.
Thank you very much. My time has expired.
Mr. Fleischmann. And I thank the ranking member for her
questions. Folks, ladies and gentlemen, we have had some
additional members show up, so I want to welcome them. At this
point in time, I would like to recognize Ms. Maloy of Utah, my
friend, for 5 minutes. She is a water attorney by profession,
so not only is she more than welcome on this committee, but she
is going to help me on the water side.
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman. Does the Chairman yield?
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes.
Ms. Kaptur. I want to compliment you because, under your
leadership, and I hope I have helped, we have had such a great
turnout on our subcommittee. If you look across the Congress
and what happens, this is a working subcommittee. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman, and members that have come.
Mr. Fleischmann. And I thank the ranking member, and I
appreciate that the ranking member has chaired this
subcommittee before. I do it, we have had other members do it,
but there is a tremendous degree of cooperation, and it really
is a source of pride and inspiration, I hope. But I thank the
ranking member. With that, I recognize Ms. Maloy.
Ms. Maloy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the benefit of the
people who are here to testify, I apologize that I missed the
first round. I had another hearing at the same time, so I got
here as quick as I could. Mr. Cameron, my constituents
appreciate the funding and efforts Reclamation provided earlier
this year to complete the 12-mile SLU modification work
pursuant to the 2024 SEIS. Given that last year's bypass of
Glen Canyon Dam's hydropower generators cost the basin fund
nearly $20 million and deferred critical maintenance, can you
assure this committee that you will seriously consider a non-
bypass or no-action alternative in your summer 2025 operational
decision making to avoid further financial and grid reliability
impacts?
Mr. Cameron. Ms. Maloy, coincidentally, I was just briefed
on this topic yesterday, and we are looking at it. We are
trying to be creative. We are trying to figure out ways that we
cannot add to the financial, you know, burden of the power
users, for instance, and WAPA. So yeah, we are looking for--
looking for options. But we also need to figure out a way to
get rid of those small mouth bass, as you are very much aware.
Ms. Maloy. Yeah. Thank you. Anything you can do to help
avoid the ratepayers, my constituents, bearing that cost
directly, I would really appreciate it. And we are happy to
work with you as you move forward.
Okay, for either Ms. Colosimo--I don't know if I am saying
your name right. I am sorry, I haven't been here.
Ms. Colosimo. Colosimo.
Ms. Maloy. Colosimo, thank you. Or Lieutenant Graham.
Panguitch Lake Dam in my district. It is a small dam; it serves
a small town. But the dam started to crack last year, and they
have been working to try to repair the dam, and they keep
running into delays. So they are trying to get a stream
alteration permit, and they keep getting more requests for
information, requests for information. They don't feel like
they are getting a lot of help, just a lot of letting the clock
run while, you know, it is spring, and the lake is filling back
up and the pressure is back on the dam. And what they need is a
solution so that they don't lose that lake. Will you work with
us to make sure we can get them the help they need in a timely
manner, so we are not losing a dam and losing the water supply
for a rural part of my district?
General Graham. Ma'am, absolutely. This is a private dam,
and they are looking for assistance, probably, with both the
permitting and the repair.
Ms. Maloy. I think they are just looking for assistance
with the permitting, but I will get you----
General Graham. Okay. We will contact your office, ma'am,
and get in contact with the dam owner operator----
Ms. Maloy. Thank you.
General Graham [continuing]. And see how we can help.
Ms. Maloy. Thank you. I appreciate that. Another one for
the two of you. In Tooele County, Utah, the local government is
trying to plan transportation, and some of it requires
navigating a process to obtain transportation rights away--
across the Tooele Army Depot, which is DoD managed land.
Recognizing the Army Corps of Engineers' engineering and
environmental expertise, how can our local government,
somebody, like, Tooele County, leverage the Corps' assistance
to assess feasibility and impacts of new transportation
corridors to improve regional mobility while maintaining
National security interests? And I know the National security
interest is really important to them, but that area is growing
quickly, and they have got to be able to have transportation
infrastructure.
General Graham. You have our absolute commitment that we
will meet with them to see if we can come in with a win-win
solution that manages and balances out both of those needs, the
National security interests, and the needs for improved
transportation to a growing region.
