[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PROPOSALS FOR A WATER RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2026_
ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES
=======================================================================
(119-38)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 24, 2026
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
64-140 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking Member
Eleanor Holmes Norton, Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
District of Columbia Arkansas,
Jerrold Nadler, New York Vice Chairman
John Garamendi, California Daniel Webster, Florida
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaomas Massie, Kentucky
Andre Carson, Indiana Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Dina Titus, Nevada Brian Babin, Texas
Jared Huffman, California David Rouzer, North Carolina
Julia Brownley, California Mike Bost, Illinois
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Mark DeSaulnier, California Brian J. Mast, Florida
Salud O. Carbajal, California Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Greg Stanton, Arizona Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Sharice Davids, Kansas Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts Tracey Mann, Kansas
Marilyn Strickland, Washington Burgess Owens, Utah
Patrick Ryan, New York Eric Burlison, Missouri
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon Mike Collins, Georgia
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio, Mike Ezell, Mississippi
Vice Ranking Member Kevin Kiley, California
Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan Vince Fong, California
Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina Tony Wied, Wisconsin
Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania Tom Barrett, Michigan
Robert Garcia, California Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska
Nellie Pou, New Jersey Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.,
Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan Pennsylvania
Laura Friedman, California Jeff Hurd, Colorado
Laura Gillen, New York Jefferson Shreve, Indiana
Shomari Figures, Alabama Addison P. McDowell, North
Maxwell Frost, Florida Carolina
David J. Taylor, Ohio
Brad Knott, North Carolina
Kimberlyn King-Hinds,
Northern Mariana Islands
Mike Kennedy, Utah
Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri
Jimmy Patronis, Florida
Vacancy
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
Mike Collins, Georgia, Chairman
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida,
Ranking Member
John Garamendi, California Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
Jared Huffman, California Arkansas
Patrick Ryan, New York Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon Brian Babin, Texas
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio Mike Bost, Illinois
Laura Friedman, California Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Shomari Figures, Alabama Brian J. Mast, Florida
Julia Brownley, California Tracey Mann, Kansas
Mark DeSaulnier, California Eric Burlison, Missouri
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire Kevin Kiley, California
Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan, Vince Fong, California
Vice Ranking Member Tony Wied, Wisconsin
Nellie Pou, New Jersey Jeff Hurd, Colorado
Laura Gillen, New York David J. Taylor, Ohio, Vice
Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chairman
District of Columbia Brad Knott, North Carolina
Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio) Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri
Jimmy Patronis, Florida
Vacancy
Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Mike Collins, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Georgia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment, opening statement................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Hillary J. Scholten, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan, and Vice Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment, opening statement............. 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, opening statement.............................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Brian J. Mast, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, prepared statement................................. 54
WITNESSES
Hon. Adam R. Telle, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works, Department of the Army, oral statement.................. 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Lieutenant General William H. ``Butch'' Graham, Jr., Chief of
Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
oral statement................................................. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 12
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Mike Collins:
Letter of February 24, 2026, from Brandon Farris, Executive
Vice President, Steel Manufacturers Association, to Hon.
Mike Collins, Chairman, and Hon. Frederica S. Wilson,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment................................................ 53
Prepared Statement of Hon. J. French Hill, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Arkansas..................... 54
Letter of February 27, 2026, from Colonel Brandon L. Bowman,
District Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville
District, to Hon. Brian J. Mast, Member of Congress, Submitted
for the Record by Hon. Brian J. Mast........................... 55
APPENDIX
Post-Hearing Questions for the Record to Hon. Adam R. Telle,
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Department of
the Army, from:
Hon. Mike Collins............................................ 57
Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford............................... 57
Hon. Jared Huffman........................................... 58
Hon. Hillary J. Scholten..................................... 59
Post-Hearing Questions for the Record to Lieutenant General
William H. ``Butch'' Graham, Jr., Chief of Engineers and
Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, from:
Hon. Mike Collins............................................ 59
Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford............................... 59
Hon. Laura Friedman.......................................... 60
Post-Hearing Questions for the Record to Hon. Adam R. Telle,
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Department of
the Army, and Lieutenant General William H. ``Butch'' Graham,
Jr., Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, from:
Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford............................... 62
Hon. Greg Stanton............................................ 63
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
February 20, 2026
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment
RE: LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Proposals for a Water
Resources Development Act of 2026--Administration Priorities''
_______________________________________________________________________
I. PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will meet on
Tuesday, February 24, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. ET in 2167 of the
Rayburn House Office Building to receive testimony at a hearing
entitled, ``Proposals for a Water Resources Development Act of
2026--Administration Priorities.'' The hearing will provide
Members with an opportunity to ask the Assistant Secretary of
the Army (Civil Works) and the Chief of Engineers about the
status of the 2026 Report to Congress on Future Water Resources
Development, upcoming and prior Chief's Reports, and receive
testimony and proposals for WRDA 2026 from the Administration.
At the hearing, Members will receive testimony from the
Honorable Adam R. Telle, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works) and Lieutenant General William H. ``Butch'' Graham,
Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, United States Army
Corps of Engineers.
II. BACKGROUND
THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS-CIVIL WORKS
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the
Federal Government's lead water resource development and
management agency.\1\ Its mission is to deliver ``vital
engineering solutions, in collaboration with [their] partners,
to secure our Nation, energize our economy, and reduce disaster
risk.'' \2\ The Corps' water resource program dates back to
1824 when it was established for the purpose of improving river
navigation.\3\ The role of the Corps has evolved and expanded
since then to include other main water resource
responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Corps, About Corps Water Resources Planning, (last accessed
Feb. 4, 2026), available at
https://planning.erdc.dren.mil/toolbox/
guidance.cfm?Id=0&Option=Planning%20Fundamentals
&Type=About#: :text=The%20U.%20S.%20Army%20Corps%20of.
\2\ Corps, Mission and Vision, (last accessed Feb. 4, 2026),
available at https://www.usace.army.mil/About/Mission-and-Vision/.
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, the Corps' primary civil works responsibilities are
to support coastal and river navigation, address flood risk
management and storm damage, and protect and restore aquatic
ecosystems.\4\ Specifically, through its eight divisions and 44
district offices, the Corps manages over 14,000 miles of
levees, 740 dams, 12,000 miles of inland and intercoastal
waterways, and 218 lock chambers.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See generally, Anna Normand & Nicole Carter, Cong. Rsch. Serv.
(IF13112), Water Resources Development Acts: Primer and Action in the
119th Congress (Sept. 25, 2025), available at https://www.congress.gov/
crs-product/IF13112 [hereinafter CRS Report IF13112].
\5\ Corps, Value to the Nation, (last accessed Feb. 4, 2026),
available at https://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Missions/Value-to-the-
Nation/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Corps also provides outdoor recreation opportunities,
offers water supply storage to state and local partners,
assists in emergency response, and is a leading producer of
hydropower in the United States.\6\ Many Corps projects are
multipurpose, incorporating navigation, flood risk management,
and/or ecosystem restoration in conjunction with water supply
and conservation, recreation, and/or hydropower into their
design, construction, and operation.\7\ The Corps, at its
sites, sees 269 million recreational visitors a year, provides
25 percent of the country's hydropower output, and manages 135
reservoirs with municipal and industrial water supply.\8\ The
Corps also provides support in responding to natural disasters
by supporting the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
when requested or through the Flood Control and Coastal
Emergencies program (often referred to as ``P.L. 84-99'').\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id.
\7\ CRS Report IF13112, supra note 4.
\8\ Corps, Value to the Nation, (last accessed Feb. 4, 2026),
available at https://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Missions/Value-to-the-
Nation/.
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Corps' infrastructure portfolio is currently valued at
$227 billion.\10\ This valuation is referred to as its
``capital stock'' and includes all water resources
infrastructure built by the Corps since 1928.\11\ The estimated
capital stock value increased $7.1 billion on average each year
until 1982 when it peaked at $393 billion.\12\ The Corps has
reported that deterioration, general wear and tear of
infrastructure needs, and asset retirements have contributed to
a decline in the value of the capital stock.\13\ Furthermore,
the Corps has a growing construction backlog in addition to
various authorized but unfunded studies and operation and
maintenance activities.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Corps, Capital Stock: Summary, (last accessed Feb. 4, 2026),
available at https://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Missions/Value-to-the-
Nation/Fast-Facts/Capital-Stock/Summary/.
\11\ Id.
\12\ Id.
\13\ Id.
\14\ CRS Report IF13112, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To achieve its civil works mission, the Corps plans,
designs, and constructs water resources development projects,
typically in partnership with, and utilizing the financial
support of non-Federal interests, commonly referred to as
project sponsors. The Corps' planning process requires that
Federal water resources investments reflect national
priorities, encourage economic development, and protect the
environment, and that the Corps seek to maximize net public
benefits to society.
WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ACTS
Congress generally authorizes Corps studies, projects, and
programs and makes changes to agency policies through
legislation referred to as Water Resources Development Acts
(WRDAs). Congress has developed and enacted WRDAs
intermittently since the 1980s and has biennially enacted a
WRDA since 2014.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorizing provisions in WRDAs can be project-specific,
programmatic, or general directives for the Corps. Project-
specific authorizations most often fall into one of three broad
categories: project studies, construction projects, or
modifications to existing projects. Furthermore, water resource
projects typically require two types of Congressional
authorization: (1) authority to study the feasibility of the
project and (2) authority to construct (and operate and
maintain, as applicable) the project.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recently, WRDA 2024 was signed into law as Division A
of the Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024
(P.L. 118-272) in January 2025.\17\ WRDA 2024 authorized 17 new
construction projects, four project modifications, one project
for construction based on a feasibility study carried out by a
non-Federal interest, and over 200 new or modified feasibility
studies.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ WRDA 2024, Pub. L. 118-272, 138 Stat. 2996.
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRDA 2024 made policy reforms to empower the non-Federal
sponsors of projects, increase transparency, and improve
project delivery. For example, WRDA 2024 facilitated the
creation of Continuing Authorities Program (CAP), a new pilot
program for alternative project delivery. Additionally, the
legislation amended sections 203 and 204 of WRDA 1986 to
clarify and enhance the responsibilities of non-Federal
interests in conducting studies and construction activities for
authorized projects.\19\ WRDA 2024 also improved transparency
and consistency to assist non-Federal entities achieve
compliance with the P.L. 84-99 program and the process to
modify existing projects under Section 408.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Id. at Sec. 1107(a), 1109, 1110.
\20\ Id. at Sec. 1105, 1146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, WRDA 2024 included the Grace F. Napolitano
Priority for Water Supply, Water Conservation, and Drought
Resiliency Act, which emphasizes the Corps' role in water
supply and water resiliency efforts.\21\ WRDA 2024 instructed
the Corps to prioritize and maximize water supply, water
conservation, and drought resiliency efforts that are in
alignment with the authorized purposes of water resources
development projects.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ WRDA 2024, supra note 14, at Subtitle B, Title I, Division A,
138 Stat. 3046.
\22\ Id. at Sec. 1161, 1162, 1108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For WRDA 2024, the Corps held a series of listening
sessions and a 60-day public comment period on implementation,
which were completed by the end of April 2025.\23\ Through the
process, the Corps determined which provisions of WRDA 2024
require specific implementation guidance, and which provisions
may be implemented without specific guidance. As of February
10, 2026, the Corps has released implementation guidance for
three sections of WRDA 2024.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Corps, Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 2024,
available at https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Project-
Planning/Legislative-Links/wrda_2024/.
\24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IDENTIFYING WATER RESOURCE NEEDS
Generally, the first step in developing a project through
the Corps is to study the feasibility of the proposed project,
which typically requires Congressional authorization. Once
authorized, the Corps enters into a cost-sharing agreement with
a non-Federal project sponsor to initiate the feasibility
process. The cost of a feasibility study is usually split
evenly between the Federal Government, which is subject to
appropriations, and the non-Federal project sponsor.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ CRS Report IF13112, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under current law, the feasibility reports should generally
be produced within four years with a Federal cost of no more
than $5 million.\26\ Waivers of the feasibility criteria for
project studies are available under section 1001 of the Water
Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ WRDA 2024, Pub. L. 118-272, 138 Stat. 2996.
\27\ 33 U.S.C. 2282c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During a feasibility study phase, the Corps' district
office prepares a draft study report containing a detailed
analysis on the economic costs and benefits of carrying out the
project and identifies any associated environmental, social, or
cultural impacts. The feasibility study typically describes,
with reasonable certainty, the economic, social, and
environmental benefits and detriments of project alternatives
being considered, and identifies the engineering features,
public acceptability, and the purpose, scope, and scale of
each.\28\ It also contains the views of other Federal and non-
Federal agencies on project alternatives, a description of non-
structural alternatives to the recommended plans, and a
description of the anticipated Federal and non-Federal
participation in the project.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Id.
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In July 2025, the Corps released a revised Engineering and
Construction Bulletin that established a new design maturity
threshold before feasibility studies are submitted to Congress
for authorization.\30\ Under this new policy, the Corps will no
longer request authority to build a new project before reaching
an approximately 35 percent design threshold.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Corps, Engineering and Construction Bulletin, (last updated
July 29, 2025), available at https://www.wbdg.org/FFC/ARMYCOE/COEECB/
ecb_2023_9_rev_1.pdf.
\31\ James Leggate, Army Corps Will Advance Designs Further Before
Seeking Congress' OK to Build, Chief of Engineers Says, ENR (Sept. 25,
2025), available at https://www.enr.com/articles/61429-army-corps-will-
advance-designs-further-before-seeking-congress-ok-to-build-chief-of-
engineers-says.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After a full feasibility study is completed, the results
and recommendations of the study are submitted to Congress in
the form of a Report of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers Chief of Engineers (more commonly referred to as a
Chief's Report).\32\ If the results and recommendations on the
proposed project are favorable, then the next step is
Congressional authorization for construction of the project,
which is typically given in a WRDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Corps, Planner's Library, (last accessed Feb. 4, 2026),
available at https://planning.erdc.dren.mil/toolbox/
library.cfm?Option=Direct&Group=Main&Item=Chief%20Report
&Sub=None&Sort=Default.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 902 of WRDA 1986, as amended, generally allows for
increases in total project costs of up to 20 percent (after
accounting for inflation of construction costs) without
additional Congressional authorization.\33\ A Post-
Authorization Change Report (PACR) is developed when an
authorized project encounters a cost increase greater than 20
percent of the authorized amount, changes in scope of the
project, location, or design modifications.\34\ Typically,
Congress will then consider the PACR for inclusion in a WRDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Anna Normand & Nicole Carter, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (R47946),
Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects (Aug. 29, 2025),
available at https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47946.
\34\ Wes Coleman & Jeremy LaDart, Post Authorization Change Reports
(PACRS)--Myths, Mysteries, and Legends, United States Army Corps of
Engineers, (May 20, 2021), available at https://planning.erdc.dren.mil/
toolbox/webinars/20May21-PACRs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL CORPS AUTHORITIES
The CAP program enables the Corps to undertake small-scale
projects with limited scope and cost without requiring project-
specific Congressional authorization.\35\ These projects
typically require a cost-share with a non-Federal project
sponsor.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See generally Anna Normand, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (IF12635),
Continuing Authorities Programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
(updated Aug. 6, 2025), available at https://www.congress.gov/crs-
product/IF12635.
\36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are currently nine CAP categories:
LStreambank erosion and shoreline protection; \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See the Flood Control Act of 1946, 33 U.S.C. 701r Sec. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LBeach erosion control; \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See the Act of August 13, 1946, 33 U.S.C. 426g Sec. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNavigation improvement; \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See the River and Harbor Act of 1960, 33 U.S.C. 577 Sec. 107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LMitigation of shore damage by Federal navigation
projects; \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See the River and Harbor Act of 1968, 33 U.S.C. 426(i) Sec.
11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LRegional sediment management/beneficial use of
dredged material; \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See the WRDA 1992, 33 U.S.C. 2326 Sec. 204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LFlood control; \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See the Flood Control Act of 1948, 33 U.S.C. 701s Sec. 205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAquatic ecosystem restoration; \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See the WRDA 1996, 33 U.S.C. 2330 Sec. 206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LRemoval of obstructions and clearing channels for
flood control; \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See the Act of August 28, 1937, 33 U.S.C. 701g Sec. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LProject modifications for improvement of the
environment or drought resiliency; \45\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See the WRDA 1986, 33 U.S.C. 2309a Sec. 1135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LStormwater management projects.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See section 1108 of the WRDA 2024, 33 U.S.C. 2289b.
Congress has also provided authority for the Corps to
assist with the planning, design, and construction of drinking
water and wastewater projects in specified areas, known broadly
as Environmental Infrastructure (EI) assistance.\47\ The EI
programs support publicly owned and operated facilities, such
as distribution and collection works, stormwater collection and
recycled water distribution, and surface water protection and
development projects.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ WRDA of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-580, 106 Stat. 4835, Sec. 219.;
WRDA of 1999, Pub. L. No. 106-53, 113 Stat. 352, Sec. 552.; WRDA of
2022, Pub. L. No. 117-263, 136 Stat. 3819, Sec. 8376.
\48\ Corps, Environmental Infrastructure, (last accessed Feb. 4,
2026), available at https://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-
Works/Environmental-Infrastructure/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. OUTLOOK FOR WRDA 2026
PENDING CHIEF'S REPORTS AND DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
Currently, the Committee is in possession of two Chief's
Reports for possible inclusion in WRDA 2026: Surf City, NC
Coastal Storm Risk Management (CSRM) study and the Columbia
River Turning Basin. The Committee has also received one
Director's Report on the Port Royal Harbor Disposition Study,
SC.
7001 REPORT
Section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014) (P.L. 113-121) requires the Corps to
transmit an annual report to the authorizing committees that
identifies, for potential Congressional authorization,
completed feasibility reports, proposed feasibility studies
submitted by non-Federal interests through a public comment
period, proposed modifications to authorized water resources
development projects or feasibility studies, and proposed
modifications to environmental infrastructure program
authorities. This report is entitled ``Report to Congress on
Future Water Resources Development'' and is due by February 1st
of each year. As of February 20, 2026, the Committee has not
officially received the 2026 7001 report. The non-Federal
proposal submission period for the 2026 Report to Congress was
open from April 17, 2025 through August 15, 2025.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Proposals by Non-Federal Interests for Inclusion in the Annual
Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development, 90 Fed. Reg.
16114 (April 17, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. WITNESSES
LThe Honorable Adam R. Telle, Assistant Secretary,
United States Army (Civil Works)
LLt. Gen. William H. ``Butch'' Graham, Jr., Chief
of Engineers and Commanding General, United States Army Corps
of Engineers
PROPOSALS FOR A WATER RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2026--
ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2026
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Collins
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Collins. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment will come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that the chairman be authorized to
declare a recess at any time during today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions.
Without objection, so ordered.
As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into
the record, please also email it to [email protected].
I now recognize myself for the purposes of an opening
statement for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE COLLINS OF GEORGIA, CHAIRMAN,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Collins. I would like to thank Assistant Secretary
Telle and Lieutenant General Graham for joining us today as we
discuss the administration's priorities for the Water Resources
Development Act of 2026.
The biennial WRDA bill is the primary way that Congress
guides the Corps' projects and priorities. It is important for
the committee to hear directly from the Corps' leaders at the
beginning of the WRDA process. By authorizing projects and
studies and providing direction on programmatic changes, WRDA
bills improve the ability of the Corps to achieve its Civil
Works missions of navigation, flood control, and ecosystem
restoration.
WRDA 2026 will be the seventh WRDA bill since the committee
returned to the biennial structure in 2014. A dependable 2-year
WRDA cycle provides the Corps and its non-Federal sponsors an
opportunity to keep critical water infrastructure projects
moving forward and respond to local water resource needs more
effectively.
An efficient response to the evolving water resource needs
across the country is vital for our security, safety, and
economic stability. Our Nation's ports and inland waterways
move essential goods, support local economies, and provide the
marine infrastructure that contributes over $500 billion to the
Nation's GDP. A consistent WRDA process helps to improve and
maintain our ports and waterways to meet growing needs.
As I proudly shared last fall, in my home State of Georgia,
the Port of Savannah achieved its second busiest year ever in
2025, serving nearly 1,700 containerships and handling around
15,000 truckload moves daily. This growth and success are
supported by a consistent and reliable WRDA process.
I was happy to hear that dredging is finally underway at
the Port of Brunswick's inner and outer harbor, but it has been
several years since this vital port received routine
maintenance dredging. Similar routine dredging projects across
the country are burdened by an undue regulatory process and
environmental windows that seems to prevent the consistent
maintenance of Federal channels. I look forward to hearing from
today's witnesses to get a better understanding of how we can
prevent such delays.
In addition to our Nation's ports, the inland waterways are
critical arteries for transportation and commerce. Since
becoming chairman of this subcommittee, I have been able to
visit several of the Corps' projects across the country,
including the Wilson and Chickamauga locks in Alabama and
Tennessee. These critical assets that serve our Nation's
economic national security are in need of rehabilitation. The
necessary maintenance for these projects is taking too long and
costing taxpayers too much.
In Congress, we have a responsibility to be good stewards
of taxpayer money. The Corps must do better to complete
projects on time and on budget. I look forward to hearing about
ways this can be done from our panel this morning.
With that, I want to welcome Assistant Secretary Telle and
Lieutenant General Graham here today to discuss their
priorities for WRDA 2026.
[Mr. Collins' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Collins, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Georgia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment
I'd like to thank Assistant Secretary Telle and Lieutenant General
Graham for joining us today as we discuss the Administration's
priorities for the Water Resources Development Act of 2026.
