    [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 1

                                                                       Page
      Oversight Hearing--State of the Civil
    Works Program..............................................           1

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                ___________________

              Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

      62-355                     WASHINGTON : 2026
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                    ----------
                          TOM COLE, Oklahoma, Chairman

      HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky,
        Chaimain 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
      CELESTE MALOY, Utah
      RILEY M. MOORE, West Virgina

      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 AGUILLAR, 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

                                  ----------

                                            Tuesday, February 25, 2025.

              OVERSIGHT HEARING--STATE OF THE CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM

                                   WITNESSES

    LIEUTENANT GENERAL WILLIAM H. ``BUTCH'' GRAHAM JR., CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
        AND COMMANDING GENERAL, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
    MAJOR GENERAL MARK C. QUANDER, COMMANDING GENERAL, GREAT LAKES AND OHIO
        RIVER DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
    BRIGADIER GENERAL DANIEL HIBNER, COMMANDING GENERAL, SOUTH ATLANTIC
        DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
    COLONEL JAMES J. HANDURA, COMMANDER, SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION, U.S. ARMY
        CORPS OF ENGINEERS
    COLONEL GEORGE H. WALTER, COMMANDER, SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION, U.S. ARMY
        CORPS OF ENGINEERS
        Mr. Fleischmann. Good morning. The hearing will come to
    order.
        It is my pleasure today to welcome Lieutenant General Butch
    Graham, the chief of engineers and commanding general of the
    United States Army Corps of Engineers to discuss the state of
    the Civil Works program.
        Joining General Graham are Major General Mark C. Quander,
    commanding general of the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division;
    Brigadier General Daniel Hibner, commanding general of the
    South Atlantic Division; Colonel James J. Handura, commander of
    the South Pacific Division; and Colonel George H. Walter,
    commander of the Southwestern Division. These division
    commanders have made themselves available to address project
    execution from a local and regional perspective.
        Before I talk about my formal remarks, gentlemen, I want to
    thank each and every one of you all for what you do for our
    country, not only for the Army Corps of Engineers, our great
    United States Army, and service to our great Nation. It is with
    profound thanks that we do this hearing today.
        And, as chairman of this subcommittee and I would say our
    full committee--my dear friend, Marcy Kaptur from Ohio, would
    probably agree with me--we are civil. We are cordial. When
    there are differences, we understand that. But it is with the
    utmost respect that we have you before us here today, and I say
    that as chairman of this full subcommittee.
        Gentlemen, few Federal programs have such a direct and
    immediate impact on the American people's daily lives as the
    Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program. The mission
    underpins America's economic competitiveness, promotes public
    safety, and protects trillions of dollars in private investment
    and economic activity. Congress expects the Corps to address
    some of the Nation's most complex and high-profile challenges,
    and the Corps does tremendous work to deliver on this critical
    mission.
        The Corps also faces many challenges inherent to government
    contracting. We would all prefer to see Federal construction
    projects delivered at the cost and speed of the private sector.
    However, patterns have emerged in recent years that go beyond
    the regular course of business. I continue to hear from my
    colleagues and stakeholders about projects of all sizes, in
    different parts of the country, and with little else in common,
    all facing similar issues and fact patterns.
        The Chickamauga Lock in my district, the great Third
    District of Tennessee, has experienced many of these same
    challenges, which we will have time to discuss later in the
    hearing.
        Congress has provided record funding for the Corps in
    annual energy and water appropriations acts and tens of
    billions more in supplemental appropriations over much of the
    last decade. We have funded several major construction projects
    to completion, some multiple times, only for the Corps to tell
    us they need more.
        Projects are derailed due to inadequate engineering,
    requiring the Corps to go back to the drawing board in the
    middle of construction. The Corps has all but abandoned design
    and engineering when studying projects to recommend for
    construction, leading chiefs of engineers to certify cost
    estimates and project plans based on concepts, not designs. We
    are building the plane while we are flying it.
        Meanwhile, we have heard from many Corps stakeholders about
    the need to modernize the Corps' contracting process. Private
    industry would never procure complex infrastructure projects in
    the same way. Contracting improvements alone can reduce
    uncertainty, improve affordability, and enhance engineering
    quality earlier in the life of a project.
        Many projects sponsors feel they have no choice but to
    plead with our friends on the authorizing committees for the
    Federal Government to foot larger shares of these much larger
    bills. I don't blame anyone who comes to that conclusion. But
    every time that cycle repeats, the choices facing this
    subcommittee become more difficult, worsening the outlook for
    every project in America.
        The Corps executes a no-fail mission, and there is always
    more to be done. We need to finish what we start so that we can
    deliver for our constituents, and achieving those goals
    requires the Corps to define success and measure progress.
        General Graham, sir, you are new in this role, and you
    certainly have your work cut out for you. I greatly appreciate
    the attention that you have already given to these issues and
    the vision you laid out in your written testimony. I look
    forward to today's discussion and working with you, sir, to
    promote a healthy and sustainable Civil Works program for the
    American people.
        I will now turn to my friend and ranking member, Ms.
    Kaptur, for her opening statement.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is such a great
    turnout this morning on both sides of the aisle here. This is a
    wonderful committee, and I am just thankful everyone is here,
    including our honored guests, the Corps of Engineers Civil
    Works program.
        And I want to thank you and all those who work under your
    command for your dedication to the civil works of our country
    going back to close to our founding. There aren't too many
    organizations that can say that. And the American people thank
    you for your service, not just here in our country, but many
    times called upon around the world, as was my uncle who served
    in the Engineers Corps during World War II at the Battle of the
    Bulge.
        I want to thank my friend and colleague, Chair Fleischmann,
    for holding this hearing. While Congress is about a half a year
    late already and has still not finished our jobs for the fiscal
    year 2025--it should have been done October, November,
    December, January, February, moving into March. Half a year
    late. Not our fault. Not our fault. We show up. I hope that if
    we were left to our own, we could find bipartisan compromise,
    and I hope those ultimately in charge in this institution will
    soon find a bipartisan solution to keep the government open
    next month and for the remainder of this fiscal year 2025. And
    I know how difficult that makes your lives. Thank you for your
    endurance.
        The Corps of Engineers plays a critical role in developing
    the resources of our land and generating enough power for 11
    million homes every year. I figured out last night--I guess
    that is at least 10 percent of our country. I figured 33
    million people--I don't have the exact number, but that is
    pretty impressive, and we hope in the future you will be able
    to do more.
        The Corps builds America for generations to come,
    strengthening our economy and sustaining life on our corner of
    Mother Earth, ensuring public safety against the now constant
    onslaught of both natural and human-caused disasters across our
    country.
        In 2024, there were 27 confirmed major weather and climate
    disaster events with losses for each exceeding a billion
    dollars. These included droughts, flooding, severe storms and
    wildfires, and the cost totaled over $182 billion just for last
    year, the fourth costliest year on record. We can all see our
    property insurance bills rising. The people I represent know
    it. And the Corps knows why. You need a bigger microphone to
    explain to the country what is really happening.
        I can attest that, in 2023, in our Great Lakes region,
    adjoining the Canadian border, when I arrived home, I
    experienced the smoky fall that had never happened before. It
    was so eerie, the smoke from wildfires burning way further up
    north in Canada. We weren't anywhere near California. And the
    air was so hazy that my entire garden--which I pride myself
    on--was covered with brownish, black soot by the next morning.
    It was just eerie. And my poor rhododendron didn't bear that
    year, and I hope this year she will come back. But that had
    never happened in our region.
        Just thinking about addressing the outcomes of the
    Palisades and Eaton fires in Los Angeles overwhelms a casual
    observer, and we thank you for your assistance in helping those
    who have been so impacted.
        It is undeniable that we are witnessing growing weather
    events stemming from climate change occurring in real time
    before our very eyes. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is
    needed now more than ever to devise modern approaches to
    changing freshwater cycles, whether it is down the Mississippi,
    in the Great Lakes, or the arid West.
        With an increasingly volatile climate, the Corps must plan
    and implement solutions to make our communities more resilient.
    Investments in the critical water infrastructure of our Nation
    allow the Corps to focus on your significant missions across
    our country, keeping commerce safely flowing on our waterways--
    and what is happening along the Mississippi, we hope you can
    tell us a little more about that today--managing flood risks
    through dams, levies, and shoreline protection, restoring
    ecosystems, and building local, clean water, and drinking water
    infrastructure. I hope you can get more into that today and in
    the future.
        There is no doubt that every Member of Congress is impacted
    by your work, and there is bipartisan support in this Congress
    for your work because you have been so successful. However, the
    Corps has faced numerous challenges in engineering and design,
    schedule delays, cost overruns, and contractor performance--
    most of which isn't your fault--that correlate with these
    massive weather events, workforce shortages, and supply
    backups.
        In the Great Lakes region--which I know best--projects like
    the Soo Locks are a prime example of investments that will
    turbocharge our economy. They will assure the modernization and
    efficiency of our maritime transportation system, but the
    project has experienced time delays and very significant cost
    escalations. Enlightening our subcommittee on why this is
    occurring will be appreciated.