Ms. Maloy. Okay, thank you. Last question. I am moving
quickly. This is one of those days where everything is
happening fast. How is Reclamation working with Utah
stakeholders to streamline permitting or NEPA compliance for
our local water infrastructure projects, particularly in rural
counties that may lack capacity to navigate Federal processes?
Mr. Cameron. Thank you very much for that question. So we
work with our local water district partners on a regular basis
to try to provide technical assistance. One of the things that
we are also exploring is whether we can leverage the expertise
and, frankly, the streamlined acquisition processes that our
non-Federal partners often have so that we can leverage their
ability to get contracts issued faster and at a lower price
than might be the case for our Federal agencies. That would
stretch this committee's dollars as well. So we are always open
to creative thinking about how to work more effectively with
our partners.
Ms. Maloy. Please work closely with my staff. And we would
love to be the bridge between our Utah partners and both of
your offices to make sure we are getting that assistance to
people in a timely manner. The speed at which the Federal
Government moves on these projects is a huge source of
frustration.
Mr. Cameron. We share that frustration, believe me.
Ms. Maloy. Thank you. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Fleischmann. And I thank you, Ms. Maloy. At this time,
I would like to recognize my friend and colleague, again from
California, Mr. Levin, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cameron, back in
February, DOGE published a list of agency offices whose leases
were to be terminated. The Bureau of Reclamation, Southern
California Area Office, which provides water management support
throughout Southern California, including in my district, was
and is, I just checked the list again, on that list, along with
hundreds of other facilities across the Nation. The Southern
California Area Office administers several essential programs
that assist with water conservation and efficiency strategies,
water recycling and desalination programs, and other watershed
management activities. The decision to close this office and
others like it makes our water less secure. And now Southern
California is doing everything it can, charging ahead with
innovative desalination and water recycling and reuse
technologies. But when I look at what DOGE is doing regarding
these lease cancellations, I fear that they will leave
communities like mine vulnerable, despite our best efforts to
develop a resilient local water supply. Mr. Cameron, were you
personally involved in the decision to close this office? Were
you in the room?
Mr. Cameron. No, sir, I wasn't. My understanding is that
the General Services Administration provided the department and
other departments, a list of leases that they were planning to
cancel. And we have been very actively involved in terms of
going back to GSA and indicating situations where we thought
eliminating those leases would be problematic.
Mr. Levin. That includes this office. Do you agree with the
decision to close this office?
Mr. Cameron. I am not aware of that particular lease, to be
honest with you, Congressman. I am happy to look into it. I can
tell you that there are quite a few Bureau of Reclamation
leases where we have been actively talking about GSA, about why
it would be a real problem. But I am happy to look into that
one in particular.
Mr. Levin. What criteria do you think that DOGE used to
decide which offices to close?
Mr. Cameron. My impression is that it was actually a
General Services Administration directive. Whether it was the
DOGE people at GSA, I don't know. I think they were looking at
leases that were about to expire across the whole government,
across all Federal agencies.
Mr. Levin. Do you think it is contrary to Reclamation's
mission of protecting water resources in the interest of the
American people to be closing these offices all over the place?
Mr. Cameron. We clearly have an interest and a need to
operate the government as efficiently as possible to stretch
the dollars that the subcommittee provides. And where we have
identified situations where we think it is counterproductive to
close offices, you know, we have been actively chatting with
our friends at the General Services Administration, and at
least in a number of instances, successfully so. I am not aware
of this particular situation, but I am happy to look into it,
Mr. Levin.
Mr. Levin. Well, we will follow up with you on that. Ms.
Colosimo, I want to get back to the California projects that I
mentioned earlier. Were you personally involved in the
decision-making to not fund any of those projects, or not fund
all of those projects?
Ms. Colosimo. No, sir.
Mr. Levin. And do you have any idea who specifically was?
Ms. Colosimo. We deliberate the package with the criteria
we submit to OMB, and the OMB and the administration make the
decision, the final decisions.
Mr. Levin. So, do you have an actual human being who was
responsible for making the decision? Do you have an email? Do
you have----
Ms. Colosimo. We don't make the decisions; we make
recommendations.