The biennial WRDA bill is the primary way that Congress guides the
Corps' projects and priorities. It is important for the Committee to
hear directly from Corps leadership at the beginning of the WRDA
process. By authorizing projects and studies, and providing direction
on programmatic changes, WRDA bills improve the ability of the Corps to
achieve its key civil works missions of navigation, flood control, and
ecosystem restoration.
WRDA 2026 will be the seventh WRDA bill since the Committee
returned to the biennial structure in 2014. A dependable two-year WRDA
cycle has allowed for the Corps and its non-federal sponsors to keep
critical water infrastructure projects moving forward and respond to
local water resource needs more effectively.
An efficient response to the evolving water resource needs across
the country is vital for our security, safety, and economic stability.
Our nation's ports and inland waterways move essential goods, support
local economies, and provide the marine infrastructure that contributes
over $500 billion to the nation's GDP. A consistent WRDA process helps
to improve and maintain our ports and waterways to meet growing needs.
As I proudly shared last fall, in my home state of Georgia, the
Port of Savannah achieved its second busiest year ever in 2025, serving
nearly 1,700 container ships and handling around 15,000 truck moves
daily. This growth and success are supported by a consistent and
reliable WRDA process.
I was happy to hear that dredging is finally underway in the Port
of Brunswick's inner and outer harbor, but it has been several years
since this vital port received routine maintenance dredging. Similar
routine dredging projects across the country are burdened by an undue
regulatory process and environmental windows that seem to prevent the
consistent maintenance of federal channels. I look forward to hearing
from today's witnesses to get a better understanding of how we can
prevent such delays.
In addition to our nation's ports, the inland waterways are
critical arteries for transportation and commerce. Since becoming
Chairman of this subcommittee, I have been able to visit several Corps
projects across the country, including the Wilson and Chickamauga Locks
in Alabama and Tennessee. These critical assets that serve our nation's
economic and national security are in need of rehabilitation. The
necessary maintenance for these projects is taking too long and costing
taxpayers too much.
In Congress, we have a responsibility to be good stewards of
taxpayer money, and the Corps must do better to complete projects on
time and on budget. I look forward to hearing about ways this can be
done from our panel this morning. With that, I want to welcome
Assistant Secretary Telle and Lieutenant General Graham here today to
discuss their priorities for WRDA 2026.
Mr. Collins. I now recognize Ranking Member Scholten for 5
minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY J. SCHOLTEN OF MICHIGAN, VICE
RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Scholten. Thank you, Chair Collins, and welcome to our
witnesses. Thank you for your commitment to working with the
committee as we develop what I hope will be a bipartisan,
robust Water Resources Development Act of 2026.
At a time when the affordability crisis is affecting every
corner of our country, and our communities are navigating the
threats of climate change, it is incumbent on Congress to
prioritize keeping water resource projects affordable and
resilient.
Back home in west Michigan, water is a way of life, and our
waterways are critical to our regional economies and culture. A
strong WRDA is absolutely essential for Congress to meet our
local communities' economic and environmental needs.
Passing WRDA 2026 is a first step toward granting the Army
Corps the authority that they need to carry out water resource
projects and studies. However, we need the funding to back up
our action.
It was devastating to see the President's fiscal year 2026
budget request proposed a nearly 25-percent slash to the Corps'
budget. Fortunately, Congress rejected this funding cut, but we
still need to meaningfully address the Corps' backlog of WRDA
project and maintenance needs, which is currently estimated to
be over $100 billion, with a ``B.''
The Trump administration has also been less than diligent
about the law regarding the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and
those investments. Our ports are critical to our local
economies as well as our national supply chains.
Time is not on our side here. The longer we wait, the more
expensive these projects will become, and our ports will start
to fall behind. Failing to meaningfully invest in port and
harbor maintenance and upgrades will threaten job growth,
reliable supply chains, and global competitiveness.
We also need full cooperation from our Corps partners to
navigate the inherently collaborative effort of a new WRDA.
That is why it is so frustrating that the administration has
decided that the Corps needs Department of Defense approval
before district offices can share project details and updates
with congressional offices.
We don't need this kind of bureaucratic obstacle. We cannot
allow partisanship and bureaucracy to undercut this process,
and I encourage the administration to reverse this policy so
Congress can best serve the American people.
I need to warn you, gentlemen, as we look ahead to WRDA
2026, this subcommittee will be keeping the pressure on you
two, our Corps leaders, to promptly and effectively implement
previous WRDA policies, effectively and promptly.
The pace of implementation is going to be key. When we were
passing WRDA 2024, we heard nonstop about the glacial pace of
implementation under the previous administration, but this
administration, this administration is even slower. What
happened to the pressure for the pace on implementation?
We have yet to see guidance on dozens of critical
provisions, such as to reduce cost share for communities in
need, to utilize new Continuing Authority Programs, to address
dredging needs in smaller communities, and to maximize
opportunities for water supply and conservation where possible.
It is unacceptable. The Corps must implement the law and
hold up its end of the bargain to best safeguard our water
resources.
I sincerely hope that our conversation today will include
ideas and solutions on what the Corps needs to execute past
WRDAs, as well as how we can work together to continue to
deliver for Americans across the Nation through this year's
legislation.
Thank you again for your time. I look forward to the
conversation.
I yield back.
[Ms. Scholten's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Hillary J. Scholten, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Michigan, and Vice Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
Thank you, Chair Collins, and welcome to our witnesses. Thank you
for your commitment to working with the Committee as we develop what I
hope will be a bipartisan, robust Water Resources Development Act of
2026.
At a time when the affordability crisis is affecting every corner
of our country and communities are navigating the threats of climate
change, it is incumbent on Congress to prioritize keeping water
resource projects affordable and resilient.
Back home in West Michigan, water is a way of life, and our
waterways are critical to our regional economies and culture. A strong
WRDA is absolutely critical for Congress to meet our local communities'
economic and environmental needs.
Passing WRDA 2026 is the first step towards granting the Army Corps
the authority they need to carry out water resource projects and
studies.
However, we need the funding to back up our action.
It was devastating to see that the President's Fiscal Year 2026
budget request proposed a nearly 25 percent slash to the Corps' budget.
Fortunately, Congress rejected this funding cut; but, we still need
to meaningfully address the Corps' backlog of WRDA project and
maintenance needs, currently estimated to be over $100 billion.
The Trump Administration has also been less than diligent about the
law regarding harbor maintenance trust fund (HMTF) investments. Our
ports are critical to our local economies as well as our national
supply chains.
Time is not on our side: the longer we wait, the more expensive
these projects will become and our ports may start to fall behind.
Failing to meaningfully invest in port and harbor maintenance and
upgrades will threaten job growth, reliable supply chains, and global
competitiveness.
We also need full cooperation from our Corps partners to navigate
the inherently collaborative effort of a new WRDA. That's why it is so
frustrating that the Administration has decided that the Corps needs
the Department of Defense's approval before district offices can share
project details and updates with Congressional offices.
We cannot allow partisanship and bureaucracy to undercut this
process, and I encourage the Administration to reverse this policy so
Congress can best serve the American people.
As we look ahead to WRDA 2026, this subcommittee will still be
keeping the pressure on you two, our Corps Leaders, to promptly and
effectively implement previous WRDA policies.
We have yet to see guidance on dozens of critical provisions, such
as to reduce cost share for communities in need; to utilize new
Continuing Authority Programs; to address dredging needs in smaller
communities; and to maximize opportunities for water supply and
conservation where possible.
This is unacceptable; the Corps must implement the law and hold up
its end of the bargain to best safeguard our water resources.
I hope our conversation today will include ideas and solutions on
what the Corps needs to execute past WRDAs, as well as how we can work
together to continue to deliver for Americans across the nation through
this year's new legislation.
Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Collins. I now recognize the ranking member of the full
committee, Mr. Larsen, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING
MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Chair Collins and Vice
Ranking Member Scholten, for holding the hearing. And welcome
back, Assistant Secretary Telle and Lieutenant General Graham.
Thank you for being here this morning.
Since 2014, this committee has honored its commitment to
meet local water resource needs across the country through
bipartisan and biennial enactment of the Water Resources
Development Act.
Predictable WRDAs support Corps projects while creating
good-paying jobs in the construction industry and supporting
countless more jobs in the U.S. industries and businesses that
benefit directly from these projects. Regular enactment of
WRDAs also provides critical policy reforms that improve the
function and flexibility of the Corps to respond to local
challenges. Failure to implement WRDA on time results in delays
and denies critical economic, environmental, and societal
benefits to communities across the country.
Each Presidential administration wants to put its own mark
on the management of Federal agencies, and based on your ideas
for reducing paperwork at the Corps, we are starting to
understand your priorities.
However, no administration gets to ignore the law and to
manage Federal agencies as they please, untethered from the
legal obligations that Congress mandates.
For example, as of yesterday, this administration has
formally implemented only three provisions from the Water
Resources Development Act of 2024 enacted in January 2025.
Three. This means that bipartisan benefits that an overwhelming
majority of Republican and Democratic Members of the House and
Senate enacted are not reaching their communities.
Failure to implement WRDA 2024 denies the country the
benefits of 21 Chief's Reports that had authorized benefits
such as upgraded navigation, flood risk reduction, and storm
protection projects, as well as ecological restoration and the
societal benefits associated with these projects.
Failure to implement WRDA 2024 means that small, rural,
Tribal, and other communities will continue to struggle to meet
local challenges as these projects remain unaffordable.
Failure to implement WRDA 2024 increases the vulnerability
of America's navigational capacity, both through its coastal
and inland ports, as well as the vulnerability of communities
to the challenges of climate change and drought. This
administration needs to do better.
At today's hearing, I expect to hear you recognize Congress
as an essential partner in directing and scoping how the Corps
implements its missions.
I also expect to hear that you will work diligently to make
sure that every enacted provision of existing WRDAs is fully
implemented in a timely fashion and that you will provide the
committee with periodic updates on your progress.
This committee recently closed its Member portal that
contains roughly 2,400 project, policy, and environmental
infrastructure requests for the upcoming WRDA for 2026.
Based on Member requests, my top-line priorities for WRDA
2026 will be: ensuring that we authorize the next generation of
local water resource projects and studies; ensuring that all
communities, including rural, small, and Tribal communities,
can affordably partner with the Corps to resolve local
challenges; and ensuring that all Corps projects are designed
to meet the challenges of climate change and make communities
more resilient to stronger storms, rising sea levels, and
severe droughts.
I look forward to today's testimony and my continued
partnership with the chair of the full committee, the chair of
this subcommittee, and the ranking member and vice ranking
member to develop a bill in our traditional bipartisan fashion.
With that, I yield back.
[Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chairman Collins and Vice Ranking Member Scholten, for
holding this hearing.
Welcome back, Assistant Secretary Telle and Lieutenant General
Graham. Thank you for being here this morning.
Since 2014, this Committee has honored its commitment to meet local
water resources needs across the country through the bipartisan and
biennial enactment of Water Resources Development Acts (WRDAs).
Predictable WRDAs support Corps projects while creating good-paying
jobs in the construction industry and supporting countless more jobs in
the U.S. industries and businesses that benefit directly from these
projects.
Regular enactment of WRDAs also provides critical policy reforms
that improve the function and flexibility of the Corps to respond to
local challenges.
Failure to implement WRDA on time results in delays and denies
critical economic, environmental and societal benefits to communities
across the country.
Each presidential administration wants to put its own mark on
management of federal agencies--and based on your ideas for reducing
paperwork at the Corps, we are starting to understand your priorities.
However, no administration gets to ignore the law and to manage
federal agencies as they please, untethered from their legal
obligations mandated by Congress.
For example, as of yesterday, this administration has formally
implemented only three provisions from the Water Resources Development
Act of 2024, enacted in January of 2025.
Three provisions.
This means that the bipartisan benefits enacted by an overwhelming
majority of Republican and Democratic members of the House and Senate
are not reaching their communities.
Failure to implement WRDA 2024 denies our country the benefits of
the 21 Chief's Reports it authorized--benefits such as upgraded
navigation, flood risk reduction and storm protection projects, as well
as ecological restoration and the societal benefits associated with
these projects.
Failure to implement WRDA 2024 means that small, rural, Tribal, and
other communities will continue to struggle to meet local challenges as
these projects remain unaffordable.
Failure to implement WRDA 2024 increases the vulnerability of
America's navigational capacity--both through its coastal and inland
ports--as well as the vulnerability of communities to the challenges of
climate change and drought.
This administration needs to do better.
At today's hearing, I expect to hear that you recognize Congress as
an essential partner in directing and scoping how the Corps implements
its missions.
I also expect to hear that you will work diligently to make sure
that every enacted provision of existing WRDAs is fully implemented in
a timely fashion and that you will provide this Committee with periodic
updates on your progress.
This Committee recently closed its member portal that contains
roughly 2,400 project, policy and environmental infrastructure requests
for the upcoming WRDA 2026.
Based on our member requests, my top-line priorities for WRDA26
will be:
Ensuring that the next generation of local water
resources projects and studies is authorized;
Ensuring that all communities, including rural, small and
Tribal communities, can affordably partner with the Corps to resolve
local challenges; and
Ensuring that all Corps projects are designed to meet the
challenges of climate change and make communities more resilient to
stronger storms, rising sea-levels and severe droughts.
I look forward to today's testimony and my continued partnership
with Chairman Graves, Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson and Vice
Ranking Member Scholten to develop this bill in our traditional
bipartisan fashion.
Mr. Collins. I would now like to welcome our witnesses and
thank them for being here today. Briefly, I know I don't need
to, but I am going to take a moment just to explain our
lighting system.
There are three lights in front of you. Green means to
continue, yellow means you are running out of time, and when it
turns red, please conclude your remarks.
I ask unanimous consent that the witnesses' full statements
be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided
answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in
writing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open
for 15 days for any additional comments and information
submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record
of today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
As your written testimony has been made part of the record,
the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral remarks to 5
minutes.
With that, Mr. Telle, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ADAM R. TELLE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; AND LIEUTENANT
GENERAL WILLIAM H. ``BUTCH'' GRAHAM, Jr., CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
AND COMMANDING GENERAL, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
TESTIMONY OF HON. ADAM R. TELLE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Mr. Telle. Thank you, Chairman Collins.
Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Larsen, Ranking Member
Scholten, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you
for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the development
of the proposed Water Resources Development Act of 2026.
Before I get started, I want to recognize the passing of
Congressman Doug LaMalfa, who was an outstanding member of this
committee, someone who was a passionate advocate for
California's water issues and someone who taught me, as I am
sure he did many members of this committee, all about
California water. And so we miss him.
I am eager to share with you my perspective after 6 months
as the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works,
including what the Corps of Engineers is doing well and where
significant reform is warranted. I hope my perspective is
valuable to you as you develop proposals for WRDA 2026.
I also wish to share an update on the implementation of
past WRDAs, which was just raised. It remains a topic of
critical interest to members of this committee. Since my last
appearance before this committee, the Army Civil Works program
has finalized implementation guidance for the remaining
provisions of WRDA 2020 and WRDA 2022, with the exception of
provisions modified further by WRDA 2024.
WRDA is the law. We are following it. The last three WRDAs
included 552 provisions, and we are developing guidance for the
remaining 19 of those provisions. I just signed implementation
guidance for two of them yesterday. We are going to make sure
they are consistently implemented through this guidance.
I remain committed to completing the implementation
guidance as soon as practicable and look forward to working
with this committee to identify opportunities to improve the
process for implementing future WRDAs.
One thing I have observed to this point is that the Army
Corps of Engineers is at its very best when it is responding to
emergencies, where it is unburdened by redtape, and enters what
we like to call Army mode. Specific examples of that come to
mind, including the Corps' execution of assignments to clear
and remove debris after Hurricane Helene throughout Appalachia,
particularly in western North Carolina, and after the 2025 Los
Angeles wildfires.
Last August, the Corps successfully supplemented State and
local efforts in anticipation of glacial outburst flooding in
Juneau, Alaska. And finally, just last month, the Corps
executed assignments in response to Winter Storm Fern across
the Southeastern United States. And we are currently responding
to the disaster in the Potomac River.
But when it comes to our primary missions, our everyday
missions, for decades the Army Civil Works program hasn't
really had a plan. The status quo has been to execute
everything all at once, moving each project down the yellow
brick road of redtape 1 inch at a time, resulting in
inexplicable delays, including to projects that are of
strategic national importance. Meanwhile, reaching paperwork
milestones is elevated as evidence of achievement.
This is simply unacceptable for an agency that is so
important to the safety and prosperity of the American people.
Stacks of important Government paperwork have never saved an
American life or community except perhaps in very cold weather
when no other fuel is available.
We have to change the way the Army Civil Works program
conducts its business or the next decades will be more of the
same. The stars are aligned under President Trump's leadership
to change this now.
We have in hand $45 billion that the Congress has
previously appropriated to our programs, but the Corps has not
yet executed. Shockingly, $15 billion of this funding is more
than 6 years old.
We also have many ongoing projects that the Congress has
authorized and that the Corps is building, but that require
significant additional funding to complete. The status quo
approach is insufficient, meaning we will never deliver on what
you expect of us without fundamentally changing our behavior.
To meet this challenge, yesterday we unveiled a plan that
we call Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork. It is a plan
that was partially inspired by members of this committee and
particularly the chairman of this subcommittee.
It is comprised of approximately 27 individual but
complementary initiatives to start to reimagine and rejuvenate
the Army Civil Works program. And with your support, this will
be the most significant transformation of the program since at
least 1986.
Through this suite of strategic initiatives, it is my goal
to harmonize the Army Civil Works program and to realign and
rightsize the incentive structures of the Corps of Engineers,
with an emphasis again on building infrastructure and not
paperwork.
This new plan is driven by a sense of urgency. Our strategy
is centered on a fundamental cultural transformation to enhance
our effectiveness and restore discipline. We are sharpening our
focus on our primary missions under a strategic plan that will
deliver on the mandate you have given us.
To accelerate project delivery, we are implementing smarter
contracting practices, upholding higher design standards, and
reforming our partnership pipeline to build what America needs
faster and more cost-effectively.
A key component to this transformation is overhauling our
internal processes. But as President Trump has directed and as
bipartisan members of this committee have directed, cutting
bureaucratic redtape by reforming our entire regulatory
permitting system is important to provide fast, clear, and
consistent decisions to the public.
I see I am running out of time, so I will submit the
remainder of my statement for the record, but I look forward to
your questions. Thank you.
[Mr. Telle's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Adam R. Telle, Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army
Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and distinguished members
of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to
discuss the development of the proposed Water Resources Development Act
of 2026. I am eager to share with you my perspective after six months
as the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, including what
the Corps of Engineers is doing well and where significant reform is
warranted. I hope my perspective is valuable to you as you develop
proposals for WRDA 2026.
I also wish to share an update on the implementation of past WRDAs,
which remains a topic of critical interest to members of this
committee. Since my last appearance before this committee, the Army
Civil Works Program has finalized implementation guidance for the
remaining provisions of WRDA 2020 and 2022 that warranted such
guidance, with the exception of provisions from WRDA 2020 that were
modified in WRDA 2024. WRDA is the law, and we are implementing the
law. Of the 552 provisions included in those three laws, we are
developing additional guidance for 19 provisions to ensure consistent
implementation across the Corps. I remain committed to completing the
implementation guidance as soon as practicable and look forward to
working with this committee to identify opportunities to improve the
processes for implementing future WRDAs.
One thing I've observed in my short tenure is that the Army Corps
of Engineers is at its very best when responding to emergencies, where
it is unburdened by red tape, and enters Army mode. Specific examples
that come to mind include the Corps' execution of Federal Emergency
Management Act (FEMA) assignments to clear and remove debris after
Hurricane Helene in Western North Carolina and throughout Appalachia
and after the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires. Last August, the Corps
successfully supplemented state and local efforts under PL 84-99 in
anticipation of glacial outburst flooding in Juneau, Alaska. Finally,
just last month, the Corps executed FEMA assignments in response to
winter storm Fern.
But when it comes to our primary missions, for decades, the Army
Civil Works Program hasn't really had a plan. The status quo has been
to execute everything all at once, moving each project down the yellow
brick road of red tape one inch at a time, resulting in inexplicable
delays, including projects that are of strategic national importance.
Meanwhile, reaching paperwork milestones is elevated as evidence of
achievement. This is simply unacceptable for an agency that is so
important to the safety and prosperity of the American people. Stacks
of important government paperwork have never saved an American life or
community, except perhaps in very cold weather when no other fuel is
available. We have to change the way the Army Civil Works Program
conducts business, or the next decades will be more of the same.
We have in hand $45 billion that the Congress has previously
appropriated, but the Corps has not yet delivered. Shockingly, $15
billion of this funding is more than six years old. We also have many
ongoing projects, which the Congress has authorized and the Corps is
building, which will require significant additional funding to
complete. The status quo approach is insufficient, meaning we will
never deliver on what you expect of us without fundamentally changing
our behavior.
To meet this challenge, we have unveiled a plan comprised of
approximately 27 individual but complementary initiatives to reimagine
and rejuvenate the Army Civil Works program. This will be the most
significant transformation of the program since at least 1986, which
was a watershed year for the authorities of the Program.
Through this suite of strategic initiatives, it is my goal to
harmonize the Army Civil Works Program and to realign and right-size
the incentive structures of the Corps of Engineers, with an emphasis on
building infrastructure, not paperwork.
This new plan is driven by a sense of urgency. Our strategy is
centered on a fundamental cultural transformation to enhance our
effectiveness and restore discipline. We are sharpening our focus on
core missions that serve the national interest under a strategic plan
that will deliver on the mandate you've given us. To accelerate project
delivery, we are implementing smarter contracting practices, upholding
higher design standards, and reforming our partnership pipeline to
build what America needs, faster and more cost-effectively.