        Similarly, the Brandon Road project is aimed at arresting
    the economic and environmental damage unleashed by this
    creature called the invasive Asian carp that, if not checked,
    will exterminate the $7-billion native fishery that is Lake
    Erie. More fish in Lake Erie than all the other Great Lakes
    combined, and, of course, Lake Erie and all the related Great
    Lakes have the longest coastline in the Nation. It is over
    2,600 miles.
        However, this particular Brandon Road project is another
    example of one burdened with cost increases and delays. The
    Great Lakes and Mississippi ecosystems are drastically
    different, and I remain very concerned that the Great Lakes
    Fishery faces daunting challenges with the Brandon Road
    investments, what the governor of Illinois has just done, and
    that we may be heading into a period where--there were
    proposals to shut off the confluence of the Mississippi and the
    Great Lakes waterways. I am very troubled with the solution
    that was finally arrived on and whether it will be successful
    in meeting this really terrible challenge.
        The Corps is fully aware that it must address project
    execution challenges. Our constituents depend on the successful
    completion of these projects, and the additional costs are
    ultimately paid by the taxpayers.
        Again, I want to thank the witnesses for being here along
    with all of our dear members to discuss how the Corps is
    learning lessons from these challenges and trying to implement
    new solutions across the country. With that, I will close my
    remarks, and I look forward to the discussion. Thank you all.
        Mr. Fleischmann. I thank the distinguished ranking chair
    for her remarks.
        And I thank you, our witnesses, for being here today.
        Please ensure that the hearing record, questions for the
    record, and any supporting information requested by the
    subcommittee are delivered, please, 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 Friday to provide them to the
    subcommittee office.
        Without objection, your full written testimony will be
    entered into the record. With that in mind, we would ask that
    you please summarize your opening statement in 5 minutes.
        General Graham, you are now recognized, sir, for your
    opening statement.

      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, thank you for the
    opportunity to discuss the Civil Works program.
        Major General Kelly, our deputy for civil and emergency
    operations, was supposed to testify here today, but he is in
    Los Angeles leading our wildfire debris removal mission that we
    are executing under FEMA.
        The President's intent was clear: Move fast to help people.
    Currently, we are about a month ahead of what our original
    schedule was. We have 115 crews actively removing fire debris
    from private residences and are adding more crews as homeowners
    provide rights of entry. We will continue to add resources as
    required until all the fire debris is safely and swiftly
    removed. Thank you, again, for letting me be here instead of
    General Kelly.
        Through the Civil Works program, the Corps works with
    State, Tribal, and local agencies to study, build, and operate
    water resource projects.
        Breaking the program down into its components, the
    navigation program, as we heard this morning, underpins the
    entire national economy, ensuring that commodities can move
    reliably and efficiently along 12,000 miles of inland waterway,
    13,000 miles of inner coastal waterway, and into 1,000 coastal,
    Great Lakes, and inland harbors. Ninety eight percent of
    overseas trade and 48 percent of consumer goods moves through
    these ports.
        The Corps' flood risk management program maintains 746 dams
    and 13,000 miles of Federal levies that prevent an astounding
    $200 billion of damages every year.
        The Corps' recreation program--not to be forgotten--
    includes more than 400 lakes and river projects which provide
    recreational opportunities to millions.
        These are important programs that the Nation has entrusted
    to the Army Corps. Our objective every day is to safely deliver
    quality projects on schedule within budget. We have been
    working hard over the last 5 years to leverage these new
    business intelligence tools to measure how we are meeting this
    objective. Our current on-schedule rate across our entire
    portfolio is 73 percent. That is a C, and that is unacceptable.
        When we look into our costs and schedule shortfalls, we put
    the drivers into two categories: Uncontrollable and
    controllable factors.
        Uncontrollable factors include inflation and labor
    shortages. According to the Associated General Contractors,
    construction inflation over the last 5 years is around 34
    percent. Labor, particularly for skilled trades, is tight,
    leading to wage growth of 25 percent. Construction materials
    and diesel fuel have increased 38 percent and 58 percent
    respectively.
        As you would expect, we put most of our effort into those
    things that we can control. We have grouped these into three
    main areas: Get the engineering right, get the project
    management right, and get the business right.
        Getting the engineering right. Our cost estimates must be
    based on sufficiently mature engineering designs, at least 35
    percent. As you will hear today, we have allowed projects to be
    authorized with the engineering well, well below that 35
    percent threshold. In these instances, it wasn't so much that
    the costs have increased; rather, it was that our initial
    estimates were way, way too optimistic. My pledge to this
    committee is that I will only sign chief's reports when I am
    convinced that we have got the engineering right with
    sufficient majority.
        Our second controllable focus area is get the project
    management right. We must improve our ability to stay in
    control of our projects by setting realistic schedules. There
    is a very insightful GAO report that captures the prevalence of
    optimism bias across most Federal contracting. To combat this
    bias, we have instituted monthly reviews at the division
    headquarters level to monitor the quality of our schedules.
        Our third controllable focus area is get the business
    right. Here, our intent is to improve scheduled performance by
    properly resourcing the work with the right manning levels or
    by contracting the work out with the right acquisition
    strategies. Get the engineering right, get the project
    management right, get the business right.
        Thank you, again, for inviting us here today. I believe
    that if we stay focused on those three fundamentals, we will
    deliver the outputs we all seek. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Fleischmann. I want to thank you, General Graham. We
    will now begin with questions, sir, starting with my own.
        General, I have always maintained a positive working
    relationship with the chief of engineers and the district and
    division commanders. My goal has remained the same, and we must
    finish Chickamauga Lock. For fiscal year 2023, sir, we thought
    we were $39 million away from completing the project. In fiscal
    year 2025 and $237 million later, we cannot award the
    completion contract and are expecting another significant cost
    increase.
        General Graham, I appreciate your focus on getting the
    fundamental building blocks right to avoid these kinds of
    issues in the future. This work is not glamorous, but these
    details make all the difference. However, if we do not define
    the goals clearly and measure progress toward them, we cannot
    expect different results.
        My first question, sir, is what will be different in 3
    years if you have been successful in putting the Civil Works
    program on a path to stability and cost and schedule
    efficiency, sir?
        General Graham. Chairman Fleischmann, what we will see is
    we are delivering on our commitments. The first step is to--
    let's make good commitments at the very beginning. As I
    mentioned in my opening statement, all of that is predicated on
    getting the engineering right.
        There is a great book that is out by a Dutch economist. He
    is a professor at Oxford. It is called ``How Big Things Get
    Done,'' and most of us are reading it. And in there, one of its
    main premises are go slow to go fast. And by that, it is take
    the time necessary during the feasibility stage to make sure
    that you have thought through the engineering and that you have
    got all the stakeholders on board.
        We failed that at Chickamauga. Worse, we had a poor
    contractor. We are doing our best to work with that contractor
    to pull that contract across the finish line. But 3 years from
    now, I expect that our on-time percentage--as I mentioned, it
    is 73 percent right now--to be well above 80 percent.
        The last point, sir, is that that look is--when I take a
    look at our on-time percentage rate, that is a leading look as
    much as it is a look in the rearview mirror. So we are looking
    at the commitments we are making today and seeing are we on
    track for those commitments we have made in the future.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. I have two follow-up questions,
    sir, and you may have already answered that in this. So, if you
    would like to expand on that or supplement it in the two
    follow-up questions, sir.
        What quantitative metrics have you put in place to measure
    success and apply lessons learned to future studies and
    projects? And then when the next change of command arrives and
    you are assessing your tenure as chief of engineers, sir, what
    metrics will you judge your own effectiveness?
        General Graham. It is as simple as are we safely delivering
    quality projects on schedule within budget, and it can be a $3-
    billion lock and dam up at Soo. It can be a small wastewater
    infrastructure project somewhere in Tennessee. All of those are
    important to someone.
        So I often get asked, Chairman, are you going to prioritize
    the work you are doing? Absolutely not. We are project-funded,
    which means we can expand and contract as we are authorized and
    appropriated to do the work. And so when we sign up to deliver,
    that is our commitment to you.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. I realize I have a little
    bit of time left, but we have such a very robust dais, which I
    am very fortunate for, sir.
        So, at this time, I am going to recognize our distinguished
    ranking member for 5 minutes for questions, Ms. Kaptur.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General, through funding that Congress provided last year,
    the Corps allocated $10 million to the city of Toledo to
    initiate and complete construction to rehabilitate raw water
    means and water supply. Our water was cut off for 3 days back
    in 2014, and there are issues when our water draw in Toledo is
    only 20 feet below the surface, and when the wind blows east to
    Buffalo, we face the risk of not having water.
        General Quander, thank you for working with us to try to
    fund the critical work for Toledo. Do you commit to execute
    this project and these funds expeditiously?
        General Quander. Ranking Member Kaptur, thank you for that
    question.
        And for that Section 594 program for the city of Toledo, we
    are absolutely committed to partnering with them. They have
    been a great partner, and just talking to the district, we
    expect them to sign a letter of intent here pretty soon.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
        General Graham, the Corps has often struggled to execute
    environmental infrastructure projects in a timely manner. What
    is the Corps doing to improve its efficiency in implementing
    environmental infrastructure across the country?
        General Graham. Ranking Member Kaptur, as was mentioned
    earlier, all projects are important, whether they are a small
    environmental infrastructure project or a huge lock and dam
    project. And so the districts must, must make sure that the
    project delivery teams on all those projects are capable of
    doing the work assigned.
