[Senate Hearing 119-398]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-398
HEARING TO EXAMINE THE WATER RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2026 AND U.S. ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS' PROJECTS, PROGRAMS
AND PRIORITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 25, 2026
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
63-623 WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Chairman
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Ranking Member
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina MARK KELLY, Arizona
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska ALEX PADILLA, California
PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas ANGELA D. ALSOBROOKS, Maryland
JON HUSTED, Ohio
Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
Dan Dudis, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
FEBRUARY 25, 2026
OPENING STATEMENTS
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
Virginia....................................................... 1
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 3
WITNESSES
Telle, Hon. Adam R., Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works.......................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Cramer........................................... 15
Senator Wicker........................................... 15
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 16
Senator Merkley.......................................... 17
Senator Kelly............................................ 20
Senator Padilla.......................................... 21
Senator Schiff........................................... 25
Graham, LTG. William, H. Jr., Chief of Engineers and Commanding
General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army.. 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Cramer........................................... 32
Senator Ricketts......................................... 33
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 35
Senator Merkley.......................................... 35
Senator Kelly............................................ 36
Senator Padilla.......................................... 36
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Juneau Independent Article: USACE Rescinds Promise to Pursue Lake
Tap as Long-term Flood Solution................................ 65
Letter to Senator Capito and Senator Whitehouse from Steel
Manufacturers Association 74
Statement for the Record of the American Society of Civil
Engineers...................................................... 76
HEARING TO EXAMINE THE WATER RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2026 AND U.S. ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS' PROJECTS, PROGRAMS
AND PRIORITIES
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2026
U.S. Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Shelley Moore Capito
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Capito, Whitehouse, Cramer, Lummis,
Sullivan, Ricketts, Boozman, Merkley, Kelly, Padilla, Schiff,
Blunt Rochester, Alsobrooks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Good morning, everybody. I would like to
call this hearing to order. I appreciate everybody being here.
I would like to welcome our witnesses, Secretary Telle and
General Graham. I appreciate both of you being here. I also
appreciate the back and forth that we have had with your
offices over the last several months.
The purpose of today's hearing is to help the committee
develop the next Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). Yes,
it is that time again. We call that WRDA. WRDA not only
authorizes water resources studies and projects, but sets
national policies for the U.S. Corps of Engineers Civil Works
Program.
Since 2014, this committee has kept to a biannual schedule
of passing this bipartisan legislation and I look forward to
continuing that track record today.
Earlier this year, or this Congress, earlier this year,
Ranking Member Whitehouse and I sent a letter to our Senate
colleagues soliciting their requests for WRDA 2026. I am
pleased to say that we received a significant number of
requests, more than last time, which demonstrates the strong
interest and the necessity of this legislation.
To help us kickstart the WRDA process, this hearing will
allow the committee to learn more about the Trump
administration's recently announced priorities for the Corps,
examine the agency's implementation of prior WRDAs, and then
discuss ongoing projects and programs of the Corps.
Secretary Telle, I appreciate and applaud your willingness
to closely examine what changes need to be made to allow the
Corps to better deliver water resources solutions with our non-
Federal partners. I look forward to learning more about those
changes today.
The Corps does critical work across the Nation through its
navigation, flood risk management and ecosystem restoration
missions. This work protects the lives and livelihoods of
millions of Americans and facilitates commerce throughout our
Country and internationally. Last week, actually, I visited the
Winfield Locks and Dams to see the great work the Corps is
doing on the Kanawha River there. There is nothing like getting
eyes on a project.
As I previously stated, it is important that any WRDA bill
supports the timely and efficient delivery of water resource
projects while continuing to meet national missions.
Flexibility is key to ensuring that the Corps can identify and
carry out solutions that are tailored to the needs of each
community.
We must also continue to preserve the role of our non-
Federal partners and sponsors in this process. To achieve this
goal, WRDA 2026 will advance studies and projects, without
forcing a one-size-fits-all solution.
In September, I stressed the importance of the timely
implementation of WRDA 2024 and prior WRDAs, consistent with
congressional intent. Secretary Telle, throughout your two
decades as a Senate staffer and your confirmation process, you
heard how important the Corps' work and the policies enacted in
WRDA are to communities across the Country. Now that you have
had more time on the job, I look forward to an update on the
Corps' implementation efforts.