A key component of this transformation is overhauling our internal
processes. As President Trump has directed, and bipartisan members of
this committee have called for, we are cutting bureaucratic red tape by
reforming the entire regulatory and permitting system to provide fast,
clear, and consistent decisions. This will eliminate costly delays and
accelerate our economy at a time that we find ourselves in a global
competition that will determine whether the United States of America
remains the greatest nation in the history of the world. Internally, we
are making the organization leaner and more effective by optimizing our
assets, modernizing operations, and ensuring all messaging aligns with
our primary missions.
Finally, we are instilling a new culture of fiscal discipline and
operational excellence by fundamentally overhauling our financial and
operational practices to attack waste and inefficiency. We are
committed to executing our mission with a higher standard of integrity,
ensuring every dollar is spent with purpose to achieve clear,
measurable results for the American people.
President Trump, Secretary Hegseth, and Secretary Driscoll want to
deliver infrastructure now, and our partners in Congress are tired of
decades-long delays and cost overruns. The time is right for this
change, and we have a unique opportunity to transform the way the Corps
of Engineers conducts its business to meet this moment in history.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
Next, General Graham, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL WILLIAM H. ``BUTCH'' GRAHAM,
Jr., CHIEF OF ENGINEERS AND COMMANDING GENERAL, U.S. ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS
General Graham. Chairman Collins, Vice Ranking Member
Scholten, Ranking Member Larsen, I am honored to testify before
you today in regard to the 2026 Water Resources Development
Act.
Through the Civil Works program, the Army Corps works with
our partners to study, build, and operate water resource
projects focusing on our three main mission areas of commercial
navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction, and
aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Breaking those down, the navigation program, which consists
of our coastal Great Lakes channels as well as the inland
rivers and intercoastal waterways, underpins much of the
national economy, ensuring that commodities can move reliably
and efficiently.
Our flood and coastal storm damage reduction program
maintains 746 dams, over 13,000 miles of Federal levees, and
450 miles of shore protection that provide, on average, $200
billion per year in flood damages avoided.
To continuously maintain and improve these mission areas, I
want to thank this subcommittee for supporting the Corps Civil
Works program. Your commitment, as we heard from the chair,
since 2014 to pass biennial Water Resources Development Acts,
has provided us with the authorities necessary to address the
changing needs of the Nation's water resources infrastructure.
We deeply value the authorities you have entrusted to us.
Our pledge is to put them to work to deliver for the American
people. To that end, the Army Corps' objective each and every
day is to safely and efficiently deliver quality studies and
projects on schedule within budget.
Our current on-schedule rate, as I measured it this
morning, for the Civil Works portfolio is 86 percent. That is
an improvement from the 80 percent that I reported to this
subcommittee back in September.
So by focusing on the basics of getting the engineering
right, of getting the project management right, and of getting
the project delivery team right, we are making our cost
estimates more reliable and our project delivery more
efficient.
That said, there is more work to do, more improvements to
make. To that end, we are very excited about the Building
Infrastructure, Not Paperwork initiative that Mr. Telle
outlined. These improvements, delivered by district engineers
who are empowered to manage risk, not avoid it, will allow the
Army Corps to make the changes necessary to best deliver our
important infrastructure mission for the Nation.
Finally, I, too, would also like to take a moment to
express our deepest condolences to the family, friends, and
colleagues of Congressman LaMalfa of California. We will do our
best to honor his passion, his absolute passion for the Federal
water resources mission by continuing our efforts to optimally
balance our flood risk management responsibilities with growing
water supply needs.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today,
and I look forward to addressing your questions.
[General Graham's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General William H. ``Butch'' Graham,
Jr., Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Before I proceed with my testimony, I would like to take a moment
to express my deepest condolences to the family, friends, and
colleagues of Congressman Doug LaMalfa of California, who passed
earlier this year. He was not only an esteemed member of this
committee, but also a dedicated public servant whose contributions to
water resources policy will have a lasting impact on our Nation.
I am honored to testify before your committee today, along with Mr.
Adam Telle, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works,
regarding the development of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
of 2026. I look forward to continuing our work with this committee, the
Congress, and the Administration to help address the Nation's water
resources challenges.
Through the Civil Works Program, the Corps works with other Federal
agencies, and with state, Tribal, and local agencies and others, to
develop, manage, restore, and protect water resources, primarily
through the construction, operation and maintenance, and study of
water-related infrastructure projects. The Corps focuses on work that
provides high economic, environmental, and public safety returns to the
Nation. The Corps also regulates development in waters of the United
States and works with other Federal agencies to help communities
respond to, and recover from, floods and other natural disasters.
The authorizations and funding that Congress provides to the Corps
allow us to advance our three main missions of commercial navigation,
flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration, as
well as support related project purposes, such as water supply,
hydropower, and recreation. The Civil Works program is performance-
based and focuses on high-performing projects and programs within these
three main mission areas. The Corps uses its engineering expertise and
relationships with project sponsors and other stakeholders to develop
innovative approaches to address some of the most pressing water
resources challenges facing the Nation. Since 2014, the Congress has
passed a WRDA bill every two years to address evolving water resources
issues.
WRDA 2024 advances the Corps' principal Civil Works missions. The
legislation reinforces the Corps' partnership with non-federal sponsors
by refining existing programs, while introducing new tools to enhance
coordination with non-federal partners, improve project delivery, and
address evolving national priorities.
To promote long-term infrastructure resilience and to support
coastal and riverine communities, WRDA 2024 provides expanded authority
for forecast-informed reservoir operations and supports beneficial use
of dredged material for shoreline restoration and flood risk reduction.
It also authorizes recurring coastal mapping activities to ensure
timely data for navigation safety and storm preparedness. Across all
mission areas, WRDA 2024 includes provisions to streamline project
implementation, facilitate crediting for non-federal contributions such
as technical models, and improve transparency in project
prioritization, strengthening the Corps ability to deliver safe, high-
quality water resources infrastructure that supports both local
communities and national economic interests.
My primary commitment is the successful execution of the Army Civil
Works Program, ensuring projects are completed safely, on schedule, and
within budget. I remain focused on implementing strategies to make our
project delivery more efficient and our cost estimates more reliable.
By improving our initial planning and design phases and applying
rigorous risk management, we are enhancing the accuracy of our
timelines and budgets. Furthermore, we are boosting our engagement with
industry partners through early collaboration and market research to
align our goals and secure more competitive proposals.
A successful Civil Works program depends on efficient project
delivery and close partnerships with stakeholders at all levels. We are
actively refining the early stages of our projects and managing risks
to ensure every infrastructure investment delivers net national
benefits cost-effectively. Ultimately, these priorities mean a better
deal for the taxpayer and a better future for all Americans.
Thank you, Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and Members of
the Subcommittee. This concludes my statement. I look forward to
answering any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may
have.
Mr. Collins. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent to enter
into the record a statement from the Steel Manufacturers
Association dated February 24, 2026.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information is on page 53.]
Mr. Collins. I want to thank you both for your testimony.
We will now turn to questions from the panel, and I will
recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions.
Assistant Secretary Telle, when you were here last
September, you stated that you supported the idea of delegating
some authorities to improve efficiency in the Corps' process,
especially when it comes to the recreation mission of the
Corps.
Does the Corps have the authority in the law to do this
now, and, if anything, what do you need from Congress to carry
this out?
Mr. Telle. Chairman Collins, thank you for the question.
Absolutely, the Corps has the authority to do this now. It is
something that we should be taking advantage of.
As an update on recreation, we are in a good spot in terms
of hiring our organic employees for the coming spring and
summer seasons, 188 individuals on board, which is 59 percent
of our goal. We have gotten after it early.
But delegation of these missions can be a critical way to
expand our throughput and ensure we don't have future mishaps.
Mr. Collins. Don't you think it would also help with some
of the things that you are looking at internally to help
improve efficiency and productivity and focus on what the Corps
really needs to be focused on?
Mr. Telle. Chairman Collins, you are absolutely right. This
committee has given us authorities. I think about section 203,
section 204, section 1043. This committee has spoken loud and
clear that the Corps ought to take advantage of capable non-
Federal partners.
If you think about the backlog that was mentioned earlier,
the projects we have been authorized to perform that we are not
performing, we need to expand our throughput. We have a limited
amount of throughput. We need to reserve Corps of Engineers'
engineering excellence for the largest challenges that confront
our country. We need to take advantage of the capabilities of
our non-Federal sponsors to expand the number of people in our
country that are getting after all of these challenges that you
all address.
You have given us the authorities to do that.
Unfortunately, to date, in my view, we have not taken full
advantage of them. There has been a cultural challenge related
to districts wanting to hold onto work for themselves. And, in
my view, we have got to get everybody in the business of
building America's infrastructure and reducing paperwork.
Mr. Collins. Right. I think in so doing that, it also is
going to speed up the time that the project is going to take,
and it also helps save money.
Mr. Telle. Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely right. I have
seen instances at projects across our country where the price
we are paying for dredging, for instance, may be 40, 50 or 60
percent higher than the price that one of our ports might be
paying for that dredging.
And so, as often as we can delegate our responsibilities
with oversight, of course, to meet the standards that this
committee has put forth, we can expand our capability and often
get a better price and better schedule by utilizing our non-
Federal sponsors.
Mr. Collins. Right.
And having said that, General Graham, section 8133 of WRDA
2022 established the inland waterways regional dredge pilot
program to award contracts up to 5 years for these dredging
projects.
Can you speak about the cost-effectiveness, the
reliability, and the performance of this program?
General Graham. Chairman Collins, thank you for that
question. Absolutely. By looking regionally, we can get, well,
put simply, a much better deal. And we also provide much more
flexibility on when and where we dredge.
Under Secretary Telle's guidance, we are looking to expand
that beyond just a regional look to take advantage of all of
the dredging that the Corps does.
We are the largest buyer of dredging services in the
Nation, and we ought to use that market power to get the best
deal possible for the American taxpayers.
Mr. Collins. Yes. I always have said the customer is king.
So, I mean, I think if you look at it from that angle, then you
have the upper hand and can negotiate not just maybe one
dredging project, but multiple dredging projects. And let your
dredging organization or the company that gets it, let them set
their schedule, as long as it falls within our guidelines.
All right. Do you consider multiyear contracting as an
effective way to reduce these dredging costs?
General Graham. Chairman Collins, absolutely. And as we
discussed earlier, by looking nationwide, putting in broad
multiyear contracts, we believe we will be able to get the best
deal for the American taxpayers.
Mr. Collins. Yes. I know when we were talking not too long
ago about just the fact of how much it costs to actually--when
you have to move a dredge off of a project and they could have
been moving towards another project, but then you've got to pay
them to move to that project. So you are actually saving a lot
of money.
And, Assistant Secretary, I don't know if you want to join.
Mr. Telle. Chairman Collins, you are right. In addition to
expanding our scope nationally, where we are a better
negotiator across the negotiating table from private industry
who are our partners, there is a challenge we have related to
some of the environmental restrictions that often haven't been
even reexamined in decades.
I like to equate it to your spouse asking you to run 10
errands on a Saturday, but requiring you to go to the post
office, Walmart, the Home Depot, and to soccer practice in a
specific order all across town. You can't do it in the most
efficient way to execute your mission.
And that is how we are doing dredging today. We are sending
our dredgers here and there based on these environmental
schedules. If we can reduce that burden on them, we can get a
much more efficient product for the taxpayer.
Mr. Collins. That's right. And a lot of times we make them
come back home and then go to the next one and then come back
home. And it just is not very efficient.
I know I am out of time. With that, I now yield 5 minutes
to Ms. Scholten.
Ms. Scholten. I think you could get a working mom to work
that schedule for you, Mr. Telle. We will give you a schedule
for those errands on a Saturday. I joke. I joke.
Assistant Secretary, the last time you testified before the
subcommittee, I discussed how Grand Haven Inner Harbor almost
missed a dredging cycle, which would have threatened the
harbor's 450 jobs and carried $88 million in annual economic
impact.
After months of advocacy, local, State, Federal levels
finally struck a compromise to dredge about 90 percent of the
harbor to ensure that ships could move through the channel
without light loading.
However, the remainder of the harbor, that 10 percent, even
though it is smaller, is critical, essential, right? If you
can't get through that 10 percent, we can't get through at all.
The State needs to conduct sediment testing to determine if
the area has been contaminated by PFAS. On February 5th, 2026,
I sent a letter to the State as well as the Corps to understand
the extent of which the two are working together already to
engage in advanced planning to address the dredging of this
potentially contaminated water. I received a thorough, timely
response from the State of Michigan, but have not received
clarity from the Corps yet.
One of my top priorities for WRDA 2026 is boosting
collaboration and advanced planning between State and Federal
leaders so that we can get to this quicker pace of these
projects rolling out, right? Efficiency and effectiveness is
what it's all about.
So can you first commit to sending a written response to my
February 5th inquiry? And additionally, can you speak to how
critical it is for the Corps to work with its State partners to
ensure timeliness here?
Mr. Telle. Ranking Member Scholten, thank you for the
question. You are hitting on something that is absolutely true
in Michigan. It is true across the country.
Dredging is the lifeblood of our economy. It is the hidden
part of our economy that most Americans don't fully appreciate.
It is the arteries of--dredging in our ports, our waterways are
the arteries of competition and the arteries of our success.
Everywhere that we can do this, we need to be doing it.
I will commit to get you a written response to your letter.
In every program that we take on, we have non-Federal
partners, State, local, sometimes regional, that we must work
closely with in every stage.
And I will pitch it to General Graham to see if he has an
update on this particular project that you have outlined.
Ms. Scholten. Thank you, Mr. Telle.
General Graham. Vice Ranking Member Scholten, thank you
again for that question. We certainly understand the importance
of Grand Haven Harbor to the economy.
I think our collaboration with the State of Michigan on
testing for PFAS contamination is going pretty well. They kind
of worked through some of the challenges. If it is primarily
sand, there is less likelihood that there is going to be PFAS
contamination on it. It really only sticks to the fine silt. So
they are working to characterize the sediment in the outer and
inner harbor.
And so right now, our understanding is that the deep-draft
ships can get to all the commercial docks. And right now, we do
understand that a task order to do the next round of
contracting was issued in March of this year, and that will do
a lot of the outer harbor dredging.
We are looking for a follow-on contract that we will put in
place this spring and summer if the testing that is ongoing
shows that that middle section by Harbor Island isn't
contaminated with PFAS to the Michigan standards. Then we will
try to make sure that we are in a position to go ahead and
dredge that later this year.
Ms. Scholten. Thank you. I appreciate that thorough
response. I still do request a written response, but we
appreciate the update very much, and look forward to continuing
conversations about how the Federal and State can continue to
collaborate for advanced planning.
I have about a minute, and I want to touch on data centers
here really quickly, a huge hot topic all around the country,
but especially back home in Michigan. And constituents
throughout my district are rightfully concerned about how these
projects are going to impact the State's water.
I believe that we can strike the right balance between
investing in our digital economy and creating good jobs without
harming our natural resources or putting big data profits over
our communities.
But smart policy decisions start with good information. The
Army Corps plays a really important role in water management,
and I want to make sure that we can leverage the agency's
expertise to understand how these data centers are impacting
our precious water resources.
So back to you, Assistant Secretary Telle. Can you touch on
how the agency is thinking, if at all, about how data centers
are affecting the use and amount of water maintained by the
Corps?
Mr. Telle. Madam Ranking Member, data centers, as you say,
are a developing part of our economy and critical to our
competition, our ability to compete.
In terms of the specific ways we look at it, when it comes
to water supply, which is not one of our primary missions, but
it is certainly something we consider as we are updating water
control manuals, we would not specifically look at one
facility's water use, we would look at the whole system's water
use as we analyze these items.
When it comes to our permitting, we have updated our
nationwide permits, which are complete, the renewal of our
nationwide permits, to include data centers. Although data
centers don't have any particular unique impact on waters of
the United States in terms of our regulatory mission that other
facilities do, but it is important to understand that data
centers are modern facilities that do require permits under the
Clean Water Act of 1972.
Ms. Scholten. Thank you. Some followups there, but I will
yield back my time, and we will keep going, but I appreciate
the answer.
Mr. Collins. I now recognize Mr. Babin for 5 minutes.
Dr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning. And I want to thank both of you gentlemen for
being here today. I represent the 36th District of Texas, home
to the Port of Houston, lots of ports other than that and
waterways, refineries, petrochemical facilities. And we are no
stranger to natural disasters. So I want to thank you all for
your commitment to protecting and improving our Nation's
infrastructure and our water resources.
I also want to take a moment to recognize Assistant
Secretary Telle. Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for your
leadership and for working with your team and Army Corps
headquarters to help expedite non-Federal-led studies, your
engagement, in fact, both of you, both of your engagement with
stakeholders in southeast Texas, including Cedar Port, is very
much appreciated. It makes a real difference on the ground.
Cedar Port plays a vital role in supporting jobs and
commerce and economic growth in our district, and we value the
strong partnership between the Corps and local stakeholders,
who are working hard moving these projects forward.
I also want to thank you for your engagement in Buffalo
Bayou and Tributaries Resiliency Study as well. They were
devastated by Hurricane Harvey, and we are counting on
meaningful flood protection. So looking forward to continue
working with you.
My first question is, Mr. Telle, you have announced a
Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork initiative. First off, I
want to thank you for that. That ought to be across all the
Federal Government, the same thing.
So what specific regulatory steps are you eliminating or
streamlining to shorten project timelines?
Mr. Telle. Congressman Babin, thank you for the question,
and thank you to your district for welcoming me when I was
there recently.
One of the ways that I think about it, and it particularly
applies to coastal Texas, is we have not had a culture of
prioritization. And I just want to point this out. We haven't
really had a plan. If you ask a district commander at any of
our 39 Civil Works districts, hey, what are the top priorities
in your district? It is not a question that they have often
been asked.
And I think that the taxpayers are invested in these
leaders, in their ability to lead and command and have military
judgment. I think we ought to be listening to our district
commanders. And I think about your district and the areas
around it that are so critical to our projection of energy
dominance.
The American economy depends in many ways on coastal Texas,
coastal Louisiana, and elsewhere, but it is also very
vulnerable, as you said, to a hurricane like Hurricane Harvey
or a hurricane with a storm surge.
It is critically important that we analyze our assets as a
Nation in terms of their importance. I can't think of a place
off the top of my head that is more critical to our national
security than your district and the areas around it.
And so this is the type of thinking we need to empower our
commanders--to answer your question, we need to empower our
commanders to determine what is their priority and then hold
them accountable from year to year about how they are cutting
redtape and delivering on those projects, whether it is
funding, but more importantly, process and effort, rather than
expecting them to inch every project down the field 1 inch at a
time and then have to restudy them after 10 years of studying.
We need to identify which projects within the districts,
within the divisions, and at headquarters are, on the basis of
the military judgment of our commanders, most important to the
Nation. And that is a very fundamental and simple way that I
believe we can cut through much of the redtape that we face.
Dr. Babin. That's wonderful.
So what changes are you making to ensure feasibility
studies and construction phases would be able to move faster
without compromising safety or environmental standards?
Mr. Telle. Congressman, it's a great question. And I will
ask General Graham to add to what I am about to say, but one of
the primary efforts--I talked about prioritization across the
Nation, but there is also an effort to prioritize within
projects.
Quite often, we study a very large swath, a very large
area. And we study it, we try to boil the ocean with studies
for decades rather than in an early phase, identify a feature
or an initiative that can start delivering for the American
public now.
So we have implemented a new process called RAPID, which is
designed to make these early decisions, get features that can
be authorized and funded by Congress to the Hill as quickly as
we can, so that rather than study the universe for decades, we
are able to start building things now.
Dr. Babin. Absolutely.
General Graham.
General Graham. I just want to add emphasis to Mr. Telle's
point of the sooner we get the decisionmakers, the district
engineer involved at the earliest stages, the better our
outcomes are going to be.
Like Mr. Telle spoke to, we can study a whole bunch of
various options, but there are decisions we can readily make at
the beginning of a study to winnow that down to just what the
leading options are, the leading alternatives are, and then we
should focus on that. And that will give us a faster product
more efficiently delivered.
Dr. Babin. Absolutely. Thank you. I am looking forward to
continuing our collaboration for water projects in the future.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Larsen for 5
minutes.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you.
Mr. Telle, in July of 2025, the Corps estimated that there
would be 12 Chief's Reports completed for WRDA 2026. And to
date, Congress has received two of those reports. One of them
happens to be the Turning Basin of the Columbia River between
Washington and Oregon.
What additional Chief's Reports should we expect in time
for incorporation into WRDA 2026?
Mr. Telle. Ranking Member Larsen, thank you for the
question. I will defer that question to the Chief. They are his
reports.
General Graham. Ranking Member Larsen, I am tracking
somewhere between 7 and 13 additional Chief's Reports or
Director's Reports that we will try to get in.
I talked to the staff this morning. We know that the end of
May is usually the hard deadline, but we are not going to go
pencils down. We are going to keep working on these additional
Director's Reports and Chief's Reports throughout the summer.
But to your staff, we absolutely want to get these in as soon
as possible.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. So when you get them on your
desk, how long is the turnaround?
General Graham. I will sign those usually immediately. To
the earlier question, we want all of the Corps' leadership to
be taking a look at these projects earlier.
So at the time the Chief's Report gets to my desk, I have
seen it. General Kelly has seen it. Mr. Telle is certainly well
aware of it. And that will speed this whole process up.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thanks.
Assistant Secretary Telle, several ports have expressed
concern to me that the administration is going to propose using
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund receipts to construct or maintain
projects on the inland waterway system.
That is a tremendously bad idea. It would break the
commitment we have made to shippers that these funds would be
dedicated to maintenance of the coastal harbors, since that is
where this money largely comes from.
Does the administration support using Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund receipts for inland waterways projects?