        Ms. Kaptur. We know in other programs not under your
    jurisdiction--like nuclear submarines--we are going to be
    spending an additional 2 billion-plus in order to meet the
    delivery, but the problem there is people who can actually do
    the work properly and shortages in the industrial base itself.
        As you look at your organization, do you face the same
    shortages? And could you be more specific about which
    competencies you lack and--human competencies--and then on the
    capability side, what in the industrial base is not serving you
    well?
        General Graham. Ma'am, let me start with the industrial
    base.
        We know that our pool of large contractors that can do a
    $3-billion project like up at the Soo--that that has shrunk
    over the years. And similar, too, when I look at the military
    side of the Army, the industrial base over there has shrunk as
    well.
        So we are working to ensure that we are maximizing the
    competition and our ability to leverage our small business
    program to continue to assist small businesses growing into
    large businesses. That is one of the goals that we have to
    increase capacity of our contracting base.
        On the Corps internal side, you get good at something by
    having reps and sets. So, if a district is only going to do a
    certain project once every 5 years, we are going to consolidate
    that work so that the team that is doing it does it more often.
    A good example for this, ma'am, is our locks and dams right
    now. We have got one design center that we have gone to, and
    they are doing all of the design across the Nation. And we are
    going down to two production centers, one in Rock Island and
    one in Pittsburgh, and they will do all the production.
        Ms. Kaptur. Okay. I am going to just move to Brandon Road
    really quickly in my time.
        We fought intensively to prevent the spread of the Asian
    carp into the Great Lakes, and we are not through this problem
    yet. You know what its aim is.
        I was going to ask General Graham. This project has
    struggled with delays due to negotiating the necessary
    agreements among the Corps and multiple nonfederal sponsors.
    How are you providing transparency and certainty to the
    nonfederal sponsors that the Corps will meet its obligations?
        And then, General Graham, I am going to ask you. This
    project was estimated to cost $830 million in 2021. After
    additional engineering work was done, the cost estimate now is
    1.1 billion. How is the Corps improving its initial cost
    estimating, and will it be able to--what are you now projecting
    for this project?
        General Graham, yes. Okay. Yes.
        General Graham. Ma'am, I will take that.
        Ms. Kaptur. Okay.
        General Graham. Ensuring that the engineering is a
    sufficient majority, that is the Rosetta Stone for all of this.
        For Brandon Road in particular, with the various States and
    nonfederal sponsors engaged, it is making sure that we have got
    alignment, that this project meets their needs. I know there
    are some challenges right now, but we are absolutely committed
    to continuing to work with our nonfederal sponsors to meet
    those challenges.
        On the engineering, we talked about the uncontrollable
    factors, particularly the inflation and the struggle with
    contractor capacity. So we will continue to work with industry
    to maximize their capability.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. My time has expired.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
        At this time, I would like to recognize my friend from
    California, the distinguished chairman of the Defense
    Appropriations Subcommittee, on which I am privileged to serve
    under him, Chairman Calvert.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, first, I want to thank the former assistant secretary
    of the Army, a long friend of mine, Mike Connor, and Colonel
    Handura for their work on the Majestic Chino project in the
    Prado Basin. The team helped navigate this 409 permit problem.
    We helped move that project forward. But I think it created a
    new precedent within the Corps for future projects, and I thank
    you for that and appreciate that.
        I also want to thank you for the work you are doing in L.A.
    It is obviously a tremendous disaster for the people in Los
    Angeles. With 7,000 structures, the debris removal is a
    tremendous job, but I know we waived the California
    Environmental Quality Act, NEPA, and also the California
    Coastal Commission to accelerate that project as quickly as
    possible, and I appreciate your work in getting that debris
    removal out as quickly as possible.
        The Prado Dam project is in my congressional district. I
    secured full funding for the Santa Ana River Mainstem funding
    in the 2018 Budget Act. The final component of the mainstem
    project involves raising the Prado Spillway to accommodate a
    higher level of flood protection, which was fully funded.
        The Prado Dam in Corona also requires a dam safety project.
    The Prado Dam shields almost 1.5 million people and $61 billion
    in property from potential flooding in 29 cities in Riverside
    and Orange County. In an effort to complete both objectives in
    a more cost-effective way, the Corps pursued a unified project
    that will accommodate both the dam safety objectives and goals
    of the mainstem project.
        However, your fiscal year 2023 budget justification for
    construction estimated the cost for this project was 650
    million. The following fiscal year in 2024, the estimated
    Federal cost of the project increased significantly to 1.3
    billion. And, frankly, I am concerned about what will be
    included in the fiscal year 2026 construction budget. The
    project is a prime example of why we have this hearing today,
    which is to evaluate project execution, project formation, and
    contracting.
        With regard to this project, what is being done to resolve
    these issues, and do you anticipate additional costs that are
    not already included in the requested amount? Do you anticipate
    additional design charges?
        Colonel Handura. Sir, I am going to turn that Prado piece
    over to my colleague, Colonel Walter, who is my teammate, and
    then I will follow up afterwards.
        Colonel Walter. Thank you, sir, very much. I appreciate the
    question.
        So, as we look at Prado in particular, I would like to
    hearken back to the chairman's opening comments about trying to
    find a path to do our business better, particularly to our
    acquisition strategies. What we have done at Prado is we are
    pursuing an integrated design and construction project, which
    is a contracting mechanism that industry uses, which shares
    risk across both the contractor and the Federal Government. The
    intent of this is to drive down the price during construction.
        So, after pre-construction services, there is a follow-on
    contract that is an option that is incentivized to the
    contractor to come below the target price where they are
    basically doing savings sharing. So that is one of the tools we
    are looking at to try to get the cost back into an actionable
    area.
        We do anticipate there are some--there continue to be some
    cost increase. That is mainly due to what we have already
    discussed, the market forces, and then also the addition of
    contingency in this contract mechanism.
        Mr. Calvert. Well, the sooner you can get that information
    to us, the better, where we can plan on that.
        One other project is the Murrieta Creek flood protection,
    restoration, and recreation project. That has been moving
    forward. We got the $39 million requested for completion of the
    phase 2b of the project. I am also concerned about this being
    delayed and additional design issues and additional costs that
    seem to continue to change as time goes on.
        So, hopefully, there is a--we can get the successful bid
    out and get this project complete. I have been working on this
    thing for 30 years. I would like to get it done in my lifetime.
        What do you think, Colonel? Can we get it done?
        Colonel Walter. Sir, I am not trying to----
        Mr. Calvert. I can move on to somebody else here.
        Colonel Handura. I have got this one. Sir, let me talk
    Murrieta.
        So, sir, we are on track scheduled for the ward of the last
    reach--that is the phase 2 bravo--in June of this year, 2025,
    and then we are looking at construction fall of 2025, sir.
        Mr. Calvert. You are going to stick to that?
        Colonel Handura. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Calvert. Okay. Great. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Chairman Calvert.
        At this time, I would like to recognize my friend and a new
    member to the full committee and to the subcommittee, the
    distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Levin, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Levin. Well, I thank my dear friend, the chairman, and
    it is truly an honor to be with you all. And I want to
    associate myself with my colleagues' comments thanking you for
    the hard work in L.A. I had the opportunity to go on tour with
    a number of the committee members recently, and it is just an
    incredible amount of work, and I am very grateful for it.
        I have the great honor to represent about 50 miles of
    beautiful Southern California coastline about an hour south of
    there in Orange County and San Diego County. Come visit
    anytime. We really have had a tremendous relationship with the
    Army Corps of Engineers. I particularly want to thank Colonel
    Handura and everyone for all the great work these last 6 years.
        We know firsthand the threats presented by coastal erosion,
    storm damage, and flooding, and the Army Corps continues to
    support numerous critical projects that maintain the integrity
    of infrastructure throughout our congressional district.
        This past year, after many ups and downs, I am pleased that
    we completed the first renourishment of the San Clemente
    Shoreline Project as well as the Encinitas Solana Beach Project
    to deliver sand for my constituents and to protect our vital
    coastal infrastructure.
        Colonel Handura, again, I want to personally thank you, as
    well as Colonel Baker at the L.A. District and General
    Spellmon, former commanding general for the Corps, for helping
    to make sure these projects were completed.
        And while completing these projects was a win, it also
    demonstrated the limitation that our Corps faces in the Pacific
    region. There is very limited dredge capacity in the Pacific,
    which increases costs and threatens both maintenance and
    emergency dredging needs and the ability to complete projects
    in the necessary dredging windows.
        Months- and even years-long dredging delays negatively
    impact communities, beaches, and the movement of goods through
    our ports and harbors. We must ensure adequate annual funding
    for the Corps Plant Replacement Improvement Program to support
    the Corps' infrastructure needs and make sure the Corps has the
    capacity it needs to best serve communities like mine
    throughout the entire Pacific region.
        Colonel Handura, the city of Oceanside has experienced
    significant coastal erosion challenges since the construction
    of Camp Pendleton Harbor in 1942, and the Federal Government
    has acknowledged that construction of the harbor jetties was a
    direct contributing cause of this erosion.
        I appreciate that the Corps is finally nearing completion
    of the Oceanside mitigation study to study this right--or to
    right this wrong, I should say--after nearly 25 years of work.
    That is pretty stunning.