I also want to acknowledge and thank the staff across the
Corps enterprise for their ongoing efforts to provide the
committee with technical assistance on the WRDA requests that
we received from our Senate colleagues. Technical assistance is
a vital part of our legislative process, and we greatly
appreciate timely responses from the Corps.
The work of the Corps has and will continue to make a
difference in communities, and that is certainly true in West
Virginia. The Corps is actively working on a number of studies
and projects that are critically important to my home State.
The fifth and final stage of the Bluestone Dam Safety
Assurance Mega Project, it is a huge project, in the city of
Hinton, continues to make significant progress. Once completed,
that project will protect more than 150,000 people and $20
billion worth of infrastructure.
I am also pleased that work on the Lower Mud River Flood
Risk Management project in Milton, where Secretary Telle joined
us there, could resume this summer. Unfortunately, there is
still more to be done. West Virginia continues to experience
devastating flooding.
I am thankful to the Corps, and the Huntington District in
particular, for the progress they are making on the Kanawha
River Basin and Upper Guyandotte feasibility studies. These
studies are exploring potential solutions to manage the flood
risk in these areas.
I look forward to making sure that the next WRDA bill
contains the necessary authorizations and authorities for the
Corps to continue to carry out this important work. And I thank
the witnesses for being here today.
Our Ranking Member is not, here is his little sign, I will
put it up here, he is here virtually today, he is in Rhode
Island, where he is snowed in with 37 inches of snow. While we
do not typically--which sounds like nothing in North Dakota.
Senator Cramer. No, it sounds like plenty.
[Laughter.]
Senator Capito. While we typically do not provide for
virtual participation, this is an extraordinary circumstances
for an extraordinary person. And we are glad to have Ranking
Member Whitehouse with us for this important hearing.
So, Ranking Member Whitehouse, I heard your voice from
above here as we were starting, so I know you are listening. I
look forward to continuing our partnership to develop the next
bipartisan WRDA bill, and I now will recognize you for your
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman, for the hearing
today to discuss the Water Resources Development Act of 2026.
Thank you particularly for the courtesy of allowing me to
participate remotely and to your team for making all of this
wonderful technology actually work. I appreciate it very much.
Just to give you a sense of what is going on up here, the
guy who plows my driveway had his plow snowed in, and is only
now starting to get out. We found another team to take a whack
at my driveway last night, a plow and a front-end loader. They
were defeated, and went away after pushing in maybe 30 yards.
So we are in, I would say, hip deep here. Largest snowfall
ever recorded in Rhode Island. So I appreciate the courtesy.
Thank you, also, Assistant Secretary Telle, and Lieutenant
General Graham, for appearing before the Committee. I do wish
we were convening under better circumstances.
Mr. Telle, as you will recall, I supported your nomination.
I look forward to working with you. You committed to work
collaboratively with this committee to tackle our priorities
and deliver the Corps' missions to all American people.
Yet, communications between the Corps and congressional
offices have been largely shut down. Your office does not
answer requests for information from my staff. Letters from
members of this committee receive no response. Questions for
the record from last September's hearing remain unanswered.
As we convene today to discuss the WRDA Act of 2026, your
office has issued implementation guidance for just 3 of over
180 provisions in the Water Resources Development Act of 2024.
This seems ridiculous. when Congress passes a law, the relevant
agency must move swiftly to implement it. And 3 out of 180 does
not seem to measure up.
Most egregiously, in the 7-months since the Senate
confirmed your nomination, we are seeing what I consider to be
the worst politicization of the Corps of Engineers in modern
times. Like many other Federal agencies, the Corps' permitting
processes have been corrupted to stymie safe, affordable
renewable energy, and to give advantage to the President's big
fossil fuel donors. I do not think that is fair, and I do not
think that is right.
Wielding the permitting authority granted to the agency by
Congress in this manner violates the law and contravenes the
Corps' own regulations, which State that it is neither a
proponent nor an opponent of any permit proposal.