Mr. Telle. Ranking Member Larsen, I am not going to speak
for the administration's policy on this topic I don't know the
answer to, but what I will say is that what you have described
is not part of the Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork
initiative that we put out yesterday. And so I can't speak----
Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. It wouldn't be,
because it is a different set of things, but I just want to be
sure that you understand that if that is going to be a budget
proposal or a proposal from the administration that using
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund receipts for inland waterways
when the dollars for the fund is produced by the coastal
harbors, there is going to be a problem.
Mr. Telle. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Secretary, thanks for briefing me
on your upcoming proposal on the BINP. One of my priorities is
that Corps projects be affordable to communities of all sizes.
And in your proposal, you discuss expanding Corps authorities
to allow non-Federal sponsors to take on design and
construction of projects and seek repayment for the Federal
share after the fact.
How would that expanded use of alternative delivery methods
benefit smaller, rural, Tribal communities that can't afford to
advance these funds and then to wait for reimbursement? Have
you thought through that?
Mr. Telle. Ranking Member Larsen, you raise a great point
here. And the way that we see it is that if we use the
authorities that you provided to us to expand the overall
capacity of our Nation to deliver on infrastructure, it will
reserve the use of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' excellence for
projects that are national in scale or projects for communities
that don't have those capabilities, the ones you describe.
But we do have non-Federal sponsors that do have those
capabilities. And so, to the degree that we can let them help
shoulder the workload burden, it is going to make it better for
everyone, because it will reserve General Graham's team's
expertise for communities like the ones you describe.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. And in the Pacific Northwest, I
have worked on projects using Corps 206 authorities on a very
successful restoration, a fairly small project compared to much
larger projects.
And so, there are different sizes of projects the Corps has
authority to act on as well as different abilities that these
jurisdictions have to participate without Corps.
So finally, WRDA 2024 formally expanded the target timeline
for study development to 4 years and $5 million. Non-Federal
sponsors are concerned the Corps continues to scale down
projects to conform to the 3-year, the three and three.
When your staff briefed the committee on your potential
reforms, it continued to cling to the three and three goal
despite the fact that we changed that. So can you explain the
difference here, the disconnect?
Mr. Telle. Sure, Ranking Member Larsen. The law obviously
provides us with 4 years and a $5 million limit to complete a
feasibility study. That replaces a law that gave us 3 years and
a $3 million limit.
My view is that the tool that you gave us in terms of
putting this box around how soon and how cost-effectively we
need to complete these ability studies is a great tool for
discipline, to impose discipline on the system to help produce
an answer for you to your point about Chief's Reports rather
than studying these things forever.
And so, I am not going to--although the law gives me the
ability to waive the 4x5x3 requirement, I don't take it as this
committee's position that I am going to be the waiver factory.
I think you imposed this discipline on the system for a
reason. It is because you want studies completed in a
reasonable amount of time for a reasonable amount of money. And
I am going to be very reluctant to give any relief to that
discipline, because I think it is an incredible tool that you
have given us, and I think General Graham agrees.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Kiley for 5
minutes.
Mr. Kiley of California. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for your testimony and all of your efforts to
accelerate the process of building that is so important. It is
vitally important in my State of California where we have had
many issues related to our water supply and have been hamstrung
by the State's failure to build adequate water storage really
for decades now.
So it has really fallen upon local communities to do the
best that they can to provide for their own residents. And to
that end, I want to thank you for the work you have done with
me and my office on a $5.3 million project for preliminary and
final design work, along with environmental compliance, for a
15-mile raw water pipeline serving west Placer County.
This project is going to connect an existing Placer County
Water Agency intake on the upper American River to Roseville's
Barton Road Water Treatment Plant. And once completed,
Roseville will retain access to their surface water resources
during times of drought or emergency.
This will have many benefits. It is going to reduce
reliance on a single aging intake at Folsom Reservoir; improve
water reliability during emergencies and droughts; serve
residents, two regional hospitals, and a robust manufacturing
and business economy; enhance groundwater banking and efficient
water use; and increase surface water availability in the lower
American River for municipal, industrial, and environmental
needs.
And we have worked very hard the last few years. This was
originally improved in WRDA. And thank you very much for
getting this to the point where it can move forward.
Also, as one of the projects that we have gotten Federal
funding for, we have enhanced culverts that are very vital to
water infrastructure in our area with the Placer County Water
Agency.
And we are finally starting to have some hope of larger
scale changes in California as well. As part of H.R. 1 this
last year, there was $1 billion that was secured for new water
infrastructure. This was primarily secured through the
California delegation.
So we look forward to seeing that funding--this is really a
Department of the Interior decision--wind up supporting
enhanced capacity, like raising Shasta Dam in California.
And then finally, we have gotten Federal approval and
significant Federal funding for Sites Reservoir in California,
which is an offstream facility that is going to provide upwards
of 1.5 million acre-feet of storage.
This is the first new significant water storage California
has seen in several decades and holds the hope of getting us
out of this cycle of floods and droughts, where we have
sometimes both at the same time, by the way, in terms of states
of emergency, so that we can actually save the water that comes
in the wet years and use it in the dry years so that we are not
taking water away from our farmers, forcing them to fallow
their fields, forcing our citizens not to water their lawns or
take shorter showers.
So your work is critical to many pieces of that. I want to
thank you for everything that you are doing and for the very
constructive relationship you have had with my office.
I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Garamendi for 5
minutes.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Telle and General Graham, thank you very much for
your testimony today and for the answers that you have provided
thus far.
I want to go through three issues. I am going to start with
the California Delta and a decision that is now before the Army
Corps of Engineers. And I suppose, Mr. Telle, you will also be
involved.
It is the record of decision. I would hope that the Army
Corps of Engineers would deny the Federal permits to allow the
State of California to dig its proposed Delta Conveyance
Project tunnel. It has very serious impacts on the delta.
So that is question number one. Where is that? We sent a
letter on February 3rd to you, General Graham. I would not
expect a reply in 2\1/2\ weeks, but here you are, so that is
question number one.
Question number two goes to the Mare Island Strait channel
dredging. This was in the 2024. It directed the Army Corps of
Engineers to expedite the completion of the Mare Island Strait
feasibility study. This has to do with the SHIPS Act and the
ability of that particular facility in Mare Island to handle
larger ships.
And the third question deals with the overall dredging in
the San Francisco Bay area, including to Sacramento and
Stockton. What is the status of that?
And so those are the three questions. Let's start with the
delta. General Graham.
General Graham. Representative Garamendi, thank you for
that question. Primarily, our role in the Delta Conveyance
Project is just our regulatory work under the Clean Water Act,
404, any impacts to waters of the United States that the new
infrastructure that is required for that intake would be.
And we will get back to your office on exactly when we
expect to release a supplemental EIS, but we are tracking this
closely.
Mr. Garamendi. The existing EIS indicates that there are
very significant environmental issues associated with the
delta. I won't go through all of them here. They are
significant. It is a perfect way to destroy the largest inland
freshwater estuary on the west coast. So this project that is
proposed by our Governor and others should be a nonstarter. The
role of the Corps of Engineers is significant.
So please get back to us, and be happy to further enlighten
you on the potential problems associated with it. Most of those
are in the record.
Okay. The next one having to do with Mare Island.
General Graham. Sir, Mare Island, understand that
administration's priority is to restore America's maritime
dominance, and that is what you are working on here on the old
ship, or Navy facility, that used to be out there.
The district has been working on that 216 study. Right now,
it is not looking all that favorable. That is not great news,
but the good news is most of that channel is self-scouring down
to 30 feet. So that is the good news. We are happy to come
brief you on everything that we looked at.
Mr. Garamendi. General, we certainly appreciate the
briefing, but the fact of the matter is that the administration
came out with their maritime strategy last week, and it would
call for the revitalization of the commercial maritime
industry. And, of course, we already have a shortage on the
west coast of docks that are available for the Navy.
Dredging becomes critically important, and I would take
issue with your assessment of the dredging and the normal
scouring from the river itself. Not happening. A major project.
If we are going to rebuild our maritime industry, we are going
to have to deal with this particular one. And, of course, there
is always Richmond that we could add to it and the other
harbors.
And finally, the final issue really deals with how we are
going to deal with the problems that are associated, again,
general issue of dredging in San Francisco Bay.
General Graham. Representative Garamendi, delighted to say
that we are starting to treat dredge material not as a waste
product but as a vital resource. We have got great authorities
from this committee to work to better use----
Mr. Garamendi [interrupting]. My final point, General,
excuse me for interrupting, but you should keep in mind using
the Adaptive Management Program of the Endangered Species Act,
thereby providing flexibility, not based on the calendar, but
rather on where the species are and what potential harm there
may be. So adaptive management, Endangered Species Act.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Taylor for 5
minutes.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member, for
holding this hearing today. And thank you very much to our
witnesses for being here. The sacrifices you guys made to be
here today don't go unnoticed, and we appreciate it very much.
I represent many counties along the Ohio River. Congress
must pass legislation that encourages growth and development,
that speeds up project timelines, and protects our communities
from flooding without being filled with frivolous regulations.
Public-private partnerships have historically benefited the
Federal Government and taxpayers. The Meldahl locks and dam in
my district is a prime example of how public-private
partnerships with the Army Corps can protect communities while
providing economic opportunities.
Completed in 2016, the three-turbine hydroelectric plant
and spillway were added to the Meldahl locks and dam,
generating 105 megawatts for the community.
Secretary Telle, I understand that the Corps coordinates
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for these
potential partnerships. Is there any opportunity in this
upcoming WRDA reauthorization to encourage or promote these
partnerships to help create new domestic energy production
along this existing infrastructure?
Mr. Telle. Congressman Taylor, you are absolutely right.
And 6 percent of our Nation's energy is from hydropower, 25
percent--the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the largest owner
of hydropower facilities. But we have so many of our dams where
hydropower is not part of the equation.
And this is not one of our primary missions, but through
our section 408 regulatory program, we can create a streamlined
process that allows the entire Nation to take advantage of the
situation that you describe in your home State.
And we are undertaking, this committee--and WRDA 2024
weighed in on--streamlining section 408. General Graham and his
team have got a good grasp on 404 Clean Water Act permits.
But when you go around to our districts, they all handle
section 408 a little bit differently, because it has to do with
touching our infrastructure, like dams, and it is a more
sensitive life and safety issue.
If we can come up with a streamlined national approach to
section 408, we can unlock hydropower potential energy that
exists in our system today. In the same way we did it in Ohio,
we can do it nationwide. Through Building Infrastructure, Not
Paperwork, this is one of the exact things that we are doing.
So thank you for bringing it up.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. The Corps' construction and
management of levees across the Ohio River have historically
protected communities along the Ohio River from flooding,
saving countless lives.
As these communities grow in population and economic
development, local communities may seek to modify the Corps'
existing infrastructure through the section 408 program.
Unfortunately, some communities ran into, in my opinion,
unnecessary bureaucratic delays while the Corps was completing
its completeness determination for a project in my district.
My constituents reported that repeatedly, the Corps took
the full 30 days to respond to each correspondence, delaying
the project and holding up critical development.
This process began in early June of 2025 and was not
resolved until late January 2026, 7 months after the
application was submitted for review.
I understand that some approvals take time, but project
delivery is crucial for folks on the ground, and 7 months for
approval can put projects like this one in my district in
jeopardy and drive up costs.
Secretary Telle, when looking at an upcoming WRDA
reauthorization, how can Congress ensure that the section 408
approval process is completed promptly and communities are not
worried about losing Federal funding?
Mr. Telle. Congressman Taylor, you are absolutely right.
This is a place, as I said before, this committee has spoken on
before. Before I leave this job, I hope to have a new
rulemaking that streamlines section 408 for the entire country
so that each member of the public who seeks a section 408
permit from the Corps of Engineers can have a process that is
timely that they can rely on getting answers.
Obviously, we are not going to compromise our
infrastructure, but we have to be able to streamline this
process. It's buried way down in our bureaucracy, and it is
something we need to elevate.
General Graham, anything to add?
General Graham. I couldn't agree more. We won't sacrifice
the integrity of, say, that dam on the Ohio River, but the
paperwork processes, absolutely.
And I think, as Mr. Telle outlined, it is to give district
engineers more authorities in that so they can move faster. One
piece I could add on the Ohio River, all the icing conditions,
the team in the Ohio River, particularly down in your area,
performed magnificently well, keeping those vital arteries open
during some truly challenging conditions, and I am tremendously
proud of them.
Mr. Taylor. Likewise. I was over there with an opportunity
to look at some of that work being done, and I really
appreciate what was done to help those folks.
I am going to submit this last question, and you guys,
maybe the lieutenant general, can get back to me with the
answer. Ohio is home to many abandoned mines, with over 1,300
miles of streams impacted by potential acid mine drainage, many
of these streams falling into the Ohio River.
That is why I was pleased to see in the last WRDA
reauthorization authorization for the Secretary to establish a
pilot program designed to establish treatment works for
abandoned mine drainage in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia.
Lieutenant General, has the Army Corps of Engineers begun
the process of establishing this pilot program?
General Graham. Congressman, we will get back to you with
an answer to that. But having grown up in Pittsburgh, I
certainly understand the importance of this issue.
Mr. Taylor. I appreciate that. I yield back, Chairman.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Ryan for 5
minutes.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you both for being
here again. Good to have you back.
When you were here in September--and appreciated that
visit--I focused on what I made very clear as a top priority
for my 800,000 constituents. I want to bring that project up
again and maintain that focus. This is the Kiryas Joel Aqueduct
Connection Project. At that time, appreciated that you both
acknowledged that you were tracking this and working on it.
I also want to thank you, General Graham. I asked you
during that hearing for a commitment to meeting with your
senior leadership, and you followed through on time and under
budget on that meeting with General Gibbs. Appreciated that,
appreciated all the local leadership, and Colonel Young in the
district being very engaged in this. So I just want to thank
you both, first and foremost, for your continued timely and
deep engagement and commitment on this.
What has changed even in the few months since I brought
this up in September is that the urgency and the dire need for
water in this community unfortunately just continues to grow,
and I want to just give you some fresh data points there.
And just to refresh your memories, this is a village, it is
the biggest municipality in my district. It is one of the
youngest and fastest growing communities in the country. The
average family size is nearly double the national size of
families, at 5.37 people per family to be exact. Since 1990,
the population has grown 500 percent in this village. So they
are doing everything right to, essentially, race to keep up
with their rapid growth, which we appreciate and want in other
parts of the district and the country, and they just need some
help to really do that.
What has particularly changed is just, as they have
continued to work this, they are just in a severe water supply
deficit at this point. As they work through what is the final
phase of a successful 20-year project, the concerns that
without just--we have gotten State funding, we have gotten
additional prior Federal funding, but we need to speed up the
urgency, and so we are asking your help on this.
In the last year or two, the village has been forced to
rely on temporary unsustainable measures for supplying water.
They have been trucking in drinking water. They have been
purchasing water at incredible markups just to make sure that
their folks--there are a lot of kids, in particular, in this
community--just have adequate water. And this isn't even
covering a fraction of their needs.
So we were able to get the authorization up for this
project in the 2024 WRDA. I am going to attempt to do that
again. But I specifically wanted to ask, now that the
appropriations work is done, how you are thinking about and
whether we can get any support in the upcoming work plan that I
know you are working on to try to speed this up. Because it is
just really hard for me to look my constituents in the eyes and
say we are not doing everything we can to just make sure they
have got water. So would appreciate both of your input on that.
And again, thanks for your engagement on this.
Mr. Telle. Congressman Ryan, just to respond, thanks to
your advocacy for this community. I think I was on the phone
with General Gibbs a few hours after he met with your
constituents. I think General Graham was also getting that
update at the same time. This is something you brought very
clearly to our attention. We are currently in the process of
working with Office of Management and Budget to develop our
2026 work plan in response to the Energy and Water
Appropriations Act, and appreciate your advocacy on this
program.
Mr. Ryan. When are you guys, roughly, expecting that? I
know we----
Mr. Telle [interrupting]. The data states and the law says
we have 60 days to deliver that work plan to Congress from the
date of enactment.
Mr. Ryan. We did our part, and certainly, you need adequate
time to do yours. I appreciate that.
Again, I just want to thank you both for the work that you
are doing, and your teams, and ask really just on behalf of my
constituents, as you are making those hard calls--I know EI
projects in particular are often seen as lower priority, and I
understand that--there is a huge need across the country--but
this one has just reached a really critical point. So thank you
all.
I will yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Westerman for 5
minutes.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the
witnesses for being here today.
I grew up listening to President Reagan tell stories to
illustrate some hard facts in life. And one of them he used to
tell was about the Communist Soviet Union. And the guy bought a
new car and he asked them when he would have it, and they said
6 years from now. And he said, is that morning or afternoon.
And the guy said, what do you mean, 6 years from now, why do
you care if it's the morning or the afternoon. He said, well,
because the plumber is coming in the morning.
And when I think of some of these projects with the Corps,
I can see stories that make 6 years look like a very short
amount of time.
There is some great illustrations--I have dealt with the
Corps since I have been in Congress--and then some not so great
ones. The first not so great one was my hometown needed one-
quarter inch of water out of a lake that is about 260 feet deep
in places. They needed one-quarter inch of water per year out
of that lake, and it took 16 years to get the Corps to
authorize the project, while the cost of building the water
supply system skyrocketed. We finally got that done. No common
sense whatsoever in doing that.
Then I reflect back to a flood on the Arkansas River 5 or 6
years ago, a terrible flood, took sections of levee out. And I
had all these farmers wanting to--they were trying to figure
out where they were going to be able to plant their crop in the
fall, and they couldn't get an answer from the Federal
Government on whether they could get crop insurance if the
levee wasn't in place.
And Colonel Eric Noe, he is my Corps of Engineers hero, he
is retired now, but he came out and looked at the project and
started talking about how many years it would take to go
through the environmental assessment and historic preservation,
and he got it, though. He realized that was a lot of nonsense
that was holding up progress, and he fixed that levee in about
2 to 3 months.
So I know that when the right efforts are put forth, the
Corps can move mountains, they can move a lot of dirt in a
short amount of time, and that gave me great faith in the
Corps.
Which brings me to my next issue, and that is the 12-foot
channel of the Arkansas River on the MKARNS system. So it was
first authorized in 2004, and here we are, 2026, and there
hasn't been one effort made to deepen the channel in the
Arkansas River, even though--a few years back, I was the
ranking member on the Water Resources and Environment
Subcommittee, and we put new language out there to deepen the
channel, there was $200 million that the Corps had for
maintenance on the MKARNS, and still nothing has happened.
So my question is, when is something going to happen on the
MKARNS, and what else does Congress have to do, other than
authorize and you have funding to do it? How do we get this
project to actually happen? Because when I am back home, people
who use the MKARNS, that is pretty much the number one and only
question I get asked.
Mr. Telle. Congressman Westerman, the frustrations you
expressed are exactly why we are getting after the Building
Infrastructure, Not Paperwork initiative. We are hoping that we
hear fewer and fewer stories like this.
As it relates to the MKARNS, I am pleased to say that I was
there recently. It is an incredible facility, an incredible
capability we have as a Nation. I was at the Port of Catoosa,
which is upriver from you, and even past Tulsa, what an amazing
facility to deliver products that are created right in
America's heartland to the world.
With regard to the 12-foot channel depth, I will defer to
General Graham on that. I do know that when we are looking at
these types of systems, making sure we don't strand deeper
channels against shallower channels is a big consideration.
But, General Graham, I don't know if you want to provide an
update.
General Graham. Thank you.
First, I am just going to pivot to the levees. Absolutely,
when a flood hits, we need to stay in Army mode and to get
those levees repaired, not within 6 years, not within 5 years,
before the next storm hits. That is our absolute goal. And we
are here to protect the people's livelihoods behind there. We
are not here to defend any of our bureaucracy. So,
Representative, you have our absolute commitment to that.
On the MKARNS system, understand the folks you talk to,
their number one concern is getting more savings by a deeper
river. My number one concern for that system is the reliability
of it. It is about 15 years behind where, say, the Ohio River
system is in terms of needing major recapitalization. So when I
look at all the engineering reports that come in, making sure
that what we have stays reliable is my number one concern.
Mr. Westerman. I understand that. And that $200 million I
was talking about, it got moved down to the Three Rivers
Project, which is infrastructure, which is very important. But
unfortunately, it wasn't used, so it went back into the
maintenance fund.
So I want to work with you. I get it that infrastructure
needs repairs up and down the river, but it just seems to take
forever to get things done. And it's not like you have got to
dig a new channel the full length of the river. There are a few
places where it's not 12 feet deep that need to be dredged out
and fixed so that the river can be used.
So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the indulgence, and I yield
back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Friedman for 5
minutes.
Ms. Friedman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
A point of personal privilege. After his military service,
my grandfather spent his entire career with the Army Corps, so
I have a tremendous amount of respect for the organization and
for what you all do. So, thank you so much for being here.
Lieutenant General Graham, I had the opportunity to ask you
a few questions the last time you were here about the PACR for
the L.A. River Restoration Project, a very important long-time
project in my area in Los Angeles.
During that hearing, you had told me that the Corps was
committed to completing the PACR in time for the 2026 WRDA.
Unfortunately, on February 9, after asking for a status update
on the PACR, my staff received communication from the Corps
that stated, quote, ``Federal funding is not available to
continue the project's PACR completion in support of the WRDA
2026 timeline,'' end quote.
Now, my staff and I have sent several followup questions,
which as of now have not been answered. So I would like to use
part of my time to get some clarity on the status of this very
important project which L.A. has invested millions of dollars
over the years.
First, Lieutenant General Graham, can you provide me with a
timeline for the completion of the PACR?