Mr. Levin. I understand that you don't personally, but you
just said that OMB relayed those decisions to you. Do you have
any correspondence with them that would indicate why those
decisions were made prior?
Ms. Colosimo. I do not have any correspondence, no.
Mr. Levin. How did you----
Ms. Colosimo. Office of Management and Budget did their
business, and they----
Mr. Levin. How did you learn?
Ms. Colosimo [continuing]. Provided us the product.
Mr. Levin. How did you learn that those determinations had
been made?
Ms. Colosimo. They provided us with the final product.
Mr. Levin. Who?
Ms. Colosimo. The Office of Management and Budget did.
Mr. Levin. Who specifically?
Ms. Colosimo. They didn't provide it to me. I don't have a
name, but it would be our examining unit.
Mr. Levin. Okay. Who in your examining unit received the
information?
Ms. Colosimo. In my--in our office?
Mr. Levin. I am trying to understand who at OMB made the
call.
Ms. Colosimo. Well, I think it goes all the way up to the
Director.
Mr. Levin. Okay. So you are telling me, Russ Vought, the
Director of the OMB, personally made the decision to take $250
million away from California and the blue states to give it to
the red states. Is that your testimony?
Ms. Colosimo. My testimony is that he was engaged with his
staff as anybody would be, as far as I know.
Mr. Levin. It is a simple yes or no question.
Ms. Colosimo. I can't answer that question.
Mr. Levin. Okay.
Ms. Colosimo. I don't have full visibility on that
information.
Mr. Levin. Okay, I appreciate that. We will ask questions
for the record to try to understand and----
Ms. Colosimo. That is fine.
Mr. Levin [continuing]. Get to the bottom of it. You said
before the criteria used were life safety, flooding, and
American prosperity. Which of these criteria were not met by
the California projects that I mentioned earlier?
Ms. Colosimo. I don't know the details of the California
projects you are talking about.
Mr. Levin. Well, let's unpack one. How about the Sacramento
Delta? Do you agree that the Sacramento Delta region is perhaps
most at risk for catastrophic flooding anywhere in the Western
United States?
Ms. Colosimo. I know they have challenges and risks, but I
am not at liberty to say what the trade-offs were on which the
projects they chose or stacks against other projects.
Mr. Levin. Do you not think that it meets life safety, or
flooding, or American prosperity to try to protect lives and
property in the Sacramento Delta region?
Ms. Colosimo. I am sure it does. How it stacks against
other projects was not my call.
Mr. Levin. Do you agree or disagree that it is one of the
most flood-prone areas in the Western United States, if not the
entire country?
Ms. Colosimo. It is certainly susceptible to flooding.
Mr. Levin. All Right. So it sounds like it doesn't meet the
criteria that were--that you laid out before. I don't think OMB
followed, and I think you are getting played by OMB, and you
don't even know who at OMB. And with that, I will yield back.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Levin. At this time, I
would like to recognize the distinguished Vice Chairman of this
subcommittee, my good friend from the great state of Texas, Mr.
Cloud, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you all for being here. The work you all do is extremely
important to the economic lifeblood of our Nation and thank you
for that. I first want just to say thanks and especially to
the--to the Corps, for the great work done at the Corpus
Christi Ship Channel over the last several years. June 2nd, I
believe, will be whatever you do when the project for--I don't
know if you can ribbon cut across the channel--but the great
work is under the water level. So a lot of people don't see it.
But it is extremely important, and we certainly see the effects
of it. So I want to thank you for that.
I do want to touch on the Matagorda Ship Channel. That has
been a difficult project to deal with over the last few years.
For the first time ever, under the Biden administration, we had
a Congressionally authorized project, have the record of
decision revoked. And after that, we have worked with the Corps
to try to work on timelines, anything we can to speed up those
timelines. There has been a number of delays along the way.
Some of them with excuses that weren't really appropriate, I
guess, or valid. We sent an email to a wrong place, and so we
have to delay this for a month, and what have you. And then
working with leftist NGOs that really don't have a stake in the
area or district to kind of cater to them, and do what they
could to drive up the BCR and delay this project in an effort
to try to kill it.