        It is of the utmost importance to my constituents that the
    Corps fully analyze a beach-fill-only alternative--that is the
    key, a beach-fill-only alternative--to get more sand on the
    badly eroded coastline, especially since there are strong local
    concerns about the construction of groins.
        So can you commit, sir, that the Corps will work
    collaboratively with the city of Oceanside and other local
    governments in the area as you analyze alternatives to mitigate
    for the coastal erosion caused by Camp Pendleton Harbor?
        Colonel Handura. Sir, thank you for that question. And we
    are moving forward on that mitigation study with plans to
    undertake sampling--sediment sampling in fiscal year 2025, the
    window of May to September.
        USACE has a legal and policy--may have a legal--USACE has a
    legal and policy barrier to implementing sponsor-requested
    alternative evaluation on the beach fill because this is a
    mitigation study and we are restricted to the least-cost plan.
    Any deviation to this would require a policy determination by
    the administration.
        We understand the stakeholders have broad concerns with the
    potential environmental damages associated by the groin
    alternative, and we are committed to using our stakeholder
    engagement process required under NEPA to ensure we have the
    locally accepted plan.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you. Local acceptance is key, and I will
    be watching this very closely and really want you to work
    collaboratively with our city and our community.
        Let me turn to another project, the San Luis Rey River
    Flood Control Project, which the Corps has been working on
    since before I was born. I am 46 years old. I remain deeply
    concerned about the low level of flood protection that the
    project presently provides despite over five decades of work
    and tens of millions of local dollars that have already been
    contributed to the project.
        Colonel, what assurances can you give me that the Corps
    will move diligently towards the implementation of a
    construction plan that ensures, first, that the highest-
    priority necessary work for flood control is accomplished as
    soon as possible and, second, that the entire project is
    finished efficiently?
        Colonel Handura. Sir, thank you for that question. And we
    are committed to finishing what we have started on that project
    contingent upon funding and engineering analysis for the levy
    and the sand plug. We have been trying to wrap this project up
    since reauthorization in WRDA 2020.
        We appreciate the 7 million in funding received to do the
    geotechnical evaluation, and that report will inform if further
    levy repairs are needed. The geotech analysis is on schedule to
    be complete by this March of 2025. The sand plug analysis is
    needed to determine if it can be removed safely or if it
    naturally requires intervention. This and the sand plug removal
    is needed to complete the project to provide the channel
    capacity to pass the 100-year event.
        Mr. Levin. I am out of time, but I would like to ask for a
    follow-up meeting with the Los Angeles District and South
    Pacific Division so that we can get the project moving.
        Colonel Handura. Absolutely, sir.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you. And I will ask other questions for
    the record.
        And I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Levin.
        At this time, I would like to recognize the distinguished
    vice chairman of this subcommittee, new to the subcommittee and
    proud to be my partner here, Mr.--goodness gracious--Mr.
    Chairman Cloud of Texas from the Corpus Christi area. It is an
    honor to have you with us, sir.
        Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Chairman. It is an honor to be here,
    and I look forward to continuing to serve you in this committee
    and in our Nation.
        I want to thank you all for being here. Thank you for the
    work that you do. Anytime I am sitting in front of people who
    have distinguished military service like you all, I am humbled.
    And thank you for your service. I appreciate it.
        I also want to say thank you for the great work that is
    being done along the Texas coast where I represent the Port of
    Corpus Christi. Our number-one energy export port is coming to
    completion. That is because a lot of the great work that you
    all are doing, and we are excited to see that happen and all
    that it is going to mean--not only for our national economy but
    what it is going to mean for our allies as we are able to
    support them with energy around the world.
        I do want to touch on the Matagorda Ship Channel. This has
    been kind of a sticking point as we move through. We had a
    project that had a record of decision. In an unprecedented
    move, the Biden administration rescinded the record of
    decision--that had never been done before--and sent the project
    back to basically zero starting point.
        And so we have been working to move this forward as quickly
    as possible. You know, we have had a number of meetings to do
    what we can to squeeze that timeline as much as possible.
        I have been concerned about the Corps' willingness in the
    previous administration to--I am trying to think of a polite
    way to say this, but--to acquiesce to certain environmentalist
    groups who looked to put roadblocks who--their stated position
    is to kill the project.
        I understand we want to build and we want to do it reliably
    and responsibly and those kind of things, but when their stated
    objective is to put every sort of hindrance into the project in
    an effort to kill it, I get very concerned about that. And so
    we have seen this timeline continue to slip.
        And, in light of President Trump's new executive order--
    which, you know, it is a dozen pages or so, and so I won't read
    it all--but he talks about the importance of speed. Burdensome,
    ideological-motivated regulations have impeded the development
    of our natural resources. He talks about the national interest
    to unleash America's affordability and reliable energy in
    natural resources. And he goes on and he basically says, we
    need to find a way to expedite this going forward.
        And you, being in the Army, know that we are in a massive
    competition globally and especially with China, and they seem
    to be able to build things quicker than we can. And so I would
    like to know what we can do to move this project forward very
    quickly and efficiently going forward.
        I was concerned, again, you know, as we are looking at
    delays in this project, that there was a Justice 40 seminar
    that the Corps took time to spend time on that day. Meanwhile,
    we have projects not moving forward. And so I would like to
    have some sort of confidence on what we can do to streamline
    this timeline in light of President Trump's new executive
    order.
        Colonel Walter. Sir, if you don't mind, I will take that
    one.
        Mr. Cloud. Thank you, sir.
        Colonel Walter. It is good to see you again.
        So, Matagorda is one where we did get the engineering
    wrong. You and I discussed that when we met the last time.
        So, as we look forward, we are actually just wrapping up
    the supplemental EIS, the environmental impact statement, for
    that area. When we had to place the dredge material, we need to
    look through--we look very good on that. I just actually signed
    a validation review of the path forward. I believe that in
    November of 2025 we will be able to release--so this November--
    release for public comment the report with a post-authorization
    change request the following year, November of 2026, which
    would allow to understand the full cost of that project.
        For going forward, we absolutely remained committed to
    monitoring and holding ourselves accountable. The chief had
    mentioned the monthly reviews of our programs. So keeping an
    eye on our metrics for how we are doing and looking forward to
    make sure that, as milestones are approaching, we are prepared
    for them so that we can ensure that we are not eating into
    contingency and going long on things.
        Mr. Cloud. One other question I had on this particular
    project, too, is the BCR has been an issue--benefit-cost
    ratio--which, normally, I am for. I am a fiscal hawk, and so I
    always want us to have a taxpayer--a good ROI on this. This is
    one where we have a nonfederal sponsor willing to pay for
    almost the whole project, and yet there has been no sort of
    allowance made for that or consideration for that in our
    conversations despite my many efforts to bring kind of common
    sense to this equation. And so my hope is that that would not
    be a hindrance moving forward.
        And anything you can to speak to that, especially in light
    of--we have groups that are specifically trying to move the
    cost up to make that formula not work and so that the American
    people wouldn't be able to have access to the completion of
    this congressionally authorized project.
        Colonel Walter. Sir, I think it is fair to say we are
    mindful of that. Rhett, who is down in Galveston--he and I
    traded notes on this yesterday as far as the value to the
    American people. So we remain focused on that.
        Any discussion outside the policy side of it, I would
    really have to defer back to the administration and then the
    Army--or the assistant secretary of the Army for Civil Works to
    go through the implementation for policy.
        Mr. Cloud. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thanks for all your
    work.
        Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Fleischmann. I thank the vice chairman for his
    questions.
        At this time, I would like to recognize my friend from the
    great State of Indiana, Mr. Mrvan, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Mrvan. Thank you, Chairman.
        And thank you to all the witnesses for your testimony
    today.
        Before I get to my first question, I want to first take a
    minute to recognize the important work of the U.S. Army Corps
    of Engineers, which is critical strengthening the economy--a
    critical role in strengthening the economy of northwest Indiana
    and the entire Midwest and our Nation.
        I am privileged to represent Indiana's First Congressional
    District, which is home to 40 miles of Lake Michigan shoreline,
    three major river corridors, the Grand Calumet River, the
    Little Calumet--the Grand Calumet River, the Little Calumet
    River, and the Kankakee River, as well as the Trail Creek,
    Burns Harbor, and Indiana Harbor waterways. It is the center of
    vital road, rail, air, and port networks in the Great Lakes
    Region and is home to major manufacturing industries. This
    infrastructure, in conjunction with our labor workforce and
    proximity to Chicago, enables our region to attract new
    commercial and residential interests and talent.
        There is no doubt projects under the jurisdiction of the
    U.S. Corps of Engineers serve as an economic driver of
    Indiana's First Congressional District, and I am grateful for
    their missions in our region. I cannot tell you how many times
    I have stood with mayors and other State and local officials
    who have shared that your work has facilitated economic
    development and enhanced the quality of life for residents in
    our region.
        I also appreciate our partnership with other economic
    drivers in our region, including the dredging initiatives at
    the international port of the Burns Harbor, permitting the
    Gary/Chicago Airport, and efforts to protect our shoreline and
    clean our waterways, particularly through the Great Lakes
    Restoration Initiative.