General Graham. Representative Friedman, I will not be able
to honor the commitment we made at the last hearing to finish
that PACR before the next WRDA bill is due. A multitude of
reasons are behind that. Some are the challenges, the
absolutely ballooning astronomical cost of real estate,
question the viability of it and the ability of our Federal
sponsor to provide the funding to get that real estate. There
are also some environmental concerns.
I have walked that whole region. I understand how important
it is to the community. And nobody likes large concrete
trapezoidal ditches running through their community. Although
in the recent rainstorms out there, L.A. River did its flood
risk management job magnificently well.
So, we are committed to working to see, can we balance the
flood risk management needs and the aquatic ecosystem
restoration needs. But in the case of L.A. River, we are
challenged to put the conditions together that we believe we
are going to have a viable way forward.
Ms. Friedman. Thank you. It is disappointing to hear, and I
would love to have more communication with the Corps as we move
forward. I mean, certainly, L.A. has put a lot of their own
resources into this project over the years. It has been
promised to the community. It serves a very important function.
It could also serve a more important function if we can do the
investments to help capture more water. And my fellow
Representative from California mentioned water storage, and we
have got a lot of water that runs down the river out to the
ocean every time it rains, and there are reclamation and
capture projects as part of this project that are planned.
But for the communities that have lived alongside of this
for years and have been promised an amenity that they can use,
the communities that have been divided from parts of the city
because of this infrastructure project who want crossings, want
to be able to have this not be blighted, but be an amenity for
their children, moving forward, this would be a huge
disappointment.
And as the project continues, and as it drags on, the costs
are only going to increase. So if we just kick the can down the
road because of current costs, we are looking at ballooning
costs over the years. And, again, there is a lot of sunk
investment into this, so I would hope that we can keep finding
ways to move this forward.
In my last minute here, I do want to also mention the
deeply concerning directive issued on October 15, 2025, by the
Department of War, which requires the Corps district to obtain
approval from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of War for
Legislative Affairs before engagement with Federal or State-
elected officials and their staff. I mean, this is something--
as we are talking about removing redtape, and that seems to be
a priority of the Trump administration and of yours, this is
adding layers of redtape that WRDA is never going to be able to
unstick.
So, Lieutenant General Graham, how has this directive
impeded the Corps' ability to work with Congress, and how do
you plan to ensure timely communication with offices regarding
time-sensitive information, like the L.A. River Restoration
Project, if you can't talk to us without going through another
agency?
General Graham. Thank you for that question. The Army Corps
of Engineers, we strive every day to function as one team. One
team from the district level that are interfacing with your
constituents, up through our division level, through my
headquarters, and up to Mr. Telle's office. Our goal is to
function as one team.
And as my interpretation of the guidance from the Secretary
of War and the Secretary of the Army, it revolves around the
basic principle that the left hand of the organization should
know what the right hand of the organization is doing. And it
is also around the basic principle that at the lower levels of
the organization, they should be entirely nested with the
guidance and direction that senior leadership is providing. And
so I think that is all well just and proper.
If the actual execution of that is clunky right now, that
is my responsibility to fix it, and that is our commitment to
you here today.
Ms. Friedman. Well, seems to me that adding this layer of
bureaucracy is going to make things slower and maybe us not
getting a response as part of that.
With that, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Onder for 5
minutes.
Dr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Telle, General Graham, thank you for being here
today.
WRDA works best when Congress sets clear priorities, and
the Corps delivers real infrastructure, not just process
milestones. Secretary Telle noted that the Corps performs best
when it is unburdened by redtape and is free to focus on
execution. I couldn't agree more.
In Missouri, we don't measure success by how many reports
are issued, but whether our levees hold, whether our locks
operate, and if our communities are protected. Missouri's Third
District depends on a reliable inland river system. The
Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, which converge in my district,
support agriculture, manufacturing, energy, and multiple
businesses throughout the district. We also have aging
infrastructure that the Federal Government built decades ago
and then sold off and abandoned.
So as we work to develop WRDA 2026, I want to focus on
three things. First, delivering on the already authorized
projects and clearing the construction backlog. Second,
prioritizing flood risk reduction and ecosystem restoration
projects that address the real and present risks to Missouri
families and landowners. And third, improving transparency and
accountability so Congress and local sponsors know exactly what
projects remain unfunded and, more importantly, why.
Secretary Telle also pointed out that we have over $45
billion sitting undelivered nationwide, much of it decades old.
That is unacceptable, especially when we have communities
waiting for much needed infrastructure upgrades.
So I look forward to discussing how WRDA 2026 can sharpen
focus, restore fiscal discipline, and ensure the Corps builds
what America and Missouri actually need.
Secretary Telle, you stated that the Corps currently has
$45 billion previously appropriated but not yet delivered, with
$15 billion of that being more than 6 years old. Are there
specific reforms that you would like to see implemented in WRDA
2026 to help prioritize completion of these already authorized
construction projects, particularly flood risk and navigation
projects in States like Missouri, before authorizing new ones?
Mr. Telle. Congressman, thank you for the question. And
congratulations on representing the part of America where the
longest river intersects with the second longest river, the
longest being Missouri, just slightly.
Look, I have been over it. I think some of this stuff is
very fundamental and may not require an act of Congress to
deliver on, just simply a change in culture. We have to empower
our commanders. We are not doing that today. We are asking them
to do everything all at once with the same level of effort.
The reason a lot of this funding is stranded is because we
get caught in endless loops of negotiation and back-and-forth,
and this bureaucrat talking to that bureaucrat, this agency
talking to that agency. And so I would say that that
fundamental management change will do a lot to help free those
resources.
I think a directive from Congress to us to reexamine
whether that $45 billion that is currently stranded, if it
could be applied somewhere else more efficiently or
appropriately would be useful. But I think, more importantly,
we have to just get out of--we have to make sure that--in
particular, we get caught up in arguments with other Federal
agencies, our partners.
My view, and what's part of Building Infrastructure, Not
Paperwork, is that if we elevate these challenges here to
echelon in Washington, we can look across at another agency and
say, hey, let's solve this problem.
I think about a project in Florida, in south Florida, Port
Everglades. That project costs, to deepen and widen that port,
costs $600 million, but the current pricetag for that project
is $3.2 billion. That means we, the United States of America,
are paying 5x for a port on the basis of haggling between the
interagency, and we can do a lot to fix that----
Dr. Onder [interposing]. Right. Yes. A lot better than
that.
Mr. Telle [continuing]. If we elevate it. So thank you for
bringing that up.
Dr. Onder. Thank you. Also for you, Secretary Telle, the
Federal Government constructed and later abandoned the Lock and
Dam No. 1 on the lower Osage River in Missouri. It now poses
safety and liability risks. Given that this is a clear legacy
Federal project, will the administration support WRDA 2026
authorization and funding prioritization for removal and
ecosystem restoration on Lock and Dam No. 1?
Mr. Telle. Sir, I am going to let General Graham take that
one. He has the latest on that project.
Dr. Onder. Thank you.
General Graham. Sir, quite versed in the challenge with
Lock and Dam No. 1 on the lower Osage River. Our commitment to
you is to have a Chief's Report that I will sign by the end of
May.
Dr. Onder. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Figures for 5
minutes.
Mr. Figures. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Secretary
Telle and Lieutenant General Graham, for being here today.
Secretary, it is good to see you again. We were down--I had
the privilege to spend a little time with you down in Mobile a
few months back when we were celebrating the deepening of that
port, which is an example of what happens when communities can
work together with the Corps to prioritize local and regional
priorities from an infrastructure standpoint. And now we can
proudly say--no disrespect to any of my other colleagues on the
committee--that the Port of Mobile, Alabama, is the deepest
port in the gulf. The deepest. So deeper than Houston, deeper
than New Orleans, deeper than Miami, deeper than Tampa. We are,
hopefully soon, to be home to the largest amount of imports and
exports coming in and out of the gulf.
As we begin work towards WRDA 2026, it is important that we
recognize the breadth of water infrastructure challenges facing
communities across the country. While navigation and major
coastal projects often receive the brunt of the attention, many
cities, large and small, and rural especially, are grappling
with aging water systems, inadequate stormwater infrastructure,
sediment management challenges, and mounting wastewater needs.
In my district, these are not abstract concerns.
Communities are dealing with recurring flooding, failing or
outdated water systems. In fact, one city in my district,
Prichard, Alabama, has a water system that has been described
by experts who have worked in Flint, worked in Jackson, as
America's worst water system.
This certainly creates challenges that affect public
health, economic development, environmental quality, and
overall quality of life. And WRDA has long served as a
bipartisan vehicle to address pressing water resource needs, as
you guys well know.
As we consider WRDA 2026, we must ensure that the Corps is
equipped, not only to maintain major navigation channels and
large-scale projects, but also to partner with local
communities on comprehensive water management solutions,
particularly in areas facing infrastructure deficits.
I look forward to discussing with you guys and working with
you guys how the administration will prioritize water supply,
wastewater, stormwater, and sediment management projects in
WRDA 2026, and how we can ensure communities, especially small
and midsize cities, and rural communities, can effectively move
projects forward through the Corps' process.
Our goal should be clear: We should be striving for a WRDA
bill that strengthens infrastructure resilience, improves water
quality, supports economic growth, and delivers meaningful
long-term benefits to communities across this country, both
large and small. Many of the Corps' projects authorized under
the Water Resources Development Act are vital for community
safety, economic growth, and environmental and coastal
resilience.
Secretary Telle, I will start with you. How could
underfunding, how could us not providing enough funding in WRDA
for operations, maintenance, and construction affect the Corps'
ability to deliver these authorized projects effectively?
Mr. Telle. Congressman, thank you for the question. And I
would note that you invited me to join you, in Mobile at the
event that we attended together, in this room from that very
chair, and we wound up sitting next to each other. So that was
great.
In terms of resourcing operations and maintenance, this is
critical. You will see us emphasize operations and maintenance.
General Graham just did. And, absolutely, there are key issues
where additional funding, including the President's budget, is
required, but I believe that we can accomplish so much with the
authorities and the funding that we have.
We are not delivering sufficiently, in my view, on schedule
and cost with what we have, and that is why you saw us
yesterday introduce the Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork
initiative. This is designed to squeeze more out for every
American community out of the resources that you provided.
These decades-long schedules, these billions of dollars in
costs, we can do better as America. Our water infrastructure is
really the secret ingredient to our communities' health and
safety, it is the secret ingredient to our economy. And we have
to as a Nation--I mean, this is the greatest civil engineering
entity humanity has ever known sitting next to me.
Mr. Figures. Thank you for that. I don't want to cut you
off, but I do want to go to Lieutenant General Graham.
Mr. Telle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Figures. I first want to highlight the work and
reputation that your district commander in Mobile, Alabama, is
establishing for himself. Kelcey Shaw is doing a hell of a job
by all accounts that we receive from local authorities, mayors,
members of the city council, people that he engages with across
my district, which is broad and vast. They are thrilled to have
him there, they are enjoying working with him, and they feel
heard more than anything else. And so I want to give him that
acknowledgment.
Lastly, look, I live in--I represent part of Hurricane
Alley. And from an engineering perspective, obviously given
funding cuts and staffing changes that we have seen over the
past year-plus, want to make sure that the Corps is ready and
able. If a category--if a major hurricane today is to hit the
gulf coast, or anywhere in America, are you confident in the
Corps' ability with its current resources to be able to respond
effectively and efficiently to provide a timely response to
major infrastructure damage that may happen from those storms
or do you need more?
General Graham. Representative Figures, we absolutely are.
With leaders like Colonel Shaw making sure that we are staying
in Army mode, whether that being under Corps authorities or
whether we are working under Stafford Act under FEMA's
authorities, our goal is always to help people as fast as we
possibly can. And in your vulnerable part of this country, that
is absolutely true.
Mr. Figures. Thank you. And I yield back.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
And as somebody that wanted to attend that event, I
couldn't, and I hate it, because it was a great project and a
good example of what the Corps can do under--came in under
budget and under time. So it is a good project.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Burlison for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
After decades of frustration, and myself being frustrated,
representing my district for 3 years coming here to our annual
hearing that we would have, what a change. What a change.
Secretary Telle, I cannot thank you enough for the sea
change in attitude and respect for the citizens and the
taxpayers and their neighbors. What a difference.
Thank you for your leadership, General Graham. Thank you.
You and Brigadier General Walter have just demonstrated
tremendous leadership that we haven't seen in decades. And I am
so impressed with Lieutenant Colonel Jesse Carter. And just
last week, he led a team from the Little Rock office to my
district to have a series of community meetings to explain the
changes in the policies that they are going to have, and they
were welcomed with positive feedback from the constituents in
my district, and I cannot thank you enough. First, I just
wanted to say thank you.
You have clearly demonstrated, Secretary Telle, almost a
private sector attitude the way in which you address trying to
streamline processes, make the Corps faster, quicker,
responsible. And, again, this goes to both of you. It is
impressive to see happen.
Can you highlight some of the new initiatives that you guys
have worked on? And if you want to make any comments about your
experience at Table Rock Lake, that would be great.
Mr. Telle. Well, Congressman, I will just say, we made a
commitment to you in this room in September, and we followed
through with that commitment. And I am pleased to see that the
situation has improved in Table Rock Lake.
With regard to our initiatives, we are so proud of our
Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork initiative. There are so
many ways that we can improve here. I want to hit on something,
since you give me the opportunity, that General Graham hit on
earlier but we haven't fully articulated, which has to do with
the way we contract for dredging.
If you think about dredging, this is--really, it's the
equivalent of a snowplow plowing your street. It allows you to
get back to work, and it is the equivalent for our Nation of a
snowplow clearing your street and enabling productivity.
Unfortunately, the way we contract for this is regional in
scope. We talked about this. We have less intelligence about
the dredging activity across the Nation when we are sitting
across a negotiating table from a dredging provider than they
do. And we are often competing against ourselves, driving up
costs across the country, having to run errands across the
country in a way that is incredibly inefficient.
We are already underway, under Building Infrastructure, Not
Paperwork, to elevating that contracting activity to a place
where we have a national view, and it is going to make us far
more efficient. It is going to allow us to squeeze every drop
out of taxpayer dollars that we can. And so I am extremely
excited about that.
There are a number of other ways that we can get into. I
have got 1 minute and 23 seconds left. I can provide another
vignette for you, if you would like, or I can answer another
question, sir.
Mr. Burlison. I wanted to make sure that I didn't miss
thanking you also for the water allocation that we got from
Stockton Lake after decades of southwest Missouri sweating and
worried about having drinking water availability in the future.
That was something that was finally accomplished, and I can't
thank you and my district cannot thank you enough.
I wanted to ask about some of the funding that the Corps
has, about $45 billion in congressionally appropriated funds
that included about $15 billion that had remained unspent for
about 15 years. Knowing that in my district there is
infrastructure that needs improvement, can you address that
issue and what we may need to do if we need to make any changes
in order to make sure that those funds are utilized?
Mr. Telle. Congressman, thank you for the question. And
this is something we are working on every single day. We have
analyzed every dollar of those $45 billion that are out there.
Some of them are still part of a project that is active, and
for one reason or another, we just haven't gotten to the point
where we can start spending it.
Some of it is stranded. Some of it will never be spent
unless we repurpose it. And so we have been working with the
Office of Management and Budget, we will work with the
Appropriations Committee, we will work with this committee to
try to make sure that, one, we are carrying through and
executing the dollars that Congress has provided but to the
degree that those dollars are not--I mean, the enterprise, the
Corps has never had anyone--most agencies have funding that
expires. Much of our funding never expires. And the Corps has
rarely had anybody come around and say, hey, if you don't spend
this money, it is going to go away.
We are going to execute the law, and we are going to spend
the money that Congress has given us in a way that Congress
expects. However, someone needs to put some discipline into the
system to get some decisions made on how to execute this money,
and I have been doing that. I have been letting the enterprise
know that if you don't spend the money you have, eventually,
Congress is going to take it back.
And so we have been getting that message out. It has put a
shock into the system. I think our fiscal folks across the
board are now awake and interested in spending this money.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you. And last, I just want to invite
you again to come back to Table Rock. Every Veterans Day we
have an amazing event where our fishing guides, dozens and
dozens of fishing guides offer free guided service to our
veterans. It is one of the most beautiful and Americana kind of
event that you could ever see, and you both are invited to
come. I would greatly appreciate it.
Mr. Telle. Thank you, Congressman. If not for the lapse in
appropriations, we might have joined you for that back in
November.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Table Rock.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Norton for 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Army Corps supplies the District of Columbia's drinking
water, and the Potomac River is the only source of that
drinking water. With only 1 day of backup water supply, man-
made or natural events that make the river unusable for
drinking water would put residents, the District government,
and the regional economy at risk.
In 2022, at my request, the Congress authorized the Corps
to conduct a feasibility study of a project, quote, ``project
for the water supply, including the identification of a
secondary water source and additional water storage capability
for the Washington metropolitan area,'' end quote.
Congress has appropriated $2,000,300,000 for the study. Two
weeks ago, the Corps informed me that it will likely limit the
scope of the study to an expansion of the existing primary
storage basin. That violates both the study's authorization and
appropriation. Expansion of the reservoir is not a secondary
water source.
Lieutenant General Graham, why has the Corps decided to
limit the study of the expansion of the reservoir?
General Graham. Delegate Holmes Norton, thank you for that
question.
First off, I just want to assure the committee members and
everybody listening that the water supply for the city, parts
of Fairfax, and Arlington County, are safe. The Army has been
entrusted to run that water supply since right after the Civil
War.
So I know there are concerns with the sewage spill from the
Potomac interceptor up there up by I-495, but that is a
completely different system. We provide the treated water, and
DC Water is responsible for distributing that water through the
city, and they are also responsible for collecting and treating
the sewage.
Fortunately for the Washington aqueduct, and, ma'am, you
are absolutely correct, our sole source of water, raw water, is
the Potomac. We have two intakes in the Potomac River: one at
Great Falls and one at Little Falls. The sewage interceptor
leak was in between the two. And so the source of raw water
coming into our treatment plant is pristine Potomac water right
now, and we have shut off the Little Falls intake that is below
the sewage spill.
The Corps is, under FEMA authorities and under EPA
guidance, responding to assist as part of the Federal response.
Our job right now, we have crews out there making sure that no
additional stormwater interferes with what DC Water is doing to
fix the interceptor. And we are also keeping additional
stormwater from flowing to where the contaminated biosoil had
accumulated after the break.
Ma'am, to your question directly on the feasibility study
that is going on, to Mr. Telle's point, we need to get to
quick, immediate decisions on what can we do now to make things
better. So the expansion of the Dalecarlia Reservoir would add
an additional 12 hours of supply. That is a 33-percent
increase. That's achievable near term.
Ma'am, we are absolutely not taking off the table a look
at, say, the Travilah--if I said that right--Quarry to look at
a more longer term off-Potomac tertiary source of water. So
that certainly is not off the table.
Ms. Norton. Well, will you commit to expanding the scope of
a study to identifying a secondary water source and additional
water storage capability as required by Federal law?
General Graham. Ma'am, absolutely. We are not limiting the
scope of this study, but we are looking for early actionable
elements that we can put to make the resiliency of the city's
drinking water safer as soon as possible.
Ms. Norton. What is the Federal Government's plan to
provide emergency drinking water to DC in the event that the
Potomac River becomes unusable for drinking water, as could
have happened had a different portion of the Potomac
interceptor collapsed last month?
General Graham. Delegate Holmes Norton, that is absolutely
an important question that we need to address. Our sole source
is the Potomac, and as I said, we have built resiliency into
that with an upstream intake and a downstream intake. But there
is no primary source that is off of the Potomac.
We are looking to see if there are other interconnects we
can possibly do with the other water providers around the city,
but that is a question that we will continue to explore.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. Last month, a section of the Potomac
interceptor collapsed causing hundreds of millions of gallons
of wastewater to flow into the Potomac River. Not only is this
an environmental disaster, but it also underscored the urgency
of a secondary water source.
Lieutenant General Graham, will the Corps provide DC Water
financial assistance for the long-term rehabilitation of the
Potomac interceptor?
Mr. Telle. Ma'am, thank you for the question. And I will
just say, this challenge in the Potomac River is one of the
greatest ecological disasters of its type to ever occur in our
Nation. We share your goal to ensure that the Washington, DC,
water supply has the necessary redundancies given that the seat
of Government is here in Washington. It is a critically
important goal.
This is National Engineers Week, and I just want you to
know, I have done a special message to congratulate all of our
engineers on the occasion of National Engineers Week, and I did
it from the Washington aqueduct because it is such an important
facility.
And I do think that this disaster underscores the
importance of this facility for our Nation. We are in the same
position that you are, we agree, and I think it is a question
of getting it right for the citizens, but also for the
functioning of our Government.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. And I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Crawford for 5
minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the
witnesses for being here.
In January of this year, you announced the removal of the
Little Rock District commander, citing, quote, ``a loss of
confidence in his ability to command.'' This commander had
assumed command less than 6 months prior to that decision.
As you both know, leading an Army Corps district involves
significant responsibility, and I would say a pretty steep
learning curve, particularly for an individual who may not have
served in that capacity before. Given the relatively short
tenure, it would be helpful to fully understand the context
surrounding that decision.
Can you share some details regarding the factors that led
to the removal of the Little Rock District commander?
Mr. Telle. I am going to let General Graham address that
question, Congressman Crawford. But I will just say, we talked
with Congressman Burlison a few minutes ago. When we were in
this hearing room in September, I announced to Congressman
Burlison, in response to his question, that we had paused
enforcement of encroachment at Table Rock Lake in order--we had
to analyze the information that his office had sent us. Really
we were doing casework on behalf of one of the members of this
committee. I let Congressman Burlison know that we had paused
enforcement while we came up with a commonsense solution.