You announced an unprecedented pause on $11 billion in
funding for Corps studies and projects in Rhode Island and 11
other States represented by Democrats in the Senate, including
six other members of this Committee, for the reason, according
to Russell Vought at OMB, that we are Democrats. This is not
just an attack on the opposition party but, because of our
geography, it is an attack on our Nation's coasts as well.
Annual funding for inland flood projects has long outpaced
funding for coastal projects, by 20 to 1, even 100 to 1.
Instead of addressing this problem, the Corps has made things
worse by pausing work on large-scale non-structural flood risk
projects, the vast majority of which protect coastal areas.
With our coasts facing severe increases in flood risk from
rising sea levels and worse ocean storms, it is just wrong for
you to so disfavor coastal areas.
A rumored Administration proposal to fund inland waterway
projects off the backs of coastal ports, by significantly
increasing the Harbor Maintenance Tax and merging the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund with the Inland Waterways Trust Fund,
would actually worsen the Corps' reputation as the bureaucratic
tributary of the Mississippi River, with no regard for
America's coasts.
The U.S. economy relies on global trade, and that global
trade comes through our coastal ports. Please, you should not
be party to administration schemes that would jeopardize our
Country's long-term economic security just to harm coastal
states as retribution for not bowing to the President's will.
It is hard for me to imagine what your theory is, pursuing
a bill that requires bipartisan support to pass while engaged
in this kind of conduct. I know it comes from OMB, but somebody
along the line has to say no. A hard, fast and convincing
course correction is required to get yourselves on track.
Please remember that you lead the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, not the Donald J. Trump Corps of Engineers.
Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Capito. All right. Okay. I want to thank the
Ranking Member, and hope he finds somebody else to tow him out
of there.
We are now ready to hear from our witnesses. Our first
witness is the 14th Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works, Adam Telle. Secretary Telle was confirmed to serve in
this role by the Senate in a bipartisan vote last August.
Prior to his confirmation, Secretary Telle spent two
decades in public service with roles in the U.S. Senate and in
the Trump Administration. He now oversees the civil engineering
functions of the United States Army.
Welcome, Secretary Telle. You are recognized for 5 minutes
to deliver your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM R. TELLE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Mr. Telle. Thank you, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member
Whitehouse, and distinguished members of the committee. I
appreciate 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 6 months,
7 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 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 all of the remaining provisions of
WRDA 2020 and 2022. WRDA is the law of the land, when it is
signed by the President, and we are implementing the law today.
Of the 552 provisions included in the three most recent
WRDAs, we are developing additional guidance for 19 of the
provisions to ensure they are consistently implemented. 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
the future.
One thing I have observed at this point 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
what we like to call Army mode. Specific examples come to mind.
They include the Corps' execution of assignments to clear and
remove debris after Hurricane Helene throughout Appalachia, in
particular 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 just last month, the Corps executed
assignments in response to winter storm Fern across the
southeast. And today, we are busy responding to the ecological
disaster in the Potomac River.
When it comes to our primary missions, our everyday
missions, for decades, the Army Civil Works Program has not
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 the projects that are of
strategic national importance.
Meanwhile, reaching paperwork milestones has been 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. We have in hand $45 billion that the Congress
has previously appropriated to our programs that we have 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 the Corps is attempting to build but 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, on Monday we
unveiled a plan we call Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork.
It is comprised of approximately 27 individual but
complementary initiatives to start. It is designed 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.
Much of the content of this product was informed by the
feedback I heard from members of this committee, the
frustrations that they have experienced. And 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, again,
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 our primary 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 effectively. As President Trump has directed,
and as bipartisan members of this committee have called for, we
are cutting bureaucratic red tape by reforming our entire
regulatory and permitting system to provide fast, clear, and
consistent decisions to the public. 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.
Finally, we are instilling a discipline 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.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Telle follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Next, we will hear from Lieutenant General William H.
Graham, Jr., the 56th Chief of Engineers and Commanding General
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. General Graham assumed
these duties after serving as the Corps' Deputy Commanding
General for several emergency operations.
As Commanding General, he is responsible for over 30,000
civilian employees and 800 military personnel in more than 110
countries.