        My father was one of the longest-serving members of the
    Indiana General Assembly, and as a young child, I remember
    attending public forums with him and other stakeholders,
    including the representatives from the Corps, to address the
    toxic pollution found in the Grand Calumet River. I am proud
    that the Federal Government, including the EPA in partnerships
    with the Corps, has made such great progress, and I am hopeful
    that, as we move forward, we can finish this work to remove
    over a century of industrial discharge and benefit the
    countless residents, businesses, and environment of northwest
    Indiana for the next century. And I look forward to working
    with all of you.
        My first question is for Major General Quander. In my
    district and across the Great Lakes, some projects have been
    slowed because of the difficulty of finding somewhere to put
    contaminated dredge materials. How does the dredging and the
    management of the dredge materials impact the Corps' ability to
    carry out its mission with respect to dredging and the
    operations and maintenance?
        General Quander. Representative Mrvan, sir, thank you for
    that question.
        In terms of dredging, each State has some different--we
    have engagements with different States with dredging and we
    just--we have different engagements with different States in
    terms of dredging with Illinois, with the State of Ohio, and
    then--those States.
        Representative, we need some additional capacity for
    dredging, clearly, in the Great Lakes, and then we need some
    opportunities to how we dispose the dredging. And, like I said,
    we have some different challenges in different States.
        Mr. Mrvan. What are the opportunities for the disposal?
    What does the future look like?
        General Quander. Representative Mrvan, in terms of
    opportunities for disposal, we have our confined disposal
    facilities, which we know we have in the State of Indiana.
        Mr. Mrvan. Correct.
        General Quander. I know you have that in your district. Up
    in the Great Lakes, though, we have some challenges in terms of
    Illinois with the Calumet confined disposal facility. And so,
    as we are trying to dispose, we are kind of at an impasse at
    that location.
        Mr. Mrvan. Okay. One other quick question, General. With
    respect to the Great Lakes Coastal Resilience Study, can you
    explain the benefits of studying the variability--the viability
    of lake levels and the shorelines as well as the potential
    economic impacts that these fluctuations may have at the Great
    Lakes coastal communities?
        General Quander. Yes, sir. So, in terms of the Great Lakes
    Resilience Study, we have previously experienced negative
    impacts from both the high and low lake levels in the past 30
    years. Flooding and coastal erosion have occurred more
    frequently.
        That partnership with the eight Great Lakes States has been
    hugely important, and it is allowing us to look at lake levels
    and also studying potential vulnerabilities in those lake
    levels and make recommendations. We have just completed the
    first milestone of the shared vision, and we look to
    incorporate projects after we continue to progress on that
    Great Lakes study.
        Mr. Mrvan. Okay. I look forward to working with you in the
    future. Thank you.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Mrvan.
        At this time, I would like to acknowledge and recognize my
    friend, Mr. Franklin, from the great State of Florida.
        Gentlemen, this man has had a distinguished career in the
    great United States Navy as an aviator and is just a great new
    member of this subcommittee. I am glad to have you, sir.
        Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, gentlemen, for being here today.
        I have the privilege of representing Florida's 18th
    Congressional District, which is the heartland of the State of
    Florida. I tell everybody it is the south half of Florida with
    no saltwater. So if that gets your bearings.
        But, as you all probably know, there is a tremendous amount
    of work you all do in my district. The Western Everglades
    Restoration Plan, that is in our district. All the watershed
    that feeds that has a tremendous amount of projects that you
    all are involved in. So you are top of mind for many of my
    constituents, and I appreciate all the work you do.
        We can always do things better, and I know I am sensing
    that from you all. There is a spirit there to try to improve
    our processes. We always want to do government, you know,
    better, faster, cheaper, and fix people's problems.
        So I want to dive in a little bit--General Hibner, this
    would probably be most appropriate to you--to talk about the
    Section 404 Clean Water Act permitting--and this is really just
    an example that can scale across anywhere else within the
    Corps--but just talk about the efficiencies in this program.
        In 2016, the Army Corps Jacksonville District approved 735
    projects. In 2017, it was 874 projects. 2018, 850. So around,
    you know, 825 give or so--give or take a few each year--was
    what was getting done. In 2020, the State of Florida assumed
    the ability to issue those permits. So it kind of took some of
    that workload off the Corps. By 2022, the State had done 1,615
    projects. In 2023, 1,450 projects. So roughly double. Not quite
    double, but quite a bit more. It reduced the backlog that had
    been a big part of the frustration for constituents.
        But, in February of 2024, the Federal Government--or the
    Federal courts issued an order that took away that State
    authority and put it back on the Corps. I know that wasn't
    anything that excited the Jacksonville office at the time, but
    it was what it was. Since that time and, really, within a
    matter of weeks after that decision, our phones started blowing
    up with the backlog starting to mount again. Now, we have got
    big backlogs and we are trying to figure out how to plow
    through that.
        I have an amendment in the--well, before I get to that, I
    would just love to hear your thoughts. Why is it that the State
    seems to be able to do this so much more efficiently than the
    Corps has been able to? Is it a question of money? Is it
    people? Is it the processes?
        Assuming the State is doing it right and the standards are
    met at the same that the Corps would do--and that is an
    important assumption, and if that is not valid, then I would
    need to understand that. But why the difference and the
    disparity? Why can the state do it much more efficiently?
        General Hibner. Yes, sir. I appreciate the question. And I
    won't pass judgment on whether the State was doing it properly
    or not. They were told to stop in 2024. We were doing our part
    in helping the State assume that responsibility for 404
    permitting.
        And what we have done since then is we have actually
    established a regional permitting agency within the division--
    not only my division, but other divisions in the Corps of
    Engineers--to help us expedite our permitting process, to put
    more resources against our permitting process to--in order to
    let that development--all this really important development to
    occur for the people of Florida and for the Nation, and we will
    continue to do that.
        Whatever the future holds for 404 permitting, if it does
    end up going back to Florida and Jacksonville won't be doing
    that, we will, once again, in good faith be good partners in
    transferring that responsibility back to the State of Florida.
    But I will mention that that does cause turbulence and that
    does slow us down as we are doing those multiple transitions,
    but we will do it as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
        Mr. Franklin. And I understand there is turbulence in that
    transition, and that probably contributed to some of the
    backlog increase initially when it was moved back over.
        If the State were to take this--assume this fully, what
    kind of savings would that provide for you? And then,
    conversely, if the decision were not made and it stayed on the
    Corps' plate, do you need additional--what additional funds are
    we talking about?
        General Hibner. Sir, it doesn't necessarily provide savings
    to us. We have our regulatory program and our regulatory
    personnel that are providing that service of doing those--of
    processing those permits.
        So, whether it is the Corps of Engineers doing it or it is
    the State of Florida, the funding that comes from the Federal
    Government will be directed just to a different entity. Instead
    of my regulatory program, it would be the State's regulatory
    program, and we would have to figure out how we best employ our
    regulators or let them go since the work is no longer there for
    the Federal Government.
        Mr. Franklin. Okay. And, along with the ranking member, I
    too hope that we can get our appropriations bills done for
    fiscal year 2025. I have got an amendment that is in the
    Interior appropriations bill for 2025 that would restore that
    authority back to Florida, and I appreciate your comments that
    it would be a smooth transition. If we do that, we definitely
    want to be working with you all hand in hand to ensure a smooth
    turnover. But thank you very much, gentlemen, for being here.
        Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Franklin. I also echo your
    sentiments. I sure hope we can get fiscal year 2025 done. So
    thank you.
        At this time, I would like to recognize my friend from the
    great State of Mississippi, the distinguished chairman of the
    House Ethics Committee, who is with us on this subcommittee
    today, Mr. Guest. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Gentlemen, thank you for being with us today. I think you
    can see from the questioning here that every district across
    our great Nation has critical infrastructure needs, and each of
    us--as Members of Congress, we do our best to try to vet those
    infrastructure needs, and then we advocate for our district as
    we seek funding for those critical infrastructure projects.
    And, many times, you are going to be included as individuals
    who are going to be working on those projects.
        And we know and we have seen here today by some of the
    examples that have been given that, often, we find that those
    projects experience extensive delays, that those delays then
    cause the cost of the projects to go up extensively, and that
    we experience--as Members of Congress, we experience
    frustration with that. Our constituents back home, our local
    leaders, local government entities who are vested and bought
    into these projects--they experience frustration.
        And so what we want to try to do--and I think that the goal
    of this hearing is to figure out where those choke points are
    and what we can do to alleviate those choke points and try to
    get these projects flowing much quicker.
        There have been examples here. Chairman Calvert talked
    about the fact that he has a problem--has a project within his
    district that has been going on for 36 years. I think I heard
    someone over here mention a project maybe going on for 40
    years. You know, and I think back that, you know, we were able
    to construct the Hoover Dam in 5 years, actually 2 years early
    and under budget. We were able to send a man to the moon 8
    years after John F. Kennedy challenged America to fulfill that
    mission.
        And so I know that we have the ability, that we have the
    workforce, but I feel like that we have been constrained. And
    some of the constraints you have mentioned--particularly on the
    larger projects, General, you mentioned the fact that there are
    only 25 firms nationally that can do projects of over 500
    million, but there are a lot of smaller projects where we would
    have additional contractors and additional firms who are able
    to participate.