Two months later, I called down to the Little Rock District
and said, hey, we are still hearing you haven't paused this
activity. And I again directed them to pause this activity in
accordance with the commitment I made to Congressman Burlison
and other Members of Congress.
It wasn't until December when I was on the ground there in
the Little Rock District that I was talking to one of
Congressman Burlison's constituents in her driveway, and this
individual told me that she was facing DOJ--heading to court
under criminal accusations with DOJ as a result of the
inability of the Little Rock District to follow the directions
that General Graham gave them.
And it broke my heart. It was right before Christmas. And
this constituent of Congressman Burlison's, who I happened to
meet that day, let me know that General Graham's direction had
not been followed and that she was headed to court with the
Federal Government chasing her on criminal accusations related
to encroachment enforcement that we viewed as overly heavy
handed and not in the interest of the American public.
And I will let General Graham take it from there.
General Graham. So, Representative Crawford, thank you for
that question.
Just elaborate a bit on what Mr. Telle outlined. So it was
my decision to remove the Little Rock District engineer from
command, not as a result of any ethical or moral failings, but
rather because I lost confidence in their ability to exercise
sound judgment.
Mr. Crawford. I am going to ask you to pause right there.
So this was strictly the colonel's lack of judgment.
Was there any assessment of the staff there that played a
role in the decision to continue after they had been given the
direction to cease but they continued? Was there any action
taken against those staff, those civilian staff?
General Graham. So, Representative Crawford, the commander
is ultimately responsible for everything that organization
does. That is the bedrock principles of the United States Army,
and that is what makes us the best in the world.
Mr. Crawford. Right. Fair enough. But----
General Graham [interrupting]. So the answer to your
question, sir, is there were some additional individuals, many
who have since retired, or--well, or have left Government
service. We are right now moving in a seasoned second-year
colonel who has commanded before, and he will take a look at
all the individuals and all of the policies of the district to
see if any additional actions need to take place or what needs
to change on the ground.
Mr. Crawford. Okay. Let me ask you this. So this is kind of
where we run into a little bit of a gray area here, because the
individuals in the office are civilians, long term, been there
for many, many years. And then you have a colonel that comes
in, he is brand new, he is 6 months on the job, and you issue a
standdown.
Is that accurate, you issued a standdown on that particular
operation on Table Rock Lake?
General Graham. A pause on enforcement.
Mr. Crawford. A pause?
Mr. Telle. A pause on enforcement so that we could assess
and come up with a commonsense solution.
Mr. Crawford. And we have had similar instances, not on
Table Rock Lake, but, say, for example, Bull Shoals, or Norfork
Lake, or whatever, similar types of dynamics that have taken
place.
So not faulting you at all on the cease enforcement notice.
That is fair enough. The question I have is, when there is a
violation of this nature, and it was so egregious that you
removed the colonel from command, what further steps are taken
to address this downstream of the colonel? Because he may be
one of two or three that are actually Active Duty military
present in that office. The rest are civilians.
I am curious what you do and how that chain of command
works and how you address that problem going forward if you
have another colonel that may be being led by the office staff
to do one thing after he has been given another set of
instructions, like a cease of enforcement. What are you going
to do in the future? Are we going to continue to fire colonels
or are we going to look at the office staff below the colonel?
General Graham. Representative Crawford, it is a great
question. And the way the, again, the Army works, we want to
make sure that the chain of command is responsible for the
change in that culture that should never have existed at Table
Rock Lake. That is the chain of command's responsibility. It is
the chain of command's responsibility to make sure that those
folks underneath them aren't being overly harsh on the
enforcement of these rules, as we saw at Table Rock Lake. That
is their responsibility, and we are going to hold them
accountable for it.
Mr. Crawford. I appreciate that. The chairman has been very
gracious in the latitude. I will say that Table Rock is not the
only place that that has taken place. And I would also say that
there is a cultural issue that needs to be addressed below the
level of colonel.
General Graham. Sir, acknowledged.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. DeSaulnier for 5
minutes.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to, first of all, thank you for being here in the
Corps, and also my deep appreciation and respect for the Corps'
work representing a district in the area for a long time at
multiple levels of Government in the San Francisco Bay where
the delta meets it. The Corps has traditionally been very
engineering-like and professional to work with, irrespective of
administrations; frequently, however, not so much today. And
that is a concern for me that I want to bring up for Mr. Telle.
The number of authorized projects--and this is nationally,
not just regionally--that aren't actually getting funding is a
real problem because of the unique partnership that we have
here with the State and local officials, particularly in
sensitive areas like the one I get to represent.
So we have asked you, the Congress, in 2018, 2020, and
2024, to give us an update. So we just want to know why it is
that these are authorized but funding has not been allocated.
Given the pressure and the addition--I think I mention every
year--is the addition to the change in weather, irrespective of
how you believe that is happening, it is really important for
our local and State officials to be able to do the engineering,
fund these projects, and rely on you to get them out after they
have been authorized.
Mr. Telle. Congressman, you are correct. The current
authorized but unfunded total of our portfolio is $78 billion.
That number is likely an underestimate of the work that has
been authorized by this committee in cooperation with the
Congress at large.
One thing is for sure, the demand on the services that the
Corps of Engineers provides is higher than the supply that we
can provide. But as we just had a discussion a few minutes ago
about $45 billion of funds that have been appropriated but
unexpended, our problem is not that we need more money in every
case. In most cases, we need to be better at executing that
funding. We need to be better at delivering that funding. We
need to be better at overcoming obstacles.
That is why the Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork
initiative that we announced yesterday is going to empower our
commanders. It is going to empower our commanders to identify
which priorities are important for their district, and then we
are going to hold them accountable year to year for executing
against them. And that includes moving projects from
authorization to feasibility, to engineering, to design, and
then to construction, and eventually to operations and
maintenance.
And so I share your frustration. That is my perspective on
it.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Just, again, having been at this for a
while, my hair has changed color, it is just frustrating. And
engineering is engineering, and to the degree that we--we trust
you to do the engineering side of it, but the project delivery,
there sometimes is a lack of urgency, from my perspective. And
if it needs permitting, if it is rational and makes it more
efficient but doesn't--we can analyze what we may be losing
from permit efficiency and not just opening up further
problems. It should be completely bipartisan, and my experience
on this committee is, it is.
So from an analytical standpoint, let us know what the
problems are and just get down and figure out what it is to
make sure we get this done.
Mr. Telle. Sir, if I could just let you know my
perspective. This is included in the Building Infrastructure,
Not Paperwork initiative that we rolled out yesterday. One of
the odd things about the Civil Works mission is that the
project funding that Congress provides to the Corps of
Engineers is, then, also the funding that pays for the salaries
of our district employees----
Mr. DeSaulnier [interposing]. Right.
Mr. Telle [continuing]. Who are wonderful, in most cases.
That means that if you--if this committee--or the Congress
appropriates $100 million for a project, $33 million of that
project, on average, is paying the salaries of our employees.
In my view, this can create a perverse incentive to our
employees, our districts, to continue projects long beyond when
they could have delivered them because there is an incentive to
always add a new bell or a new whistle, study something a
little bit longer, that actually sustains the district, or to
grab a project off the shelf that maybe isn't a strategically
important project in order to sustain it.
And I think if we separate execution of project funding
from the district salaries, I think it will remove that
perverse incentive, and General Graham will be able to manage
his organization in a way where delivery is the objective, not
sustainment of districts.
Mr. DeSaulnier. I wish we could be more analytical about
this. I represent an area in region 9, and when you cut EPA,
that affects everybody. And if you get rid of really good
employees--because as you said, not everybody is good in any
organization--but we have lost really good employees in other
agencies that affects your work, and you know that.
General Graham, just briefly, how do you prioritize these
projects given everything we just said?
General Graham. Representative DeSaulnier, thank you very
much for that question.
If I could just quickly go back to your previous question,
one of the initiatives under Building Infrastructure, Not
Paperwork is, let's get the project right at the beginning,
which is your frustration. All these projects--we sometimes
lose sight of this--there is a need out in somebody's community
to fix a navigation project or there is a flooding challenge,
right.
If we don't get the engineering upfront, this committee
can't authorize to build this scope of project correctly. And
if we don't get the engineering right upfront, we can't
possibly give you a good cost estimate. And so that is what has
bedeviled us on a lot of that $78 billion is it's sitting at
really immature engineering. So we haven't really told you what
we are going to go build, and we certainly haven't made solid
commitments on what the cost is going to be.
Prioritization on my end--to answer your second question,
sir, directly--is finish what we start. Efficient funding for
the work that we have been told to start is the best way to
project delivery and delivery for your constituents.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Pou for 5
minutes.
Ms. Pou. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, let me just say I want to thank both the Assistant
Secretary and Lieutenant Graham for being here.
The work of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is deeply
personal for the families and small businesses in the New
Jersey Ninth Congressional District. My district includes
communities along the Passaic River Basin, one of the most
flood-prone watersheds in the United States. Towns like
Paterson, Clifton, Edgewater, Lodi, and Elmwood Park have
suffered from repeated and devastating flooding, needing our
help. Heavy rains, higher tides, and coastal storms have caused
repeated flooding erosions and new threats to infrastructure.
When these crises arise, we need to quickly communicate
with the Army Corps. Sadly, recent politicizing efforts by the
Pentagon have made quick and necessary communication all but
impossible. Now, the Army Corps must get approval before even
speaking with congressional offices. And here I thought this
administration wanted to cut redtape instead of cause more.
Fortunately, WRDA gives us a unique opportunity to
streamline the backlog of Army Corps projects and mitigate
indemnification challenges that have left communities like mine
waiting for far too long. That is why I introduced the CLEAN-UP
Act, legislation that allows the Army Corps to remediate
contaminated sediments under the CERCLA by using an EPA-
approved cleanup plan developed with local partners for
authorized water projects.
Assistant Secretary Telle and Lieutenant General Graham,
this question is for both of you. Do you believe an EPA-
approved indemnification waiver for the Army Corps would reduce
decades-old projects' timelines like the ones we have in the
lower Saddle River, and if yes, can you please talk about how
it would help?
Mr. Telle. Congresswoman Pou, thank you for the question.
And I am not--I haven't been able to review your
legislation yet. I am happy to take a look. I will say that a
project in your district, New York-New Jersey HATS, which is a
broad and important project, large in scope, we believe may be
one of the first projects in the Nation to benefit from the
rapid process that we are instilling as a result of Building
Infrastructure, Not Paperwork.
I will let General Graham hit the specifics of that, but we
actually--we think we have a real opportunity in your district
to start bringing a very complex project, breaking it up into
the piece parts that are most important to your constituents,
get to work, and then move on to the next steps.
Ms. Pou. That is wonderful. Thank you, Secretary.
General Graham. So, Representative Pou, certainly the East
Riser Ditch Project, as a spinoff from the Hudson River and
Tributaries Project, is a great one for us to get started to
better provide flood protection to your constituents.
To the indemnification issue, we greatly appreciate you
taking a look at that. So under some authorities, if there is a
contaminated area, if we go in there, and, say, it is highly
contaminated, we then potentially could become a principal
responsible party. And that sometimes gets us just stuck, that
we can't move what's needed. The contamination is not going to
clean itself. And so I think exploring that topic would be a
great way to clean up the environment more readily, and I think
it is much needed.
Ms. Pou. Thank you. Thank you so very much for that answer.
Let me just say--and I believe you just mentioned some--the New
York-New Jersey Harbor and Tributaries Study is also essential,
as you just mentioned, for preparing the region for future
storms and increasingly frequent flooding.
Congress, as you know, has directed the Corps in the last
three WRDAs to leverage the HATS analysis to address all types
of flooding for the entire study area. It also requires the
Corps to advance interim projects that are smaller in size,
lower in cost, and prioritize nature-based solutions to reduce
risk in the near term.
Now, section 1343 of the 2024 WRDA directs the Corps to
investigate and recommend projects that reduce flood risk in
the HATS area. This includes examining individual flood risk
and the combined effects of heavy rainstorms, storm surge,
river flooding, sea level rise, and groundwater. This directive
also emphasizes not just preventing damage, but producing new
public benefits to habitat and natural systems, as well as
community benefits like safety, resilience, and quality of
life.
Assistant Secretary Telle and Lieutenant General Graham,
what actions does the Corps plan to take to implement the WRDA
2024 section 1343? Specifically, what is the Corps specifically
doing to evaluate and recommend projects to address both
individual and combined flood risk while maximizing benefits
for the New York-New Jersey Harbor and Tributaries Study?
General Graham. Representative Pou, I will take that start.
We will have the East Riser Ditch Chief's Report over to this
committee by--I am tracking right now--in June. I know the
committee----
Ms. Pou [interrupting]. This June?
General Graham. This June.
Ms. Pou. Okay.
General Graham. For us to do just that. Large problem
flooding throughout the Hudson Bay, Raritan Bay, and to break
that down into chunks that we can get after. Certainly, East
Riser Ditch is one we are going to recommend for approval in
WRDA 2026.
Ms. Pou. Thank you. Thank you so very much. It is vital
that we work together on this.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Ezell for 5
minutes.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is good seeing both you guys here today, and I really
appreciate all your hard work and the hard work of this
committee. Thank you for letting me waive on.
Secretary Telle, non-Federal stakeholders in my district
are often given cost estimates from the Cost Engineering Center
of Expertise, but there is no transparency into how those costs
were calculated.
Is there any way that we can address this in WRDA, or is
this going to be an administrative priority?
Mr. Telle. Well, Congressman, I share much of your
frustration. You have been a great advocate for the Port of
Gulfport. A lot of the work that you have done to identify this
problem for us has caused us to relook and work with the non-
Federal sponsor to get an answer that makes more sense. I think
General Graham may have some news to share with you there. I am
not going to get in front of him on that.
But this is a challenge. We have benefit-to-cost ratio, and
both math problems, the numerator and the denominator, often
confuse our non-Federal sponsor. So I think transparency, which
is exactly what we did in your district with your non-Federal
sponsor, was to sit down at the table, share our math, compare
notes, and get to a result that everybody could stand behind.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
General?
General Graham. Representative, so, absolutely, we are
looking for more transparency, more partnership with our non-
Federal partners, as its name implies. Somewhere in that mix,
though, is this is a contract that is going to go out, and we
have just got to be careful on some of our acquisition pricing
to make sure that that information remains with the
confidentiality that it deserves. But I think we can absolutely
strike the right balance and become much more transparent.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
To follow up on that, Mr. Telle, is it an administrative
priority to implement a stakeholder review of the cost
estimation process? For example, Gulfport was given a cost
estimate of $40 million for its overhead dredging facilities,
yet there is no appeal process to help us understand where that
number came from, likely because the port and probably even the
Mobile District don't believe it is accurate.
Mr. Telle. Congressman Ezell, I share your frustration.
Again, I think that this is something we can do better at. I
think we can be more transparent. I think we can save our non-
Federal sponsors a lot of time and effort if we would share
with them our math and work together. And that doesn't always
mean they are going to get a BCR above 1, but we can do much
better.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you. I want to turn to dredging just for a
second and the dredging material. The gulf coast, as you know,
could use dredging material almost anywhere.
I will ask both of you, is there any update on where the
Corps is with implementing reusable dredging material?
Mr. Telle. General Graham, I will let you take that one.
General Graham. Representative Ezell, absolutely. Treating
dredge material not as a waste product but as a valuable
commodity is our absolute commitment. We had been doing about
30 percent what is called beneficial reuse, taking that mud or
sand where it is in the way of our ships and moving it
somewhere, usually in the environment where it will do
something good. Our goal is to get to 70 percent. So we are
kind of moving past 30 percent right now, and our goal is to
get to 70 percent. And this committee has given us some
additional authorities to do that, which we appreciate.
Mr. Telle. I will just add, Congressman Ezell, that under
Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork, one of the initiatives
we have is to--a couple of the initiatives we have, one,
encourage non-Federal sponsors, ports like the Port of Gulfport
or others, to have a plan of what they do with their dredge
material ahead of time so we are not confronting these issues
in the middle of a project. We can incentivize and encourage
that type of behavior.
And the other is to open up mitigation banking in a way
that allows for more flexibility and better environmental
outcomes when we do the work we have to do to dredge important
ports like Gulfport.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you. Mr. Telle, we talked about your
initiative to build infrastructure, not paperwork, and I want
to say that this is the best news I have heard coming from the
Corps in a long time.
I think everyone here would agree that the Army Corps needs
to build or assist with building and move away from the
burdensome bureaucratic process that has hindered States and
local communities for decades. Anything I can do to help with
this, please let us know. And thank you both for your time
today and all your hard work.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Stanton for 5
minutes.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Assistant Secretary Telle and General Graham, thank you for
being here today. I don't have to tell either of you how urgent
water security challenges that Arizona faces, how bad they are,
with national security impacts that go far beyond State lines,
particularly with our leadership in the critical semiconductor
industry. They demand quick Federal action. Yet Secretary
Hegseth's October 2025 directive that all congressional
communications from the Corps be funneled first through the
Pentagon has interrupted regular communication and close
collaboration between my office and the Corps.
Congress cannot be left in the dark on project
implementation and delays in our districts. I trust our
conversation today will be quickly followed by a commitment to
schedule a meeting with myself and my staff.
Mr. Telle. Sir, we are at your service anytime you want to
talk to us.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much. I look forward to working
closely together as WRDA 2026 progresses.
Arizona and the rest of the West have long suffered a
historic drought, but we are operating in increasing
uncertainty over the diminishing Colorado River. Negotiations
over the river's future have not led to a lasting agreement
between the Colorado River Basin States, despite a strong offer
from Arizona, Nevada, and California. And worse, the Bureau of
Reclamation's backup plan for the river threatens deep cuts to
Arizona's water supplies.
Look, Arizona knows how we do more with less regarding
water. Arizona's leadership in water conservation storage,
particularly in high-tech irrigation and water recycling, means
we already use less water now than we did 60 years ago, even
with a growing population. But these looming cuts make
continued support for environmental infrastructure assistance
in the 2026 WRDA even more critical.
In Arizona, EI dollars support meaningful drought
resiliency efforts in communities and Tribal nations. That's
water lines, wastewater improvements, and aquifer recharge
projects that will make a real difference as we make the most
of limited Colorado River supplies.
But getting to groundbreaking has been beyond frustrating.
Just one of two dozen funded projects under Arizona EI has
started construction. That is unworkable. Unfortunately, we
have seen lengthy environmental reviews put a hold on projects
Arizona needs today. I appreciate that the Corps has
streamlined its NEPA processes last June and utilizes more
categorical exclusions for EI projects. But our water situation
demands we work faster, making more improvements to expedite
these reviews.
Assistant Secretary Telle, how is the Corps working to
ensure that EI projects funded by Congress get out the door to
communities in a timely and efficient manner? What additional
resources or authorities, like expanded categorical exclusions
or flexible funding reallocations, would help move these
important projects forward?
Mr. Telle. Congressman, thank you for the question. And I
will just say, General Graham and I were recently in Phoenix
together. This is a community that has been figuring it out
when it comes to water since before Arizona was a State, before
the United States of America was a country. So it is a
community that understands this challenge.
With regard to NEPA, I will say, thank you for recognizing
the reforms that we implemented last year to NEPA to follow the
law. But as you said, it included categorical exclusions, which
are almost like TSA PreCheck for environmental review. It makes
things faster, clear rules of the road.
Here, this is what we are doing throughout Building
Infrastructure, Not Paperwork is reducing the regulatory
challenges by implementing smart policies that will allow
projects like this to move ahead.
And obviously, when it comes to environmental
infrastructure, it is a different type of project and something
that we--frankly, it is not within the Corps' missions, the
Corps' expertise of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We are in
the business of major flood control projects, major navigation
projects, major aquatic ecosystem restoration projects.
General Graham and his team don't have particular expertise
when it comes to municipal water systems. So one of the ways
that we can actually deliver these projects more efficiently is
by going out to the private sector folks who a municipality
would otherwise contract with for this. And when Congress does
provide money for this purpose, we believe that our private
sector partners can quite often execute it much more
efficiently than we can.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much. I was able to secure
authorization for increased spending limit for Tres Rios in the
Phoenix area in WRDA 2024, but it has been years with no
substantive movement towards resuming construction. It is a
critical project for my community.
Assistant Secretary Telle, will the Corps commit to
prioritizing funding and staff resources to finally move Tres
Rios forward?
Mr. Telle. Congressman, I will defer to General Graham for
an update on Tres Rios.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you.
General Graham. So we understand how important that project
is for you and your constituents and the fact that that has
been ongoing for a while. I don't have the specifics with me,
but we are happy to get back to you on when we are moving
forward.
But what I do recall is that this last increment was going
to be positively received. And we will get the exact specifics
back to you. But it is on my radar as a very important project.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Fong for 5
minutes.
Mr. Fong. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Assistant Secretary Telle, Lieutenant General Graham, thank
you for being here. Thank you for your leadership.
Secretary Telle, especially for you, thank you for coming
to my district to see our water projects firsthand. Your
personal attention, words can't describe how important that is
to my community.
I was encouraged to see your announcement of the Corps' new
initiative, Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork. I see this
as an exciting, promising step towards delivering more cost-
effective water resources projects on time and on budget.
As I have outlined to you, just in my district alone, there
are a number of feasibility studies in the queue that are
currently underway or hopefully will be currently underway.
How do you foresee this initiative delivering more projects
to the construction phase in the near term?
Mr. Telle. Congressman Fong, thank you for the question.
I mean, I will just say, as we were putting the finishing
touches on Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork, there was a
moment we had when we were out in your district and one of the
local officials was talking about his hope that the investments
that we make today might benefit his grandchildren. And he had
a realistic perspective on our program, which is it takes
generations quite often to deliver things like Pine Flat Dam,
which is important to your district.