General Graham, welcome, and we thank you for being here.
Please proceed with your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL WILLIAM H. GRAHAM JR., CHIEF OF
ENGINEERS AND COMMANDING GENERAL, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
General Graham. Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse,
and members of the committee, 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 protect water resource
projects, focusing on our three main areas of commercial
navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction, and
aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Breaking these down, the navigation program, which consist
of our coastal and 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, a
staggering $200 billion per year in flood damages avoided.
To continuously maintain and improve these mission areas, I
want to thank this committee for supporting the Corps' Civil
Works Program. Your commitment since 2014 to pass biannual
Water Resource Development Acts has provided us with the
authorities necessary to address the changing needs of the
Nation's water resource infrastructure.
We deeply value the authorities you entrust to us and
pledge 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 and within budget.
Our current on-schedule rate across the Civil Works Program
is 86.2 percent. That is an improvement from 80 percent that I
reported in September. So, by focusing on the basics and
getting the engineering right, of getting the project
management right, and 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
Corps of Engineers to make the necessary changes to best
deliver our important infrastructure for the Nation.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
I look forward to addressing your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Williams follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you, General.
Okay, we will start the question portion. I am going to
start, myself, and I am going to admit here, a little bit,
Secretary Telle to a little bit of confusion on my part.
Implementation of WRDA laws and a lack of transparency of what
is needed to implement these laws, including the extent to
which any appropriations are needed, has frustrated this
committee for years. That frustration culminated in 1102 of
WRDA 2024.
This section requires your office to develop and submit a
plan to Congress on the implementation of WRDA 2024 and prior
WRDAs. I recognize that there could be a variety of factors
that impact the rate at which your office can implement WRDA.
However, a firm understanding of where we stand on
implementation is critical to the committee's ability to
develop WRDA 2026.
What is the status of the plan that is required under 1102?
And I know you talked a little bit about that in your opening
statement.
Mr. Telle. Yes, ma'am, thank you for the question. I would
say to start off, when a law is signed, when the President
signs a law and it becomes law, it is the law and we follow it.
Of the 552 provisions included in the last three WRDAs, 21, as
of the beginning of this week, 21 required implementation
guidance.
On Monday, I signed implementation guidance for two of
them. Of the 19 remaining, five of those pieces of
implementation guidance will be finalized in the coming weeks.
Seven of the provisions required appropriations to be
implemented, and an additional seven require a longer
rulemaking process that will engage the public in a way that
will take longer than the typical implementation guidance.
The remainder of the WRDA provisions did not require
implementation guidance, and therefore are in effect. I believe
there are 86 reporting requirements included in the last three
WRDAs, and those 86, the responses to those 86 reporting
requirements are currently under administration review.
Senator Capito. Okay. Just so I understand, I am
understanding from 1102 here that you are to put forward and
submit a plan. You have just told me about the implementation
guidance.
Is the structure of the implementation guidance the same as
the plan? Do you see what I am saying? Are we talking about the
same things here?
Mr. Telle. Yes, ma'am. I think what we are trying to say
here is, we are happy to comply with 1102. I will check the
status on our compliance with that section itself.
Of the 552 provisions enacted in the past three WRDAs, only
21 of them--
Senator Capito. Required a lengthy--
Mr. Telle [continuing]. required a more lengthy process.
The rest of them took effect immediately because they were
simple and straightforward enough.
So they are implemented. Again, 86 of the provisions
required information from us. That information has been
collected. The responses are currently under administration
review.
Senator Capito. Okay. So we would get your implementation
guidance of the remainder of those, we could expect that
through the rest of the year?
Mr. Telle. Two on Monday, I released two on Monday.
Senator Capito. Two on Monday.
Mr. Telle. There are five that should be coming in the
coming weeks.
Senator Capito. Okay.
Mr. Telle. Seven that require funding to implement and
seven that will require a longer process.
I will also add, there are ways that my team has been
talking with your team and other Members of Congress to inform,
both to get your advice on how we can shorten the process, but
also for the future, how we can make WRDA more implementable.
There are ways that we can help you help us make the
process much quicker.