So, under new leadership that understands the importance of
our ports and the development of it, hopefully we can turn a
course on that and get our timeline on track. I will say we
have gotten a timeline on the SEIS, but we still have some work
to bring some more detail to that, and then we need a timeline
for the whole project. So, could we work on getting that, and
when could we expect that?
General Graham. So, Representative Cloud, thank you for
that question. And at the beginning statement, I know you just
got here, I said one of the first things we have to do in the
Corps is we have got to get the engineering right. And on the
Matagorda Ship Channel deepening, we did not get the
engineering right. In fact, we got the trigonometry wrong.
Mr. Cloud. Sure.
General Graham. And that is what we sent over to the
authorizing committees to authorize. And we didn't calculate
correctly. We calculated how much material would need to be
removed from the channel, but we didn't calculate correctly
where we would place that.
Mr. Cloud. Right.
General Graham. And so that is what is causing it. We have
to go back and fundamentally redo the environmental impact
statement because it is--we have double the amount of material
we are going to move from one place under the water to another.
Mr. Cloud. Right. In times past, the practice has been to
work concurrently with a revised supplemental impact study and
to continue the project. So the fact that it was--the record of
decision was revoked, and the whole point of a record of
decision is to bring certainty to a project, I mean, that is
what in the name of the title, the record of decision. So we
undid a decision. So, you know, so that was concerning. But
going forward, anything we can do to shorten. You know,
sometimes there is like 4 months to make a decision. We have
had these discussions before, and anything we can do to shorten
those timelines going forward. This project has been pushed
back plenty far enough. And, you know, with this President's
help, I believe hopefully we will be able to finally execute on
it moving forward.
General Graham. So our commitment to you, Representative
Cloud, is to get the engineering right on this and to move
forward as rapidly as we--as we possibly can.
Mr. Cloud. Sure. I appreciate it. Thank you for that. I
wanted to touch on desal. You know, Corpus Christi is a leader
for the region as a water provider. One of the issues we have
been looking at is what we can do to continue to provide water
for the region. Desal, of course, being along the Gulf of
America, being an important option. When we look just generally
speaking, at Texas, and Texas has really been overlooked when
it comes to water projects.
And I know we are waiting on the ASA to be confirmed, but I
am curious how long we think it will take once we have
confirmation to stand up the grant process and to be able to
move that forward. And then really what we can do to turn the
corner on getting funding to the state of Texas that, you know,
when you look at the projects that have been funded in the
state of Texas, when it comes to water, it is very minimal from
a--from a Federal standpoint. Where other states--and certainly
when you think of Federal dollars going to region, it is
because of Federal purposes. And so, you know, you have states
like California that have high regulations that make it
difficult to provide an economic flow into the country. And
then Texas, which is, you know, pretty strong and friendly to
business and being a lifeblood of commerce into the--into the
country, has been overlooked on these water projects. And so, I
would like a commitment on what we can do to begin to look at
and prioritize Texas in the region when it comes to funding of
these water projects. Any comment on how long it would take to
stand up at least the grant process?
Ms. Colosimo. I think we will have to loop back with you.
Just to be clear, though, you are talking about a loan, right?
It is from this--it is from this Infrastructure Loan program, I
believe. We don't--we don't have grants.
Mr. Cloud. Right.
Ms. Colosimo. Okay. So I think we will have to get the
details and loop back with you if that is okay.
Mr. Cloud. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Fleischmann. And I thank Mr. Cloud. At this time, I
recognize now my friend Ms. Lee of Nevada for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Cameron, I received a--I
had a small offline discussion with Mr. Ensminger, and he
appreciates too, your leadership in these negotiations. So
thank you. I don't envy you at this point. But can you give us
any daylight on how you are actively working to build
consensus? What you see as the prospect? You know, given Mr.
Calvert's line of questioning, obviously, the water rights
issue, but ultimately, I think it is imperative that we come to
a consensus because if we don't, it is going to be years and
years and years of legal wrangling before we see any type of
agreement. And I don't think we have it.