I mean, it was a sad moment for me, because I don't--we
have almost conditioned our stakeholders out in the field to
think that our work is going to take generations, and it
shouldn't be that way. A Member of Congress who gets elected to
represent their district ought to have the ability to deliver
results for their district while they are a Member of Congress,
not decades later.
And so I just want to tell you how much our interaction out
there in the Fresno area really informed our perspective on how
important what we are doing is. And we believe this will
benefit every project, including important projects like the
raising of Pine Flat Dam.
Mr. Fong. Perfect. Well, that is music to my ears. And I
certainly appreciate you acknowledging the importance of the
raise of Pine Flat Dam.
In the last WRDA bill, Congress called for expediting
certain studies, including this project, but have yet to
discuss a cost-sharing agreement with our water districts.
If you could, could you provide an update on the Pine Flat
Dam Reservoir raise project? Can we commence the feasibility
study by 2028?
Mr. Telle. Congressman, I don't have the latest on Pine
Flat. I am not sure if General Graham does. But you can rest
assured we will get you an answer immediately.
Mr. Fong. Perfect. Also, during our discussion in my
district, we touched on the potential of the Corps continuing
to use forecast-informed reservoir operations, otherwise known
as FIRO, and incorporating airborne snow observation flights to
better predict and manage snowpack, which is extremely
important in California, especially with the snowstorms that
just came through.
How does the Corps plan to incorporate advanced
technologies into their water control strategies, especially in
the Western United States?
Mr. Telle. Well, Congressman Fong, what we learned when we
were in your district recently was--we like to talk about FIRO.
It is a great tool to squeeze as much water as we can, as much
flood relief as we can out of our existing facilities by
looking at weather patterns and making smart judgments about
when to take risk.
What we really learned, though, from your district was that
what is called SIRO, snow-informed reservoir operations, is
even more important. And this is where we or our partners fly
lidar flights above the mountains when there is no snow and
then we fly lidar above the mountains when there is snow, and
we make a determination about the snowpack.
And this actually is an area where we can do more and
better to, again, continue to squeeze as much as we possibly
can out of our existing infrastructure at a relatively low
cost.
Mr. Fong. Well, thank you for that. As you know, water is
life for us. I represent the food production capital of
California. So we look forward to the partnership,
incorporating this new technology, so that we can move more
water in real time as we get it.
Lastly, as you saw in your visit, there is significant
potential to provide additional water resources in California
through the Redbank and Fancher Creek Project, which is also
undergoing a feasibility study.
During your visit, I believe General Kelly offered his
team's assistance in rescoping the existing study to
incorporate a more streamlined and scalable decisionmaking
scope to be aligned with the transformation initiative that you
outlined, which would significantly reduce the budget of the
existing study.
Can the Army Corps' leadership work with the Sacramento
District in reducing the scope even more while remaining
compliant with the Corps' new initiative here?
General Graham. Representative Fong, if I could, going back
to your earlier question, when you spoke to Pine Flat study,
funding will be one of the needs to move that dam raise study
forward.
Turning to Redbank and Fancher Creek, as General Kelly
probably talked to you about, carving off the dry creek portion
of that, taking a look, see what we can do with that dry
reservoir to see if we can hold onto more floodwater longer and
release that for managed aquifer recharge, certainly that is a
bit of low-hanging fruit that we ought to work together on.
Mr. Fong. Well, these projects are certainly very
important. I have run out of time. But, Secretary Telle,
General Graham, thank you for your leadership, thank you for
your partnership, and I look forward to working with you.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Carbajal for 5
minutes.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Assistant Secretary Telle and Lieutenant General
Graham, for testifying today. When you went to my colleague
Representative Fong's district, you should have come over the
mountains to paradise, which is my district right on the coast.
But I am sure his district was almost as beautiful as mine.
I represent the central coast of California, which
encompasses a diverse portfolio of Corps projects that promote
public safety, strengthen economic vitality, and support Coast
Guard operations and national security.
I have always appreciated the work that the Corps does
through Democratic or Republican administrations. You guys
always do extraordinary work and oftentimes in a nonpartisan
way, which is really what the American people expect.
Secretary Telle, for some reason, Santa Barbara Harbor
dredging was left out of the President's budget for fiscal year
2026, despite its critical role in supporting the Coast Guard,
national security, our regional economy, and coastal
operational needs.
I sent you a letter on January 26th, following enactment of
the energy and water appropriations bill, advocating on behalf
of Santa Barbara Harbor and the $4 million they need in the
fiscal year 2026 Corps work plan. I bring this to your
attention to ask that you give it your full and fair
consideration. I hope I can get your commitment that you will
take a look at this, and my office can follow up with your team
on this. Perhaps you could come out to paradise, just like you
did to Mr. Fong's district, to see some of these projects.
Secretary Telle, the Salinas Dam in San Luis Obispo County
is currently owned by the Corps. San Luis Obispo County has
indicated their interest in taking ownership of this project.
We have had numerous conversations with the Corps, both the
L.A. District and headquarters, regarding this ongoing--back to
my first term in Congress in the 115th Congress, almost 10
years ago.
In the last bipartisan WRDA bill of 2024 enacted into law,
I was able to successfully include a provision that allows the
Corps to convey the Salinas Dam to the San Luis Obispo County
government. This was section 1306 of the bill.
Can you provide me with an update on ongoing discussions
with San Luis Obispo County regarding this conveyance?
Mr. Telle. Congressman Carbajal, I looked at General
Graham. He does not have an update on that. We commit to get
you one here before the end of the day.
Mr. Carbajal. Great.
Mr. Telle. And I will say that Congressman Fong's district
is beautiful, and I hope to visit yours. I also got to say,
we--the manager of Pine Flat Dam is the son of a citrus farmer,
and we managed to find out where there are some oranges and
some clementines and some lemons while we were out there. And I
got to recommend them to everybody. It is the best thing we
ever tasted.
Mr. Carbajal. Well, that is because you haven't tasted the
wine in my country, the central coast.
Should we make the law more clear as it relates to the
conveyance language that I got in the bill to help?
Mr. Telle. Congressman Carbajal, I am not aware of any need
we have related to legislation, but we will get you an update
by the end of the day.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Let me just say that it feels like
we have just been going in circles on this issue. So to the
extent that you could give it your attention and help us
resolve a clear path forward, I would greatly appreciate it.
Secretary Telle, as you are probably aware, construction of
the Lower Mission Creek Project in Santa Barbara has been
authorized since the year 2000 and was later amended in 2007 to
reflect the cost share between the Federal and non-Federal
partners.
Despite this project being shovel-ready, our local
government having invested over $18 million in non-Federal
resources, Federal dollars have not been made available.
I understand the Corps has recently updated the principles,
requirements, and guideline procedures to more accurately
capture total public value and taxpayer return on Federal
investments.
Will these new standards help with a positive BCR score for
the lower Mission Creek?
Mr. Telle. Congressman, we just had an outstanding
conversation with Congressman Ezell about this same issue. We
believe that--I believe that we can do more in terms of
providing transparency to non-Federal sponsors in relation to
the costs and benefits and how we calculate them.
We don't need to be doing this math in a black box. We need
to be sharing it and making sure everybody is in agreement,
even if the non-Federal sponsor disagrees.
But I would anticipate that the updated guidance that you
mentioned will benefit projects like this one, because we are
always able to take into consideration more than just the raw
economic numbers and consider other factors.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much. You have a standing
invitation to visit my district anytime. I know traditionally,
administrations make visits to only Members of their parties,
but I sure hope you will consider coming to my district.
Mr. Telle. Sir, I am happy to do it. We have been out to
California numerous times since I have been in this role, and I
look forward to getting back out there.
Mr. Carbajal. Great. Thank you so much.
Mr. Collins. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
Are there any further questions from any members of the
subcommittee who have not been recognized?
All right. Seeing none, the chairman is going to indulge
because he can, because he is the chairman. I just thought I
would take a couple of minutes.
As I sat through this whole hearing and listened, I think
you all understand a little bit of the issues, and that's the
fact that people are always asking about the same projects over
and over and over that haven't been authorized or the studies
aren't complete.
And as a small business person, been in small business all
my life, it is nice to see that sometimes you take a look at
just what the problem is. And it may not be bad people, it may
be the process. And you take an inwardly look, and it is
exciting to see that both of you are doing that, and to just
look at the process maybe. Maybe we are looking at the process
wrong so that we can speed up things for Mr. Carbajal, who
probably would love to come to Georgia to get some good
barbecue. But it is good to see that.
And even though this will be my last WRDA bill as a Member
of the House--or I won't be at the next one, anyway--it is
exciting. I would love to see just how many of these projects
that people just come in and sit down and say, thank you, it is
completed, or it is in the appropriation phase.
So, with that, I appreciate you all coming today. Thank you
for your testimony.
And this subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:24 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Letter of February 24, 2026, from Brandon Farris, Executive Vice
President, Steel Manufacturers Association, to Hon. Mike Collins,
Chairman, and Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Mike
Collins
February 24, 2026.
The Honorable Mike Collins,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Frederica S. Wilson,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Wilson:
The Steel Manufacturers Association appreciates the opportunity to
provide a statement for the record for the Subcommittee's hearing,
entitled ``Proposals for a Water Resources Development Act of 2026--
Administration Priorities.''
SMA stands for American steel. Our members operate in communities
across the country and range from the nation's largest publicly traded
steel producers to single-facility, family-owned businesses. Steel
manufacturers generate $149.4 billion in annual economic impact,
employing 87,266 men and women in community-sustaining jobs at an
average annual wage of $142,730. They create the essential material
that underpins American industry and national security.
Steel manufacturers are investing in American's communities,
deploying $25 billion in capital here in the U.S. to modernize, expand,
and construct facilities. This is made possible by smart trade policies
promulgated in 2018 and continued on a bipartisan basis that recognize
the importance of domestic steel manufacturing to America's economy and
national security.
Continued federal support for infrastructure rehabilitation and
construction is essential to capitalize on the investments made by
American steel producers, inducing demand and supporting job creation.
From surface transportation reauthorization to WRDA, Congress has a
tremendous opportunity in the near term to ensure America continues to
build, and to build with American steel. Furthermore, modernizing
infrastructure will help ensure more efficient transportation supply
chains for steel manufacturers and the entire economy.
SMA applauds the Subcommittee for beginning consideration of WRDA
2026. As development of the legislation begins, we respectfully urge
members to focus on the Army Corps of Engineers core mission areas of
navigation and flood risk management. Importantly, this recognizes the
need for rehabilitation of aging inland waterways infrastructure, the
failure of any project of which would be highly disruptive. We also
encourage maintaining Build America, Buy America policies critical to a
strong domestic steel industry and the family-supporting jobs that come
with it. Our industry built America, and BABA provisions ensure those
same jobs can continue to answer the call for all of our nation's
needs.
Steel manufacturers are committed to working with the Subcommittee
and your colleagues to continue biennial development and passage of
WRDA legislation. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Brandon Farris,
Executive Vice President, Steel Manufacturers Association.
Prepared Statement of Hon. J. French Hill, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Arkansas, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Mike
Collins
Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, thank you for the
opportunity to submit a Statement for the Record for the hearing
entitled Proposals for a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of
2026. I appreciate the opportunity to offer my comments for
consideration to your committee and witnesses.
As you all likely know, I recently submitted a WRDA proposal
requesting that the Little Rock Army Corps of Engineers conduct a
Reallocation Study of Greers Ferry Lake concurrent with the ongoing
White River Basin Study (WRBS). Conway is one of the fastest growing
areas in Arkansas. Since 2000, in fact, Conway's population has grown
61%, and it is projected to continue to grow throughout the next
decade.
Unfortunately, population growth is estimated to outpace water
supply in the next decade. As such, without additional water storage
allocations, parts of central Arkansas may have to deny industrial
growth and economic development to ensure adequate drinking supplies
for constituents. In anticipation of this need, Community Water System
(CWS) and Conway Corp are collaborating on a regional water intake
structure on Greers Ferry Lake, a transmission line to the northeast
area of Conway, and construction of a new water treatment plant,
however, they have yet to have confirmation on a water relocation study
so that they can properly prepare for this need as they construct. In
the meantime, Conway Corp and CWS are still paying the Little Rock Army
Corps for water storage allocations that they cannot use.
WRDA specifically authorizes studies and projects that include
navigation, flood control, and ecosystem restoration. Congress also
provides the United States Corps of Engineers with the authority to
address water supply needs, as noted above. While I understand there
has been some concern about conducting the two studies concurrently,
the Little Rock Army Corps conducted a water supply storage
reallocation study in 2017, which released the water in 2020.
Given the need, I voice my support for including language in WRDA,
requesting completion of a reallocation study on Greers Ferry Lake,
notwithstanding or separate from Section 729 of the White River Basin
Study. Should inclusion of this critical language be accepted, I also
invite strong consideration that the Committee provide funding in the
fiscal year (FY) 2026 work plan following FY 2026 enactment.
Thank you for your consideration. These items are important to my
home state of Arkansas. I stand at the ready to work with the Committee
and lend my support for these matters.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Brian J. Mast, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Florida
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing on proposals
for the Water Resources Development Act of 2026, and thank you to
Assistant Secretary Telle and Lieutenant General Graham for being with
us.
WRDA is not just another infrastructure bill. It is Congress'
directive to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on how to carry out its
civil works mission. WRDA is the blueprint for how we manage water,
protect ecosystems, support commerce, and restore communities. For my
district in Florida, the decisions we make here in this committee have
a direct impact on quality-of-life. The people in this room have the
privilege of determining whether our rivers are healthy, whether our
estuaries can survive, and whether our local economies have the tools
to thrive.
For Florida's 21st district, the health of the St. Lucie River and
Estuary, the Indian River Lagoon, and the broader Everglades system are
intertwined with tourism, fishing, small businesses, and property
values. During harmful discharges from Lake Okeechobee, the
consequences are immediate--everything from lost revenue, damaged
ecosystems, and public health risks are on the table.
In WRDA 2026, I am focusing on durable and clear priorities.
First, we must accelerate Everglades restoration and take full
advantage of new infrastructure, like the Everglades Agricultural Area
Reservoir, so that water is stored and sent south--through Everglades
National Park--instead of unnaturally discharged to our coastal
estuaries.
Second, we need greater accountability in water management
decisions. When operational deviations occur, Congress and affected
Americans deserve clear reporting on where water was sent, what
environmental impacts resulted, and if better alternatives should have
been utilized.
Third, we must move toward ecologically-based standards for
facilitating the flow of freshwater into our estuaries. A successful
outcome would come from real, quantitative environmental recording--the
health of seagrass, oysters, nutrient loading, and harmful algal bloom
risk are all calculable. Modeling thresholds are no longer enough.
Fourth, we should prioritize projects like muck removal in the
Indian River Lagoon that produce specific water quality improvements,
and see that any taxpayer dollar that goes toward restoration delivers
results.
And finally, WRDA should modernize how the Corps operates. New
strategies like expanding the use of private-sector design services,
embracing digital tools to streamline reviews, improving dredge fleet
transparency, and eliminating any unnecessary costs on non-federal
partners. If we want projects done right and done fast, we have to
remove outdated constraints.
WRDA 2026 is a unique opportunity to strengthen infrastructure,
protect commerce, and restore America's most valuable ecosystems. With
a clear plan, measurable standards, and increased accountability,
communities like mine will experience real relief and improvement.
Letter of February 27, 2026, from Colonel Brandon L. Bowman, District
Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, to Hon.
Brian J. Mast, Member of Congress, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Brian J. Mast
February 27, 2026.
The Honorable Brian Mast,
United States House of Representatives,
2182 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Representative Mast:
This is in response to your letter dated February 20, 2026,
regarding the Fort Pierce, Florida Shore Protection Project (SPP). It
provides the requested information on renourishment frequency,
shoreline stabilization measures, and project timelines.
Regarding the frequency of renourishments for the current coastal
storm risk management project, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
conducts beach renourishment for the Fort Pierce, Florida SPP on an
approximate two-year cycle. The project was authorized by Section 301
of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-298), as amended.
To confirm, the last two renourishments were conducted April-May 2021
and March-April 2023. The next renourishment for the Federal project is
scheduled for March-May 2026. The approximate two-year frequency did
not change after April 2023, but the Corps did not receive bids within
the awardable range when the renourishment solicitation was issued in
2025.
Under Section 203 of WRDA 1986, as amended, the non-Federal sponsor
(the St. Lucie County Erosion District) conducted a feasibility study
to address hurricane and coastal storm damages in the area of Fort
Pierce. The Recommended Plan includes beach and dune renourishment
along 7,000 feet of shoreline with construction of shoreline
stabilization structures at the north end of the existing Federal
project, consisting of five T-head groins, a T-head weir, and a
detached breakwater.
In Section 403(a) of WRDA 2020, Congress provided conditional
authorization for construction of the Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County,
Florida Project based on the Section 203 study. The Energy and Water
Bill of 2026 provided the project $500,000 in investigations through
Congressionally Directed Spending to initiate the Pre-Construction
Engineering and Design Phase, with a design agreement anticipated to be
executed in FY 2026. Regarding your second inquiry, T-head groins can
improve sand retention and extend the time between renourishments when
erosion rates are high. However, T-groins redistribute rather than
eliminate erosion and require careful siting and design to avoid
downdrift impacts. They are generally most effective in closed or
terminal beach systems and are more challenging to implement along
open-coast shorelines. The Corps and non-Federal sponsor will address
the challenges associated with T-groins during design.
Regarding your third inquiry, contract award to initiate
construction is anticipated in August 2029, with construction in 2030-
2031. This construction timeline is subject to receipt of future
appropriations for construction.
If you have additional questions or concerns, please contact me or
your staff may contact Julie M. Treichel.
Sincerely,
Brandon L. Bowman,
Colonel, District Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Jacksonville District.
Appendix
----------
Post-Hearing Question for the Record to Hon. Adam R. Telle, Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army, from
Hon. Mike Collins
Question 1. Assistant Secretary Telle, could you please provide an
update on the implementation of Section 1154a of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2018, which requires the Assistant Secretary of the
Army to create a searchable, downloadable database of all unfunded
projects?
Answer. The Corps is working to identify the information requested
in Section 1154(a), which amended Section 1001 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a). After providing this
information to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the
Committees on Appropriations, the Corps will post the lists described
in subsection (b)(2)(A) of Section 1001 in a downloadable, searchable,
and sortable format on a publicly accessible website.
Post-Hearing Questions for the Record to Hon. Adam R. Telle, Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army, from
Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford
Question 1. Secretary Telle, over the last few months, my staff and
I have experienced increasing difficulty obtaining timely responses
from Army Corps District offices that operate within my district. My
district includes numerous Army Corps projects spanning three Districts
and two Divisions, and when my staff requests basic status updates,
answers can often take well over a week. I have been led to believe
that this delay is due to larger Department of Defense regulations
limiting personnel from outside the Office of the Legislative Affairs
speaking directly with members of Congress or Congressional staff.
As you know, timely communication is important to ensure we can
effectively support these projects. During the WRDA priority submission
process, it was challenging to connect with District leadership to
better understand project needs and ongoing efforts. Improved
communication would benefit both Congress and the Corps as we work
toward shared goals. I want to ensure that we do not encounter similar
challenges during the FY 2027 Appropriations process. We all share the
goal of delivering results to the American people efficiently and
effectively. I want to note that you have publicly stated on multiple
occasions the importance of reducing bureaucratic delays and cutting
red-tape. I appreciate that focus and believe strong communication
between District offices and Congress is part of achieving that
objective.
Can you provide assurance that communication between the Army Corps
Districts and Members of Congress and their staff will remain timely
and fully accessible during the WRDA 2026 and FY 2027 Appropriations
processes?
Answer. I can assure you that I am committed to providing timely
responses to Members of Congress.
Question 2. Five years ago, the Army Corps published in an April
2021 guidance document (Engineer Circular No. 1165-2-218) that it
intended to establish and carry out federal levee safety program and
performance metrics relating to federal levee safety program auditing;
and independent peer reviews of federal levee program activities and
achievements.
Can you inform me where we stand on key performance indicators,
auditing, and independent reviews for the Army Corps' levee safety
program?
Answer. In a memorandum dated September 15, 2023, the Corps
established performance indicators to guide and monitor the
effectiveness of its actions under the levee safety program. These
metrics are directly aligned with the activities and concepts described
in Engineer Circular 1165-2-218.
The programmatic audits will be scheduled on a rotating basis, with
an audit conducted for two divisions each year. Four of the Corps'
eight divisions have participated in these programmatic audits thus
far, either as part of the Army Organizational Inspection Program
(which is a comprehensive process for coordinating various reviews to
identify, prevent, and eliminate problem areas) or through a separate
process. The remaining division audits have not yet occurred.
It is still the intent of the Corps to initiate an independent
review of the Corps Levee Safety Program; however, one has not been
conducted yet.
Post-Hearing Questions for the Record to Hon. Adam R. Telle, Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army, from
Hon. Jared Huffman
Question 1. What is the current status and anticipated completion
date of the Coyote Valley Dam Raise feasibility study? Please identify
any remaining barriers to completion.
Answer. The study received $500,000 in FY 2024; the Corps had
obligated just under half of that amount by the end of November 2025 to
prepare for the Alternatives Milestone Meeting, and the project is
currently under review.
Question 2. What alternatives are being evaluated, including dam
crest raise options, modified outfalls, or turbidity control
infrastructure?
Answer. Alternatives considered include the following: dam raise;
raise and modify spillway; modify outlet works (pulling from different
elevations, part of a dam raise); addition of a secondary outlet;
reallocate water to different uses; modify water control manual; and
dam notching.