Senator Capito. Is this the reason that there is $15
billion that is 6 years old, that has not moved forward?
Mr. Telle. No, ma'am. No, ma'am. Largely unrelated. That
funding is largely projects that were appropriated as a result
of supplemental appropriations where for some reason, whether
it is a design, or the project became too expensive, we do not
have sufficient funding, the non-Federal sponsor has not agreed
with the plan. There are a lot of reasons that funding has been
stranded. The fact remains it is stranded. And we are putting
pressure, I am putting pressure on the organization to find a
way to make use of that funding.
Senator Capito. Yes, that is what I am thinking. I mean, I
know you have reprogrammed in the past, I do not know in this
particular area, I know there are strings on that. We have so
many projects. That is a lot of money, $15 billion just sitting
there on projects.
Mr. Telle. It is a shame, Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. We need to work with you to try to figure
out a way to do that.
General Graham, I talked in my opening statement about the
importance of our non-Federal sponsors. I am interested to know
how you keep that open line of communication with your district
and division commanders to make sure that they are working with
their non-Federal sponsors and that they are aware of any
changes that we might make in WRDA in terms of the flexibility
that they might have.
General Graham. Chairman Capito, thank you for that
question. In my opening statement, it said, we do not do
anything by ourselves. Everything we do goes hand in hand with
one of our Federal partners. We are working right now, the key
member of that partnership is the project or program manager.
And their skills at interfacing with our non-Federal sponsors,
their skills at interfacing with the public are absolutely key.
We have instituted some initiatives recently to make sure
that those key individuals have the training and experience to
do that really, really difficult job, which is to make sure
that they understand the problem, make sure that they
understand what authorities this committee has given them, and
as those authorities change, so that they can best inform our
non-Federal sponsors on what options are out there, and how to
put those options to work for their communities.
Senator Capito. Okay. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse?
Senator Whitehouse. Thanks very much, Chairman.
Mr. Telle, I would like to start with just trying to clear
the information blockade. I have heard from members of the
committee, constantly from my staff, from stakeholders
struggling to obtain basic information from the Corps. And in
particular, my staff has repeatedly requested information on
the status of studies and projects affected by your review of
the Corps' investigations portfolio, and by the pause in
funding to Blue States announced by OMB last October.
If you would be good enough, Assistant Secretary Telle,
will you authorize General Graham, right here, right now,
sitting next to you today, to provide my staff with the
requested information without further delay?
Mr. Telle. Senator Whitehouse, thank you for the question.
We met 2 weeks ago and discussed this issue. Your staff had
requested information about the status of 39 separate projects
or studies. I believe within a day or so of me visiting you, my
staff provided you with detailed information on the 39 projects
or studies that you requested, or we provided it to your staff.
If there is anything that we left off, please let us know.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, it would be helpful if I did not
have to wait until you and I had a personal meeting in order to
get responses. So to the extent that we have asked for things
beyond those 39, or that the responses are not complete, will
you clear General Graham to provide my staff what they need and
what they ask for?
Mr. Telle. Senator Whitehouse, we will continue to do what
we have been doing and we will do it even better than we have
been doing, which is to visit with your team on at least a
monthly basis and try to turn around very quickly the request
for information.
There is no reason for me to clear General Graham. We are
one team. We work together. And the information that you
receive from General Graham will be the same as the information
you receive from me.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, let's turn to core missions. Your
prioritization initiative proposes to focus all the Corps'
resources on core missions, while terminating legacy efforts
that the Corps believes no longer provide value.
Is coastal storm risk management a core mission that will
be prioritized in the Corps' annual budget review?
Mr. Telle. Senator Whitehouse, absolutely. Coastal storm
risk management is growing and a critical part of our
portfolio. We treat it with every bit of importance as inland
storm risk management and navigation.
As I spoke to you 2 weeks ago when we visited, I spend a
disproportionate amount of my time and effort trying to come up
with building infrastructure in our coastal areas to protect
flood-prone areas on the coast, disproportionate to the inland.
So when it comes to Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork, I
can not think of anything that will benefit more than coastal
storm risk management.