Mr. Cameron. So, Ms. Lee, Reclamation and the seven basin
states have a pact to not disclose the details of negotiation.
Ms. Lee. I figured that.
Mr. Cameron. As you may know.
Ms. Lee. I thought I would ask, okay?
Mr. Cameron. But what I can tell you is at our most recent
meeting in Sacramento, several of the seven basin states reps
came up to me and said, we have made more progress in the last
2 days than we had in the last year and a half.
Ms. Lee. That is great.
Mr. Cameron. So, you know, I think in government, you have
to be an optimist, or why are you doing anything in government?
So I am quite optimistic that working with the seven states
will end up getting to a good place on a timely basis. And I
believe all seven states are negotiating with each other and
with Reclamation in very good faith. They all want a solution,
and they all agree that it is much better for them to come to a
deal than have the Interior Secretary impose a deal.
Ms. Lee. Absolutely. Godspeed. So, you know, last month,
UCLA released a report which found that states across the
Colorado River Basin are squandering a critical opportunity to
ease this water crisis. It is water recycling and reuse. While
my home state of Nevada reuses 85 percent of our treated
wastewater, the seven basin states combined reuse only 26
percent of this water. You know, just to put it in perspective,
if these states were able to collectively raise their reuse
rates to just 40 percent, we are talking a 14 percent increase.
We could gain nearly 900,000 acre feet of new water annually,
enough to supply nearly 2 million homes. UCLA researchers
emphasize that this represents a significant percentage of the
projected shortfall on the Colorado River and a solution that
could be pursued aggressively to ensure sustained management of
the river.
So I am asking, is the Trump administration committed to
continuing and building on the kind of bipartisan support for
water recycling and reuse initiatives which Congress advanced
in the legislation that was passed in the bipartisan
infrastructure law?
Mr. Cameron. Water reuse and recycling definitely have to
be part of the solutions. Absolutely. No doubt about that. You
know, we are obviously dealing in situations where individual
states, individual municipal governments have to make their own
decisions about what is the smartest thing for their particular
locality. So we are mindful of their perspective on their water
rights. We are mindful of their own economic decisions. But we
are very interested in working with the municipalities across
the Colorado Basin to promote and encourage water recycling.
And Nevada has been leading the way. You are absolutely right.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. Well, thank you, and thank you for your
leadership. And I am finished. I yield.
Mr. Fleischmann. And I thank you, Ms. Lee. At this time, I
would like to recognize my friend again, Mr. Newhouse,
Washington State, from the great state of Washington, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just let me say, not
only has this committee benefited from strong leadership over
the years, but certainly the subject matter we deal with
impacts every single community and energy and water as our key
building blocks to our economic and health success in this
country.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Newhouse. So thank you. General Graham, in my state of
Washington, the Corps are certainly responsible for the
majority of the Federal hydropower facilities, which, as you
know, provide clean, renewable power to at least half, I think,
well over half of the constituents that I represent. It is my
understanding that there has been cuts to the facility
maintenance as well as the fish production staff at the four
Federal hydropower dams on the Lower Snake. This is
particularly concerning because these dams, as you know,
produce an average of approximately a gigawatt of power, up to,
in emergency situations, 3 gigawatts of power. So I am
concerned that such cuts could jeopardize the administration's
goal of achieving energy dominance for millions of people in
the Pacific Northwest. Could you tell me has the Corps
designated any of these staff as essential staff, and either
why or why not? And does the Corps have the staffing necessary
to truly reliably operate the system for power, but also other
Federally authorized purposes?
General Graham. Representative Newhouse, thank you for that
question and the importance of those facilities. We absolutely
share your recognition of we also share your recognition that
for those facilities to operate reliably for your constituents,
that they have got to be staffed by well-trained members. And
so as we go through workforce optimization right now, critical
work such as our power plant operators, critical work such as
our maintenance divers, critical work such as any of our crane
operators, we are putting that at the top of the of our list of
we have to manage those folks very carefully to make sure that
we have the right talent on board to continue to operate these
facilities safely.
So to recap all that, we are going through the process
right now of looking to see what individuals with what skills
are leaving the organization and what we have, and we are in
the process of making sure that whatever it takes to move the
right people where they have to be to continue to operate these
facilities effectively for your constituents will do.
Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that of all the resources we
have and enjoy and manage, certainly the human resources one
that we have to get right. So thanks for your efforts there.
Both you, General Graham, and Ms. Colosimo, permitting, it
is often one of the biggest challenges that we have when it
comes to completing projects, and adequate staffing is vital to
completing that work as well, especially when there are
interagency consultations involved. The fiscal year 2025 Corps
work plan again included $221 million for the Corps' regulatory
program. However, I would say other agencies are not as
fortunate. There have been staffing cuts at NOAA Fisheries, in
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that may have--may impact
this process. And the skinny budget proposes significant
decreases to these agencies. So, to either your knowledge, have
reductions in staffing, staffing, excuse me, had an impact on
the permitting processes, and what is the Corps plan for
getting consultations completed in a timely manner for these
civil works projects, which are so important for these projects
sought by a regulated public.
Ms. Colosimo. So, sir, thanks for that question. It is a
really important subject, as you say. And I think the big thing
overarchingly here is for the interagency process to work,
right, and we have to get those connections happening,
particularly as we are losing staff across agencies because the
already existing relationships are weakened the minute you lose
one person.
Mr. Newhouse. Yeah.
Ms. Colosimo. So I think there are things we need to do in
D.C. to make sure we are setting up the agencies collectively
for success, both on civil works projects, but also to the
permitted public through normal permitting processes. I think
the other part is that rules are happening and getting updated
at the same time. So we have to be current with what the best
tools are to make sure we are able to not continue to make a
stoppage. If that makes sense. I mean, there is risk when you
are doing new rules. At the same time, you are losing staff.
There is also opportunity. And so, I think there is a lot of
collaboration across the aisle to try and make sure we are
doing the right things here. So we need our leader to arrive,
to do that with his counterparts, but we are beginning that
already.
Mr. Newhouse. General Graham, any comment?
General Graham. So, Representative, the health of our
regulators right now, it is--when I--as we are going through
the process of looking to optimize the Federal labor force,
right now, we are pretty healthy on our regulators. So it is
not a great concern for me right now, which is a good thing.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay, I appreciate that. I see my time has
expired. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. But thank you all for
being, again, here with us today.
Mr. Fleischmann. Mr. Newhouse, I thank you again, sir, for
your questions.
It has come to my attention that few of the members would
like to ask some very brief questions in the third round. Being
mindful that it is 11:50, I am going to personally pass on my
third round and recognize the ranking member, Ms. Kaptur, for
her question, and anybody else who would like to engage in the
third round.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. It is very generous of you, Mr.
Chairman. And I want to thank you, General Graham, for
including priority for the Soo Locks and the continuing efforts
on that project. And appreciate the fiscal year 2025 work plan
included $264 million. However, that was $63 million below the
House bill and 186 million below the Senate bill. I just want
to reemphasize that funding for the Soo Loc is critical because
there are many time-sensitive contracts over the next 2 years.
And may I ask of both yourself and Ms. Colosimo, what is the
Corps' plan to ensure the project receives adequate funding so
that the contracts can proceed as closely as planned and not
result in further cost increases?
Ms. Colosimo. It is a priority, ma'am. And I think we
recognize the value of this project and continuing to make sure
that happens. So we are going to continue to advocate the
merits of completing the work on time and within budget and
getting the resources to make those increments happen. It is at
a vital stage.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
Mr. Newhouse. So, ma'am, to the--to building upon that, the
four remaining contract options that would expire at the end of
this fiscal year, we believe, with the money that we got in the
work plan, that we can award all three of those. And so that is
great news.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. Thank you for trying on the
contracting. Is it still open for contractors to----
Mr. Newhouse. So in this case, these options were part of
a--there is a base plus option for the people, the contractor
that is doing the current work. And so these options are
already priced out. And so as long as we provide the funds,
which we, with the work plan funding we will be able to do,
there should be no issues executing those options four, five,
and six.