Question 3. What is the Corps' current assessment of turbidity
impacts downstream of Coyote Dam on Chinook salmon and steelhead, and
how frequently is turbidity monitored?
Answer. In 2023, the Russian River Turbidity Assessment and
Proposed Plan was published as part of the Coyote Valley Dam-Lake
Mendocino Water Manual Control Update's final Environmental Assessment.
This plan documents the long-term trend of increased turbidity in the
Russian River in the last 20 years, with no clear seasonal patterns,
and several possible contributing sources, including: 1) erosion during
rainstorms; 2) turbid water from the Eel River being diverted into the
East Fork of the Russian River; 3) turbid water persisting in Lake
Mendocino due to slow settling of suspended sediment; 4) elevated flow
releases from Lake Mendocino causing increased erosion downstream; 5)
sand and gravel mining; 6) other human activities causing increased
erosion, such as road construction and logging; 7) algal blooms; and 8)
entrainment of fine sediments by release gates.
An assessment of turbidity impacts to the species downstream
requires observations over a period of years. This work is ongoing as
part of the 2025 Russian River Watershed Water Supply and Channel
Maintenance project Biological Opinion (Russian River Biological
Opinion). Turbidity is monitored continuously at multiple locations as
prescribed in the opinion.
Question 4. What operational changes are under consideration to
meet turbidity thresholds and reduce impacts on listed species?
Answer. There are no turbidity thresholds for the project. The only
recent operational changes implement the principles of forecast
informed reservoir operations (FIRO), related to flood control
releases, within the updated water control manual.
Question 5. How does requiring additional department approval
before district or field offices communicate with congressional offices
improve project delivery, technical accuracy, or mission execution?
Answer. It is important that all communications to the Congress
related to the Army Civil Works Program are accurate, reflect Corps
policy, and are consistent with Administration guidance.
Question 6. Has the Corps conducted any analysis of how this policy
may affect the timeliness of responses to Congress regarding
feasibility studies, project implementation, or technical assistance?
Answer. A process has been established that includes having
dedicated staff reviewing and approving congressional inquiries and
other requests.
Post-Hearing Question for the Record to Hon. Adam R. Telle, Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army, from
Hon. Hillary J. Scholten
Question 1. On September 25, 2024, the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs forwarded to the Under Secretary
of Defense for Personnel and Readiness the Army Corps' SECOND request
to establish a special salary rate for Soo Lock operators to reverse
the 19% pay cut they are taking due to a quirk in Army Corps
regulations.
Assistant Secretary Telle, what response has the Army Corps
received regarding the status of this request? Since these Soo Lock
employees have been enduring pay cuts since 2022, would the Corps
support a solution for these employees through WRDA 2026?
Answer. The Corps requested a Special Salary Rate (SSR) for Soo
Lock and Dam employees on August 4, 2022. The SSR request is under
review.
Post-Hearing Question for the Record to Lieutenant General William H.
``Butch'' Graham, Jr., Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, from Hon. Mike Collins
Question 1. The inland navigation industry pays for 25 percent of
the costs for lock and dam projects through a diesel fuel tax. General
Graham, what is the Corps doing to respond to industry's request to
have a single dedicated person to oversee inland waterways construction
as a program?
Answer. The Corps has made the following changes to the delivery
model:
In October 2025, the Corps established an Engineering and
Construction (E&C) Directorate that reports to the Chief of Engineers.
This new directorate will provide centralized oversight for the
construction programs. The Corps is also implementing a lifecycle
delivery approach and applying Mega Project delivery principles to new
lock design and construction to ensure the appropriate level of
governance and oversight.
We have clarified and consolidated design and
construction responsibilities to improve efficiency and
standardization. The Inland Navigation Design Center (INDC) is the
designer of record for all new lock and dam work. The INDC is empowered
to establish standardized designs and common work processes and is
responsible for cost estimates and construction schedules. We are
increasing staff in the INDC in accordance with the INDC Framework
Report. We have established production centers in Rock Island and
Pittsburgh districts that are responsible for INDC resourcing support
for all major rehabilitations and new construction.
To further improve project delivery and avoid rework, the
Corps is implementing the following design process changes:
+ The design completion level prior to congressional
authorization will be 35%. After the project is authorized, the Corps
will complete 100% design before starting construction.
+ To allow for a more thorough process, design work will begin 3
to 4 years before construction is scheduled to start.
+ An enhanced review process is being implemented for all
designs.
We believe these changes are creating a more standardized and
efficient approach to the inland waterways construction program and
will improve execution.
Post-Hearing Question for the Record to Lieutenant General William H.
``Butch'' Graham, Jr., Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, from Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford
Question 1. Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 is one of
many Congressional requirements in water resources law emphasizing the
Corps' collaboration with local levee owners. However, significant
changes on levee evaluation, including use of probabilistic methods on
things like the accreditation of levees, are increasing Federal agency
leverage at the expense of local decision making and input. I am
concerned that under the guise of modernity, the Corps has replaced
joint Corps-local sponsor levee inspections.
How has the Corps' shift to a probabilistic levee evaluation
approach, which relies on internal models and data, rather than the
prior deterministic method, impacted the level of meaningful
collaboration and shared decision making with local levee owners, and
what measures are in place to ensure local input influences risk
assessment and final outcomes?
Answer. Risk assessments supplement the joint Corps-local sponsor
inspections. Together, the levee inspections and risk assessments
enable the levee sponsor to understand more fully the condition of its
levee and its effect on the overall flood risk. Levee sponsors are
essential members of the risk assessment team and are the ultimate
intended users of the results. The goal is to equip levee sponsors with
the information and tools to enable them to understand and effectively
manage their risk.
For risk assessments, levee sponsors provide input on unique levee
records; maintenance and emergency activities; community land use
trends; other community participants; validation of results, and
actionable recommendations. The Corps requires notifying levee sponsors
at least 30 days prior to the start of any risk assessment. Levee
sponsors can decide their level of participation in the analysis. They
are involved in reviewing the results and developing any recommended
actions. Following this process, the levee sponsor may decide on its
own to reduce its flood risk through a series of steps over time, based
on the costs and benefits of the potential actions.
Deterministic methods and standards are part of the levee
evaluation. A probabilistic approach, also known as risk assessments,
supplements deterministic methods to provide a more comprehensive
understanding of the levee. Risk assessments use probabilistic analyses
to better understand ways a specific levee may fail and the resulting
potential impacts. For example, one concern expressed by some levee
owners is that there should not be a one-size fits all approach to
levees. Risk assessments take into account the differences in flood
loading (long duration floods versus flash floods); levee materials
(sandy versus clay); past performance; and assets behind the levee
(urban versus agricultural). This more textured type of analysis is
needed to enable levee sponsors to identify options and prioritize
their actions based on what is most cost-effective and impactful to
address their flood risk; and to help them plan and adapt their
operational and emergency action processes.
Post-Hearing Questions for the Record to Lieutenant General William H.
``Butch'' Graham, Jr., Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, from Hon. Laura Friedman
Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration Project
Question 1. Please clarify why ``federal funding is not available''
to support the completion of the PACR for the WRDA 2026 timeline.
Does the Corps simply not have funds available? Has the Corps
depleted the existing authorized funding for this purpose? Or, does the
Corps have funds available that could be used for this project, but the
Corps does not believe these funds are appropriately authorized to be
used?
Answer. The project is under review.
Question 2. Lt. Gen. Graham addressed concerns with ``rising
costs'' associated with completing this project. How does the Corps
plan to address any additional costs that accrue as a result of the
existing delay with the PACR and any further delay to the project
resulting from Corps inaction?
Answer. The concerns expressed with ``rising costs'' are not
related to the timeframe for completing the PACR. Cost increases would
be addressed in the PACR.
Question 3. Please elaborate on the ``concerns about the viability
of the project''. What specific aspects of the project are the Corps
concerned about?
Answer. Project costs have increased by $2 billion; Lands,
Easements, Right of Ways, Relocations, and Dredged Material Disposal
Area costs are approximately $3 billion. Construction costs have
increased due to inflation, and contingency has increased from 37% to
51% based on current level of design and remaining risks. An additional
concern is the relocation of Reach 8, the LA Transit Center (LATC).
Union Pacific Railroad continues to make significant capital
investments in the LATC and states there is no viable relocation site.
As the project's largest environmental benefits come from Reach 8, this
is a significant concern to the project's environmental restoration
outcomes.
Question 4. In communication with my office, the Corps communicated
that the ``area in question is important to the community'' and that
``environmental concerns'' have resulted in delays to the PACR
completion. I agree that this area is vital to the community, can you
please elaborate on the specific environmental concerns that need to be
addressed to move forward with this project?
Answer. It is important that we get the engineering right. To
implement this multibillion-dollar project, the Corps would look at
dividing the project into separable elements for early actionable
implementation. Each element must have justified restoration outputs
(33 U.S.C. 2213(f)). Providing the most restoration output for the
investment is an environmental concern. An additional environmental
concern is the relocation of Reach 8, the LA Transit Center (LATC).
This is uncertain. Union Pacific Railroad continues to make significant
capital investments in the LATC and states there is no viable
relocation site. As the project's largest environmental benefits come
from Reach 8, this is a significant concern to the project's
environmental restoration outcomes.
Question 5. Lt. Gen. Graham also spoke of the need to balance the
flood risk management purposes of the LA River with environmental
concerns associated with the project. What aspects of the project does
the Corps believe will interfere with flood risk management? How can
the non-federal sponsor work with the Corps to ensure any concerns
about the ability to mitigate flood risk is addressed by the project
while also supporting the ecosystem restoration needs of the area?
Answer. One of the biggest risks to successful completion of this
project is the complexity of ecosystem restoration measures coupled
with a successfully functioning flood risk management (FRM) project.
The engineering must be right to maintain the level of FRM for the LA
community. Currently, the project is at a 10% level of design maturity.
Design efforts including hydrologic and hydraulic modeling and Geotech
basis of design for the system are needed to increase confidence in the
FRM project's continued function and the ability to design successful
restoration features. The FRM project is complex, going from an earthen
channel in the north to a concrete trapezoidal channel to the south
with associated variations in flow regimes. For example, In-Channel
work can't be accomplished on Reach 7 without Reach 8 out-of-channel
work. The non-Federal sponsor can help by supporting the required
system Design Maturity efforts.
Question 6. The Corps has also highlighted the difficulty the non-
federal sponsor has had in securing required real estate. As you know,
real estate is expensive in the Los Angeles area, and those costs will
continue to rise the longer the Corps delays the completion of the
PACR. How does the Corps plan to account for rising real estate costs
associated with Corps delays while working towards PACR completion?
Answer. Real estate costs represent the most significant financial
risk to the project, accounting for over two-thirds of the total
estimated cost. These costs have escalated by 175% since the 2016
authorization. While the Corps adjusts for this by applying local
inflation indices in Section 902 calculations, this method remains
reactive to market changes. The primary strategy to mitigate this risk
is for non-Federal sponsors to pursue early property acquisitions. This
proactive measure will lock in prices and minimize the financial risk
associated with market inflation.
Question 7. In Corps communication with my office, the Corps stated
that ``based on current estimates, we would need additional funding to
complete the PACR.'' How much additional funding is necessary to
complete the PACR? Please provide a breakdown of the costs associated
with the work already done on the PACR as well as a detailed estimate
on the additional funds necessary to complete the PACR.
Answer. The project is under review.
Question 8.a. Please elaborate on the additional costs associated
with ``advancing the design maturity of the entire project to 35%.''
How much additional funding would be necessary with advancing the
design maturity of this project?
Answer. The project is under review.
Question 8.b. Additionally, our office is not familiar with any
PACRs that have been subject to the 35% design maturity requirement. As
the LA River project is already a fully authorized project, can you
explain why the PACR is subject to this requirement?
Answer. The current cost estimates for the project exceed the
authorized limit under section 902 of WRDA 1986. The requirement of a
35% level of design includes projects subject to a PACR to deliver
studies that are both timely and fiscally responsible, ultimately
providing more confidence in the cost estimates and project outcomes.
Question 9. Finally, the Oct. 15 Department of War directive
limiting Corps communication with Congressional Offices has resulted in
several weeks long delays in communication with my office on this
project. At the Feb. 24, 2026, hearing before the Water Subcommittee,
Lt. Gen. Graham stated that any ``clunkiness'' associated with this
directive is his responsibility to iron out. Please provide a list of
action items the Corps can commit to taking to speed up communication
with Congressional offices.
Answer. It is important that all communications to the Congress
related to the Army Civil Works Program are accurate, reflect Corps
policy, and are consistent with Administration guidance. A process has
been established that includes having dedicated staff reviewing and
approving congressional inquiries and other requests.
Post-Hearing Questions for the Record to Hon. Adam R. Telle, Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army, and
Lieutenant General William H. ``Butch'' Graham, Jr., Chief of Engineers
and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, from Hon. Eric A.
``Rick'' Crawford
Question 1. Thank you for your response to my question regarding
the removal of the Little Rock District Commander. Your answers have
provided greater insight into the factors that led to Colonel Caukin's
removal. In addition to the questions posed during the Subcommittee
hearing, I have additional questions for further clarification.
Question 1.a. My understanding is that the Southwestern Division
had been fully briefed and engaged on the issue at Table Rock Lake for
some time. Can you describe how oversight at the Division level was
exercised and detail the steps your office took in relation to
leadership at the Southwestern Division?
Answer. The Southwestern Division (SWD) maintained continuous
awareness of issues associated with shoreline management and real
estate actions at Table Rock Lake. Division-level oversight is
exercised through established supervisory channels and direct
engagement with District leadership. Corps Headquarters engaged with
SWD leadership through senior leader touchpoints.
Question 1.b. On what date did the Southwestern Division and/or the
Little Rock District receive guidance from USACE Headquarters regarding
Section 1323 of the Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of
2024 (P.L. 118-272)?
Question 1.b.i. Please provide my office with the full and complete
guidance regarding WRDA 2024 that was communicated to the Southwestern
Division and the Little Rock District.
Answer to Questions 1.b. and 1.b.i. Corps Headquarters began
implementation of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024
immediately following enactment of the legislation. Section 1323 was
identified as not needing further implementation guidance.
Question 1.c. Secretary Telle stated during the September 2025
Water Resources and the Environment Subcommittee Hearing that the Army
Corps paused all enforcement actions on residents around Table Rock
Lake. He mentioned that two months after this pause was directed, he
contacted the Little Rock District telling them that he was still
hearing that they had not paused this activity and again directed them
to pause the activity in accordance with the commitment he made to
Congressman Burlison and other Members of Congress.
Can you provide me with documentation directing the official pause
on enforcement and the date on which both directives were provided by
your office to the Little Rock District?
Answer. Communication with the Little Rock District occurred
through the chain of command and reiterated the requirement to halt
enforcement actions to ensure alignment with congressional intent and
policy review.
Post-Hearing Questions for the Record to Hon. Adam R. Telle, Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army, and
Lieutenant General William H. ``Butch'' Graham, Jr., Chief of Engineers
and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, from Hon. Greg
Stanton
FY 2026 Arizona Environmental Infrastructure Projects:
Question 1. The fiscal year 2026 Energy and Water Appropriations
bill included $2.55 million I secured for the Arizona environmental
infrastructure program. As you finalize the work plan, I ask that you
allocate these funds to two critical projects in Arizona for the city
of Goodyear and Santa Cruz County. The city of Goodyear would use the
funds to increase the recharge capacity of its aquifer, allowing it to
more effectively manage its groundwater. Santa Cruz would use the funds
for repairs to the Nogales Wash to improve surface water drainage and
stormwater runoff in the region.
Lt. Gen. Graham and Assistant Secretary Telle, will you commit to
working with me to fund these two important projects with the resources
included in the appropriations bill?
Answer. The $2.55 million in Community Project Funding for the
Arizona Environmental Infrastructure program in the FY26 Energy and
Water appropriations only specified the State of Arizona. Therefore,
funding will be allocated in the Corps FY26 Work Plan to projects in
the State of Arizona eligible under the Section 595 programmatic
authority based on available technical information: capability for a
useful increment of work that aligns with the amount of funding
appropriated, Non-Federal Sponsor readiness, and no legal impediments.
The technical information for the above-referenced projects will be
considered along with other eligible projects.
Drought Resiliency and Arizona Environmental Infrastructure Projects:
Question 2. Arizona and the rest of the West have long suffered
historic drought, but we are operating under increasing uncertainty
over the diminishing Colorado River. Negotiations over the River's
future haven't led to a lasting agreement between the Colorado River
Basin States--despite a strong offer from Arizona, Nevada and
California. And worse, the Bureau of Reclamation's backup plan for the
River threatens deep cuts to Arizona's water supplies.
Arizona knows we need to do more with less water. Arizona's
leadership in water conservation and storage, particularly in high-tech
irrigation and water recycling, means we're already using less water
now than we did 60 years ago, even with a growing population. But these
looming cuts make continued support for environmental infrastructure
(EI) assistance in the 2026 WRDA even more critical.
But getting to groundbreaking has been beyond frustrating. Just one
of two-dozen funded projects under the Arizona EI has started
construction.
What is the Corps' current assessment of the Arizona project
backlog? What are the Corps doing to prioritize drought-resilience EI
projects in Arizona and across the West?
Answer. Under its Arizona EI program, the Corps has 20 project
agreements. Subject to the availability of funds, the Corps has
approved 5 of these projects to begin construction, with three more
notices to proceed scheduled within the next month. The remaining 12
projects are under environmental review, and the Corps is evaluating
whether any categorical exclusions may apply to these projects in
accordance with the DoD NEPA Implementing Procedures.
Tres Rios:
Question 3. Tres Rios Ecosystem Restoration project is partially
constructed with the most recent phase completed in 2012. WRDA 2024
provided additional authorization to complete the Tres Rios project.
Over $110M has been spent to date to construct levees, water treatment
wetlands, and other engineered and natural infrastructure for Tres
Rios.
I secured an authorization for an increased spending limit for Tres
Rios in WRDA 2024 to complete that project. It has been several years
since that authorization with no substantive movement towards resuming
Tres Rios construction.
Will the Corps commit to prioritizing funding and staff resources
to move Tres Rios forward?
Answer. The Army will consider this project for funding, along with
other programs, projects, and activities across the Nation that are
competing for the available Federal resources.
Rio Salado Oeste:
Question 4. Rio Salado Oeste is a Congressionally authorized
project in WRDA 2007 that has not yet been constructed. When completed,
it will provide important benefits to the Phoenix Metro area, including
expected benefits for economic development. Rio Salado Oeste is
currently in the midst of completing a feasibility study update, a
process that started in the summer of 2023.
The cost and timeframe for this study have already more than
doubled from the original $3M estimated cost. As you know, last year,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers instituted new requirements for
feasibility studies--35% design maturity upon completion of the
feasibility study (versus previous 20% design maturity requirements)--
and this has adversely impacted the progress of the Rio Salado Oeste
Feasibility Study.
Rio Salado Oeste is an aquatic ecosystem restoration project--not a
levee. The increase to 35% plans is unnecessary to appropriately
evaluate the risks of this type of project, and it makes it more
difficult for the study to reach completion. The increase in design
maturity is estimated to add approximately $1 million and 18 months to
the prior budget and schedule.
These limitations make it almost impossible to complete a
feasibility study that would be likely to achieve an authorization in
WRDA to move forward to design and construction.
What is the justification for this requirement on ecosystem
restoration project studies that don't have significant engineered
infrastructure such as levees? Will the Corps consider refining the
guidance to return the requirement for aquatic ecosystem restoration
projects to 20% design stage?
Answer. The Corps has seen an increase in costs of projects that
have exceeded their authorized limit across all business lines,
including aquatic ecosystem restoration. Achieving a 35% level of
design prior to entering the Construction phase will limit delays and
provide more confidence in the cost estimates, schedules, and project
outcomes, while also reducing the chances of even costlier mid-
construction re-design.
Expediting Environmental Review of Environmental Infrastructure
Projects:
Question 5. One of the significant delays in advancing
environmental infrastructure projects in my state has been the lengthy
environmental reviews. These delays have resulted in frustration for
many communities and in some cases, they no longer want to advance the
projects Congress has funded. I appreciate that the Corps streamlined
its NEPA processes last June and has started to utilize more
categorical exclusions for these projects. But our water situation
demands we work faster, making more improvements to expedite these
reviews.
How are the Corps working to ensure that EI projects funded by
Congress get out the door to communities in a timely and efficient
manner? What additional resources or authorities, like expanded
categorical exclusions or flexible funding reallocations, will help
move projects forward?
Answer. The Department of War has streamlined the NEPA process with
the DoD NEPA Implementing Procedures issued in June 2025, which
includes over 300 Categorical Exclusions (CATEX) that are available for
the entire Department. The Corps is considering applying applicable
CATEX for typical EI work like sewer repairs. The Corps is also
considering adopting EPA's CATEX to further enhance efficiency.
Reallocation of Existing EI Funding:
Question 6. Because of delays in approving project partnership
agreements and environmental reviews for these environmental
infrastructure projects, the cities of Flagstaff and Tolleson are
seeking to have funds they were awarded for a stormwater detention
basin and new water well reallocated to other projects. These
communities should not be unnecessarily punished for the Corps delays
and should be able to pursue other eligible projects with the funds
Congress has appropriated without risk that the funds will be clawed
back.
What is the Corps' process for approving these reallocations, and
can you commit to expediting the reallocations for the cities of
Flagstaff and Tolleson?
Answer. For Corps funds provided in an annual Energy and Water
Development Appropriation Act (EWDAA), a proposal to change the
allocations in a published work plan generally would be subject to
Section 101 of the EWDAA. For example, where a reprogramming exceeds
the amounts set forth in paragraphs (6) through (10) of subsection (a)
of Section 101, congressional notification is required.
[all]