        And so the first question is, do you--being the Army Corps,
    do you have the workforce that you need to get these projects
    approved and to get these projects moving forward? And then the
    second part--and we can talk about these at the same time--is
    the environmental compliance. And you talk about the
    environmental compliance in your testimony. You talk about the
    National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA, the Endangered
    Species Act or ESA, the Clean Water Act. And so what can be
    done to expedite these critical infrastructure projects to move
    through the environmental compliance?
        And Michael Cloud made a good point that there are
    environmental groups that are continuing--continue to sue to
    United States Government with the sole goal in mind to shut the
    project down completely. They don't want the project to be
    built better or to have less harm to the environment. They just
    want to kill the whole damn thing. And the longer they can keep
    it in court, and the longer that it drags out, and the more
    costs that are associated, then they hope that we will move on
    and do something else.
        And so the two questions that I have--and I will stop
    talking and give you the next minute and a half to answer
    those--is, one, workforce within the Army Corps. Do you have
    the workforce that you need, particularly to the smaller
    projects? And then what can be done on the environmental
    compliance side?
        General Graham. Representative Guest, thank you for that
    question.
        Regarding cost delays, we share your frustration. We
    absolutely do. Everyone at this table shares that frustration.
    We take this personally when we can't deliver on our
    commitments to you and to your constituents.
        On the internal workforce, we are susceptible to the same
    market trends that everybody else is. We are at 3 percent
    unemployment, and it is a hot market out there right now for
    structural engineers, and we have to compete. We have the tools
    available that allow us to do that.
        And so that is our responsibility to successfully compete
    in the labor market, or we have to tell you that I can't get to
    this project right now. We are not going to say no. We just
    have to say not now because I don't have the workforce on
    board, but we will work hard to get it. What we also can do is
    to leverage the talents of the private sector.
        In the 18 seconds I have left, sir, in terms of the
    environmental compliance, this is one where it is almost
    counterintuitive, but it is go slow to go fast. Every time we
    have tried to not dot our Ts--dot our Ts--cross our Ts and dot
    our Is carefully on the environmental side, we usually end up
    getting sued, and then that sets the project back further.
        Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for those
    questions.
        At this time, I would like to recognize Ms. Lee of Nevada.
        Gentleman, Ms. Lee, like my good friend from California,
    Mr. Levin, is one of my co-chairs. I chair eight caucuses, and
    caucuses--and I say this because there are other people
    watching this all across America--are a way that Republicans
    and Democrats can work together in a bipartisan fashion on a
    common issue.
        With Ms. Lee, it is cleaning up legacy waste sites. With
    Mr. Levin, it is on spent nuclear fuel. So it is a bit niche,
    but we all work together.
        So at this time, I would like to recognize Ms. Lee of
    Nevada for 5 minutes and thank her.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your
    leadership.
        I also want to thank all the witnesses for being here today
    and for all the critical work you do with respect to our water
    resources, and that is really what I want to focus on right
    now, being from Nevada, and my colleagues from other States
    where water resources are plentiful.
        I was very disturbed to hear about the Army Corps' highly
    unusual release of over 2 billion gallons of water from Central
    California's Terminus and Schafer Dams last month in what
    appears to have been, quite honestly, just a simple, risky,
    rushed, wasteful political stunt by the Trump administration to
    create this impression that somehow this water would assist the
    wildfire response in Southern California.
        After that happened, there was reporting that the water
    didn't help the farms or L.A. at all.
        And actually, what is more concerning, being from the west,
    is the understanding of how important our reservoirs are to
    water management, especially as we look to a potential drought
    year again and what farmers are going to do come August when
    they rely on that water that was released prematurely from
    those dams.
        So my question, General Graham, is not about this now well-
    covered incident in Southern California, but more about what
    are we doing going forward, and how are we going to handle when
    politics sometimes comes and trumps the science and the good
    sense in water management?
        I want to know is the Army Corps positioned and prepared to
    ensure that its stewardship of so much of America's water
    remains free from this type of harmful political interference?
        General Graham. Representative Lee, thank you for that
    question.
        And we absolutely remain committed to making sure that all
    of our actions are lawful. We have got great working
    relationships with the irrigators down in the Tulare Lake
    region of the southern Central Valley, and our commitment is to
    continue to work with the State and local irrigators to get the
    maximum benefit out of the water and those basins.
        And so, the water that was released those days were flood
    storage water. It wasn't irrigation water, and so that was
    completely within Corps authorities.
        Now, what we have done, and certainly the sense of Congress
    has been to work as collaboratively as we possibly can with the
    local irrigators on the flood waters.
        And so, we have an R&D initiative called forecasting
    foreign reservoir operations where we will take a little bit
    more increased risk with holding onto flood storage waters
    because we can see the atmospheric rivers as they are coming
    across the Pacific. And that allows us to then more slowly
    discharge those rivers to make sure that we are maximizing what
    the irrigators and the citizens can use.
        So, ma'am, that is our commitment to you.
        Ms. Lee. So are you saying that this was flood control?
    That this release, it wasn't prompted by any call by the Trump
    administration?
        General Graham. Ma'am, the water released was flood storage
    water.
        Ms. Lee. No, but was it a flood management release, or was
    it at the direction of the Trump administration, was my
    question?
        General Graham. Ma'am, the answer to the question is it was
    in compliance with the executive order that we were given.
        Ms. Lee. Okay.
        So that allows me to drill a little bit deeper on another
    issue of political interference.
        So now, if Congress specifically directs funding to an Army
    Corps project in fiscal year 2025 or 2026 under our
    appropriations legislation, but the President or, perhaps, his
    OMB director, then illegally orders the Corps to withhold such
    funding, how will the Corps respond?
        General Graham. Ma'am, when our policy officials come on
    board--right now that question would be best directed towards
    them. We don't have any of our policy officials on board right
    now. And that would normally be the Assistant Secretary of the
    Army for Civil Works is an appointed official, and we don't
    have any of those folks on board now.
        Ms. Lee. So you can't answer whether or not the Army Corps
    of Engineers will legally adhere with our Constitution and our
    appropriations process? You are unable to answer that? We need
    someone else to do that?
        General Graham. Ma'am, we will always ensure that our
    actions are legal and in accord with the Constitution. The more
    nuanced policy questions, I would ask that once we get a policy
    official on board, they would be best set to address those
    adequately.
        Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you.
        I yield.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
        At this time, I would like to recognize my friend Ms. Maloy
    of Utah. She is new to the subcommittee, is a water attorney by
    profession----
        Ms. Maloy. I used to be.
        Mr. Fleischmann [continuing]. And I thank her.
        So it is a privilege to have you on the subcommittee.
        And I recognize you for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Maloy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am going to follow up on some of the things that my
    colleagues over here talked about with the choke points and
    efficiencies with getting permits issued, but I want to talk
    about it at a little bit higher level.
        I introduced the Free Act last Congress and this Congress,
    and it is an attempt to get agencies to look into using permit
    by rule so that we can issue permits more efficiently.
        In the meantime, Executive Order 14154, issued on the day
    of inauguration, orders the Secretary of Defense, as well as
    the heads of other relevant agencies to undertake all available
    efforts to eliminate all delays within their respective
    permitting processes, including through but not limited to the
    use of general permitting and permit by rule.
        So while I am working on it on the legislative side, you
    are also being told by the administration to work on it.
        And a couple of my colleagues, during their time, talked
    about preventing projects by making them more expensive, how
    there are groups that like to sue and delay projects and make
    them just more and more expensive until they may become
    prohibitively expensive and never happen.
        But even if we get projects built and permitted, they cost
    the taxpayers a lot more than they needed to, to begin with.
        So my question is: Are you familiar with the executive
    order? And if so, what are you doing to implement permit by
    rule and eliminate some of these efficiencies that we have been
    talking about today?
        General Graham. Representative Maloy, thank you for that
    question.
        We are, indeed, familiar with executive order--all of the
    executive orders that have come down regarding our regulatory
    program, and we are working to unpack those right now.
        I don't have any direct answers for you right now, but we
    certainly acknowledge the challenge.
        Ms. Maloy. Okay. Well, I would encourage you to work with
    us to find ways to implement permit by rule.
        One of the things that you all talked about is that the
    private sector could be utilized better in meeting some of
    these needs, but there is some inefficiency in doing that.
        In a permit-by-rule scenario, the private sector could be
    utilized in giving the Corps some of the information that you
    can then review to decide whether it is adequate for issuing a
    permit.
        I think that would be a lot better for the taxpayers, we
    would have good environmental decisions, good engineering
    decisions, made in a lot less time.
        So please work with us; let us help you figure out how to
    implement that because I think it is a good direction for us to
    go in the future permits shouldn't take as long as they take.
    We can make good environmental decisions a lot faster and a lot
    cheaper than we are making them.
        General Graham. We are in 100 percent agreement with you.
        Ms. Maloy. Thank you for your time thank you for being
    here. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Fleischmann. And thank you, Ms. Maloy, for those
    questions.
        It has been brought to my attention, gentlemen--and by the
    way, I thank you for a very furtive first round of questions.
        Some of my colleagues would like to engage in a second
    round and glad to acquiesce in that regard.
        Myself, I am satisfied, but I am going to defer now to the
    ranking member--oh, well we are back in the first round kind of
    like, well, that is good, which is great, hold those comments.
        My friend from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, welcome
    back, and you are welcome to ask questions for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and
    thank you for the indulgence.