Ms. Kaptur. My last two questions are of Mr.--let's see
here. In terms of the Bureau of Reclamation over the last
several years, what percentage of agriculture has been cut off
in the West that simply doesn't get water anymore, or does it
continue as it has in the past? I don't have a sense of what is
happening on the ground. And then I wanted to also ask the
General, again, are you full up on your recruitment, or do you
have enlistment shortages? And if so, can you provide us with a
list of what are the skills that you need that you don't have?
Mr. Cameron. So, Ms. Kaptur, the answer to your first
question is that it varies a lot from year to year and region,
in the West, region to region, depending upon the hydrology. I
can tell you that for the first time in a very long time, the
Klamath Basin in California and Oregon has got plenty of water.
Now that probably won't be the case 2 years from now, but you
know, for this year, we are lucky. And also this year,
Reclamation was able to provide more water to Central Valley,
California farmers than in the last several years. But we
really are at the mercy of the weather and the snow and the
rain, plus, of course, the regulatory constraints I know you
are aware of.
But while I am answering your question, I do want to point
out that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S.
Geological Survey are both heavily involved in Asian carp. So I
hope that if you have friends on the Interior Subcommittee that
they are tracking that as well.
Ms. Kaptur. You know, sir, thank you, Mr. Cameron, for
that. The problem is we have all these geniuses, but the
discomfort we feel is because it doesn't seem like there is a
general consensus. There is a lot of people out there, but we
don't really have a coordinated effort, in my opinion. And
believe me, we study this a lot. But we don't, on the science
front, I don't see the surge. I just don't see it. And so we
are fishing out. This is really like, you know, what, 1850
rather than 2050, you know, in the way we are looking at this.
And so I just wanted to mention that.
And General, what about the needs in the Corps? What should
we be telling audiences? What should we be saying you need?
Mr. Newhouse. So two points. I wear a couple of hats for
the Army. One of those is I oversee the tactical engineer
branch that does the war fighting piece and the Army's meeting
its enlistment goals. A great deal of effort that entails to
make sure that we get citizens coming in to continue to join
our ranks. And I am absolutely delighted to report that that
right now it is going well.
On the Corps of Engineers side, we are primarily a civilian
organization with military leadership. Our biggest challenge
with our civilian workforce, and it has been that way since I
have been here, is the schools producing STEM graduates. And I
am sure that that is the same for any of those. And so when I
was a district commander, we worked really close, as all of our
44 districts do with the local universities, because that is
where it happens, to try to encourage young minds at the high
school level to get out and explore careers in the science,
technology, and engineering realm. That is where it has got to
start. We can't look any different than what the schoolhouses
are, and you got to get them in high school.
Ms. Kaptur. How do we work with the Corps in order to--we
have a Corps, small, teeny office in our area. How do we
sponsor a symposium for young people? How do we do that? Think
about it. Let us know.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. And I yield back.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. Ms. Kaptur. Ms. Maloy, you are
recognized for a third round.
Ms. Maloy. I will keep it brief. I know you guys have been
here for a long time. Mr. Cameron, we are going to submit some
questions for the record to you on the Central Utah project and
the changes in funding there. I would rather have you have some
time to do some research and get back to us with thorough
answers than put you on the spot here. So just be prepared that
that is coming. And like my colleague Ms. Lee, I also represent
one of the Colorado River Basin states. So thank you for the
assurance that the state negotiations are moving forward. And
with that, I will yield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Ms. Maloy. A few comments.
Again, I would like to thank all of our witnesses for being
here today. And as the ranking member did allude to in her
comments, you saw tremendous turnout on both sides of the dais.
That is not only out of respect, it is out of admiration for
each and every one of you all. You were here before us in
February. That was a very furtive hearing, as was today. So we
accomplished an awful lot. So I do sincerely thank you in that
regard.
For the record, if you could please ensure that the hearing
record, questions for the record, and any supporting
information requested by the subcommittee are delivered in
final form to us no later than 4 weeks from the time that you
receive them. Members who have additional questions for the
record will have until the close of business on Tuesday to
provide them to the subcommittee office. With that, I say thank
you, and the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Cameron, Scott................................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Colosimo, Robyn.................................................. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Graham, Lieutenant General William H. ``Butch'' Jr............... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
[all]