        And my questions will be directed at General Hibner.
        General, this subcommittee, on a bipartisan basis, has
    strongly supported projects across the country to accommodate
    larger container ships that are coming to dominate the
    waterborne shipping industry.
        And Port Everglades, in my district, is not only a
    cornerstone of south Florida's economy, but also one of the
    Nation's most critical seaports facilitating billions in trade
    and supporting thousands of jobs in our region.
        As one of the top container ports in Florida and a key
    gateway for energy products, cruise operations, and
    international commerce, ensuring its infrastructure keeps pace
    with industry demands is really essential. But the Army Corps'
    navigation improvement project has still not been implemented
    after three decades.
        The port is struggling to accommodate increasingly larger
    cargo vessels. The Port Everglades Pilot's Association has done
    an exceptional job navigating these challenges, but their
    ability to safely transit larger ships is now further hindered
    by high spots from shoaling identified in the Corps' latest
    hydrographic survey.
        While the Corps originally planned the next full channel
    maintenance event for fiscal year 2027 the Jacksonville
    district has indicated that they have the capability to at
    least start preparatory work if funding is available.
        So given Port Everglades' vital role in our district's
    economy and national trade, would you support including funding
    in the Corps' fiscal year 2025 work plan to expedite this
    maintenance event?
        General Hibner. Ma'am we acknowledge the importance of the
    port and the importance of regionally having all of our harbors
    at maximum capacity so that all the ships that are calling on,
    say, the eastern seaboard in my region are available at the
    maximum depth and those ships can come in at any time that they
    need to, that we are not relying on title action to bring in
    the largest vessels in all of those considerations.
        And to Port Everglades, ma'am, I am tracking that there is
    some typical shoaling that does happen in our harbors, but that
    the cycle of 5 to 6 years for doing the O&M, dredging the
    operations and management dredging for Port Everglades is on
    schedule and should happen in 2027 and 2028.
        And that is all I have.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But what I am asking you is there is
    room to expedite some of this, and is that something that you
    could look at and be supportive of so that we can move faster.
        General Hibner. Ma'am, if there is, and I apologize for not
    knowing the exact details of the condition of the port, exactly
    how much shoaling is happening.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes, that is okay.
        General Hibner. But if there is some maintenance that needs
    to be done, we will of course do what we can to address those
    concerns.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
        But what I am asking you to do is please go back and take a
    closer look at it and see if it is possible to expedite any
    portion of it.
        General Hibner. Understood, ma'am, we will.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Because it is really critical for
    us.
        General Hibner. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I also, General Hibner, note that
    this hearing has been focused on project delays and rising
    costs at the Army Corps. I was here for the beginning of the
    meeting and heard the testimony.
        But no project has experienced more of these delays than
    the deepening and widening project at Port Everglades. Can you
    provide us with an update and timeline for when we can expect
    to reach key milestones to move this project forward, and what
    steps can Congress take to ensure that projects like this one
    don't face unnecessary bureaucratic delays.
        General Hibner. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It has been more than 20 years.
        General Hibner. Ma'am, we submitted the biological
    assessment for the expansion of the harbor back in May of 2024.
    We appreciate you and your office's support in trying to come
    to an agreement with the National Marine Fisheries Service to
    be able to reconcile some of our differences in what they see
    in our biological assessment and what we think is sufficient
    and what they believe is sufficient.
        As to your question for the timeline, this has gone long
    enough in our assessment.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Oh, yes.
        General Hibner. And we want to move this forward. We are
    going to do a final push next month with a meeting with the
    regional leadership of both the Corps of Engineers and NMFS,
    with the goal of reconciling as much as we can.
        If we are able to and we are successful, then we will be
    able to have a biological opinion process started with NMFS in
    July of 2025 this year with the goal of having a record of
    decision in October of 2026.
        If not, ma'am, we are done doing this at the regional level
    and we are going to bring this up to the higher level the
    headquarters and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
    Works.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        And I am going to continue to offer my assistance to be
    able to try to make sure we can bring this in for a landing to
    address the environmental concerns and the economic needs to
    move this project forward.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I yield back.
        Mr. Fleischmann. I want to thank Ms. Wasserman Schultz for
    her questions.
        And I will associate myself with my earlier remarks. We are
    now going to move to round two.
        And I recognize Ms. Kaptur for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General, I wanted to ask you, in order to help the Corps
    meet your staffing challenges and some of the contracting
    challenges you have discussed, how few companies there are in
    our country that can actually handle a contract with bonding
    over $500 million, would you be open or have you ever done
    Zooms with Members of Congress and having them invite their
    business communities to hear this for the first time, both in
    terms of staffing as well as the private contracting issue?
    Would you be open to that? Do you have staff to do that?
        Could someone answer that, please?
        General Graham. Sure.
        Ma'am, absolutely, we would be open to that. Each of the
    regions, they do regional industry days. Maybe I will ask
    General Quander to speak about what his regional industry day
    does. And those are broad gatherings of industry and government
    officials to lay out what work might be coming up and what
    capacity they might have. It is a good meeting of the minds.
        Mark.
        General Quander. Thank you, ranking member, for that
    question.
        In terms of industry days, so for us, we do it both at the
    regional level and the district level. And as General Graham
    described, we bring in members of industry. Some are folks that
    are new to the Corps. So we explain how--we explain our
    workload first and our portfolio, what we have coming up for
    the next year. And then we explain how we do business with the
    Corps. And so we push that information out there.
        Then we do breakout sessions, and those breakout sessions,
    it is both us talking about Corps projects and feedback from
    industry on how we can work better together. And the feedback
    from industry has been hugely valuable as we look at how we do
    acquisition in the future, ma'am.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you for that.
        Well, I can tell you what, we will be interested in our
    area. So if you are open to that, just let me know who we call.
        I want to move on to another question. I handed out a map
    this morning before the official meeting began, and it is
    actually a map of the--a small map of the largest watershed in
    the entire Great Lakes, which our region shares with Canada.
        And the reason I am showing this to you is because I think
    I have served longer than anybody in the room. And 40 years
    ago, we had sent a sample of the dredge material from the
    southern shores of Lake Erie, the largest dredging budget in
    the Great Lakes, the southern shore of Lake Erie.
        And we asked them for help because there is so much
    material, it would fill the Cleveland Browns stadium every year
    400 feet high. That is how much dredge material there is.
        And we have been seeking for years, working with the Corps
    and others, to try to find a way to reapply this material in a
    scientifically reasonable manner.
        I will invite you to lunch, if that is legal, I don't know,
    and we will go over to Cleveland, and we are going to meet with
    the sewage treatment division of the greater Cleveland area.
    They have managed to process raw sewage and turn it into an
    EPA-applied land application that can be used in parks. It can
    be used in gardens and so forth.
        And I keep asking myself if the city of Cleveland, which
    has one of the finest--I don't represent it anymore. Our State
    likes to gerrymander us around, but actually, it has benefited
    me as a human being, because now I understand the whole
    watershed.
        The Cleveland area has found the magic key, and so I would
    like--we never really got a good answer from Vicksburg. The
    soil went down there. It came back and went back again. I don't
    know. It is like--I want to bring the Vicksburg people in to
    meet the folks in the Cleveland Water and Wastewater Authority
    and see what it is that is so unique about the +dredge
    material, which I think would be so much cleaner than what they
    are dealing with, and why we can't get a scientific answer out
    of the Corps.
        So I don't know if you would be open to that, General, but
    I think we need to cross skills here and try to find a way so
    that we can land apply dredge material.
        Would anyone wish to respond to that request?
        General Graham. Yes, ma'am. And I will start, and I will
    turn it over to General Quander.
        First off, the benefit to reuse the dredge material, to
    view this clean material as an asset, we are 100 percent on
    board. Our goal is to achieve 70 percent beneficial reuse of
    all of our dredge material. We will certainly bring our
    engineering research and developers up to meet with the
    Cleveland folks and General Quander's team to see if we are
    missing something that Cleveland has figured out.
        Ms. Kaptur. You know, and what has happened over the
    years--I hate to--it is 40 years of effort. So I have got 10
    seconds left.
        But can you imagine how difficult we have made this? Got
    into a big fight, Cleveland, and then had to stop the Corps, go
    to Federal court to stop the Corps from open-lake dumping.
        And we built all of these containment facilities on the
    Great Lakes, across the Great Lakes, certainly our region of
    the Great Lakes, but we haven't gotten--we have done
    experiments with corn growing right on the banks of the Maumee
    River. We have worked with the agriculture department on that.
        This seems to be a solvable--this isn't nuclear waste. We
    have got enough trouble with that.
        And if you tell me it has got to go in a hole, the region
    that I represent has giant, giant stone quarries, and they have
    dug down hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of feet. There is
    room to store material there, more than the Cleveland Browns
    stadium.
        My point is I think we have a way of dealing with this, but
    we can't seem to get the scientists together to find an answer.
    And I really don't understand what is holding it up because
    there is so much material. It is just so much.
        And it is all washing from the land into the lake, and then
    we are pulling it out and we have got to--and maybe it is not
    really sick.
        So if we can figure out what to do with sewage and make a
    profit, which they are by selling it, the treated product, then
    we should do it.
        General Graham. Ma'am, you have our commitment on that.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you very, very much.
        Let's see. Do I have another question here?
        I asked you about your staffing issues and about the Zoom.
    So I think that will be it.
        Thank you very, very much for participating today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you to all of our members who have done such a
    great job.
        Mr. Fleischmann. I thank the ranking member for her
    questions.
        At this time, I would like to recognize Mr. Levin for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General Graham, I want to thank the Corps again for all the
    hard work being done on the L.A. fire response.
        Along those lines, I want to also ask about the release of
    water from the Terminus and Schafer Dam. I just have four yes
    or no questions, and then I have a couple of open-ended
    questions to let you opine a bit on what you think happened.
        So first, the yes-or-no question. Is it true that the 2
    billion gallons of water never reached L.A.?
        General Graham. I don't know what happens to the water once
    we release it from the dams.
        Mr. Levin. They evaporated in the dry lake bed in Lake
    Tulare, from all public accounts. Is that not consistent with
    what you understand?
        General Graham. Sir, I don't know what happened to the
    water once it released to dams.
        Mr. Levin. Okay. I will ask you to follow up and find out.
        It is also true that even if it had reached L.A., the fires
    were already 100 percent contained. Is it correct, General,
    that the water was released and lost--well, I guess you said
    you didn't know.
        You will have to take my word for it. It was released and
    lost in a dry lake bed, even though that water was supposed to
    be saved for some irrigation. That has been widely commented on
    by scientists, farmers, and the rest.
        Is it correct, in your view, that the release of this water
    potentially worsened future water shortages in our State,
    particularly if we have a dry next few months?
        General Graham. Representative Levin, it was excess flood
    storage water which we----
        Mr. Levin. You said that a few times. I just want a yes-or-
    no answer.
        Do you think it could potentially have contributed to the
    water shortage in our State?
        General Graham. I don't know.
        Mr. Levin. Can you find out for us and take that back?
        General Graham. We will do our best.
        Mr. Levin. You guys have a lot of experts that we fund. I
    would like to know.
        How do you respond to scientists and farmers who say that
    these releases contradicted established flood safety rules,
    established coordination that has been in place with local
    authorities for decades, and just sound science?
        General Graham. I don't believe I have an answer to that.
        Mr. Levin. You don't have anything to say to the farmers
    who are worried about water shortages this summer or the local
    communities that felt they were out of the loop?
        General Graham. I don't have anything else to respond.
        Mr. Levin. Nothing to say to them.
        What assurance can you give us that the Corps will follow
    flood safety rules, follow local coordination precedent, follow
    sound science if you have a future executive order that demands
    that you do the opposite of what is best practices by the
    Corps?
        General Graham. Representative Levin, our commitment is to
    always follow our statutory processes, as defined by the water
    control manual.
        Mr. Levin. And do you think that happened here?
        General Graham. We were absolutely within the statutory
    authority of the Corps, as laid out in the water control
    manuals.
        Mr. Levin. Statutory authority is one thing. Common sense
    is another.
        And the overwhelming public evidence suggests that despite
    all of the local coordination that had gone on for decades,
    despite the fact that scientists were saying, Don't do this,
    you know, basically what happened is you had to slam on the
    brakes.
        You wanted to release several thousand in both the Terminus
    and Schafer Dam. You wanted to release several times more than
    you actually did. And common sense prevailed to an extent, but
    you still released a huge order of magnitude more than common
    sense would have dictated.
        Is that not accurate?
        General Graham. Representative, we released water in
    accordance with our authorities.
        Mr. Levin. You are saying all of the public reporting is
    wrong?
        General Graham. I am saying we released water in accordance
    with our authorities.
        Mr. Levin. And in the future, if Congress gives you the
    money to conduct sound science, and if it is the sense of
    Congress and really more than the sense of Congress, the
    direction of this committee and of Members of Congress that you
    have good local coordination and you do it in the best interest
    of stakeholders, like our farmers, what assurance can you give
    us that is actually going to happen if, in fact, you get
    another executive order that says to do all the opposite?
        General Graham. We will always work to ensure that we are
    in compliance with all laws and with the executive orders we
    have been given.
        Mr. Levin. What steps are you taking right now to ensure
    better communication and coordination with local farmers and
    local stakeholders?
        General Graham. That coordination is built on relationships
    that are nurtured with daily coordination.
        Mr. Levin. Probably have been hampered a bit, don't you
    think?
        General Graham. I wouldn't speculate.
        Mr. Levin. Well, I am speculating that you have a lot of
    work to do to regain the trust and confidence in local farmers,
    local stakeholders, scientists, and all of us that you are
    going to follow common sense and facts rather than an executive
    order that contradicts those things.
        And with that, I will yield back.
        Mr. Fleischmann. At this point in time, I would like to
    recognize Ms. Wasserman Schultz of Florida for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General Hibner, back to you.
        As you know, Everglades restoration is one of the most
    significant environmental restoration efforts in the world, and
    thanks to our strong State and Federal and local partnerships,
    we have made historic progress in recent years.
        And the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided a record
    $1.1 billion for restoration efforts.
        I was proud to join you and many of your colleagues in
    Florida to celebrate the groundbreaking of the embankment of
    the EAA reservoir, and that is a game-changing project for
    water storage ecosystem recovery.
        But the momentum, though, while it is critical, we have to
    keep our foot on the gas and ensure that we have steady,
    reliable funding to complete these projects on time.
        So from your perspective, how important is it that we
    continue Federal investment in Everglades restoration? And what
    would sustained funding mean for the long-term success of those
    efforts?
        General Hibner. Yes, ma'am. This is the largest ecosystem
    restoration program in the world, and it is crucially important
    to the Nation. It is a natural resource that is important to
    everyone, not just in Florida, and it is vital that we continue
    to have the funding that we need to do the important work that
    is happening.
        And we have had a lot of successes in recent years. There
    is a lot of momentum behind the goals that we have been trying
    to reach for a couple decades now. So the funding results in
    that continued success in the future.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We are certainly hopeful that the
    President's budget reflects the real need to be able to
    continue that momentum, and that Congress will follow up, as we
    have in the past.
        I also want to note a University of Florida study found
    that for every dollar spent on restoration of the Everglades
    generates at least $4 in economic benefits, and that supports
    industries like tourism, real estate, agriculture, while
    protecting our water supply in Florida and reducing costly
    storm damage.
        And as you noted, Everglades restoration, this is America's
    Everglades even though it is situated in Florida. It is a very
    significant ecosystem that has incredible biodiversity.
        Mr. Chairman, I will reiterate our invitation again for you
    to join us in south Florida and bring the committee down, with
    Ms. Kaptur, to tour the Everglades and the project. It is
    really a sight to see.
        And so, with that in mind, can you speak, General, to the
    long-term cost savings and economic benefits of continued
    Federal investment in Everglades' restoration? And how do
    projects like the EAA reservoir and stormwater treatment areas
    reduce long-term Federal spending on things like disaster
    recovery, water treatment, and flood mitigation?
        And then I will turn to the chairman for a response to our
    invitation.
        General Hibner. Yes, ma'am. It is vital to the Nation. It
    is not only one of the most vast water resources in the United
    States. It provides the ability for us to sustain life in
    southern Florida. And a lot of the structures that we rely on
    to support the communities in southern Florida are relying on
    the proper movement of water through the Everglades.
        So the continued maintenance, especially of some of these
    very aged structures that were built in the 1940s, 1950s,
    1960s, it is all becoming more and more vital as the population
    growth in Florida continues to increase and our ability to
    control the water becomes more challenging.
        So the continued investments can't be overstated, in my
    opinion.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
        And Mr. Chairman, you know, it is not a tongue-in-cheek
    suggestion. We have had really nearly every chairman, along
    with the ranking member, come down to take a look at the
    Everglades restoration project, and we would really love to
    have you come down so you can take a look at it.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Well, I can unequivocally state that the
    Everglades has no stronger champion than Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
    I thank you for the invite.
        And I will say this. The Everglades are a national
    treasure, and I appreciate your advocacy there. I know you were
    joined, actually, by members on my side of the aisle who have
    the same affinity for that. So we will certainly look at that.
        We have not really taken a water trip, to my knowledge, per
    se. And as Ms. Wasserman Schultz knows, I spend a lot of my
    time on the energy side. But I will look forward to that and
    try to work that into our very busy schedule and, of course,
    would welcome the ranking member to go. She is a great hero for
    our Great Lakes, and I think all of them, not just Lake Erie.
        So thank you for the invite.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. As we say, come on down.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Come on down. Thank you.
        And at this time, in concluding this hearing, gentlemen,
    thank you. Again, I began with a very strong and fervent thank
    you for your service to our country and that continues.
        Thank you for the way that each and every one of you have
    conducted yourself in this hearing. It is not easy doing the
    job and the task that you have got.
        So, again, from the chairman, I sincerely thank each and
    every one of you for what you are doing, what you are trying to
    do, and wish you sincere success not only for yourselves but
    for our great Nation.
        And with that, I thank you.
        And we will close this hearing.
        [Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            W I T N E S S E S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Graham, Lieutenant General William H. ``Butch'' Jr...............     5
    Handura, Colonel James J.........................................    15
    Hibner, Brigadier General Daniel.................................    22
    Quander, Major General Mark C....................................    12
    Walter, Colonel George H.........................................    14

                                      [all]

                                      (i)