Senator Whitehouse. So, back to core missions again, what
happens when Congress has directed you in a WRDA bill to do a
particular thing and you have decided that is not a core
mission?
Mr. Telle. Senator Whitehouse, we follow the law. I am not
sure what specific action you are talking about, but we follow
the law.
Senator Whitehouse. The question of non-structural flood
risk management we have discussed a couple of times.
Mr. Telle. Yes, sir.
Senator Whitehouse. You have made some, I think, logical
points about dealing with the scope of the potential liability
that the Corps faces. To address that, I have developed a suite
of legislative reforms that would provide the Corps with the
authorities it needs to implement non-structural solutions more
effectively and more efficiently.
My staff requested technical assistance on that legislation
in November and have yet to receive a response. Could you let
me know when we can get that technical assistance?
Mr. Telle. Senator Whitehouse, we will absolutely provide
you with technical assistance. I will say that when it comes to
the non-structural issue that you raised, I just want to make
sure that the committee is tracking what we are talking about
here.
In August, on the basis of exorbitant costs per unit that
we were seeing, it was costing $600,000 per home to elevate
structures, and the Corps of Engineers does not have experience
elevating homes at scale on a regional basis, into the
thousands of homes.
It does not mean that elevation of structures should not be
part of our tool kit, it absolutely should. It is just that at
this moment, that particularly, there were two projects
affected that were in process, and five or six more that were
under the feasibility stage.
We just came to you immediately in August and to the
committee and said, hey, this is not right, we all have a
responsibility here to ensure we are efficiently spending
taxpayer dollars. And we want to get it right on non-
structural.
Quite often that probably means that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers may not be the best deliverer of that. It does not
mean it would not help participate in the funding of non-
structural solutions at scale on a regional basis. It simply
means that the Corps of Engineers may not be the best executor.
A non-Federal sponsor may be.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, I will close out just with the
observation that, I appreciate some of the things you have said
about coastal risk management, but particularly with Army Corps
projects, getting stuff done and getting funding out are the
two really powerful ways of expressing your priorities. And the
continued 20 to 1 or 100 to 1 favoring of inland flooding over
coastal flooding I think remains a problem.
When the largest adjustment to the Corps' actions is one
that disproportionately interferes with coast projects, that
makes it even worse. Then you throw in that Blue States tend to
be coastal ones, and they were the ones that OMB held up for
cuts, it does not look like it is a new day for coasts yet.
I appreciate everything you said about paying more
attention there. I hope we can work together to turn that into
some real progress. Thank you.
Mr. Telle. Thank you, sir.
Madam Chairman, if I may, Senator Whitehouse, when you and
I met recently, I committed to get you some information about
the distribution between coasts and inland on supplemental
funding. I will provide that to you now as well as the entire
committee.
We analyzed all Corps of Engineers spending on flood risk
mitigation since 2017, Fiscal Year 2017. Of the amount spent on
flood risk mitigation in total, $24 billion, $9 billion was for
coastal storm risk mitigation.
Senator Capito. Okay. Senator Cramer?
Senator Cramer. Thank you, Madam Chair, and for Senator
Whitehouse, I can not compare to what you are going through
right now back in North Dakota. We have really good plows that
can get us out of those situations.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cramer. I do feel your pain, believe me.
Senator Whitehouse. We usually have plows on pickup trucks.
Senator Cramer. I understand. I want one of those, by the
way. That is in my next life.
Thank you both for being here. I was thinking, Madam Chair,
when you were talking about the history of WRDA, I remember
when you and I were in the House and Chairman Shuster promised
we would have 2-year WRDA. We have been doing it ever since. It
is really a nice cadence we are in. And that is a testament to
the leadership of this committee on both sides for the last
several years.
Real quickly, Secretary Telle, I want to just share
publicly what I shared with you privately lately. I really
appreciate your work on the Dakota Access Pipeline
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). We will not go through
the entire history of it. It has been a decade in the works.
I just want you to know that those of us who are living
with that situation are grateful both for the urgency you have
given it as well as the thoughtfulness. Thoughtful urgency,
urgent thoughtfulness, whatever you might call it, complicated
stuff, but we really appreciate the work of you and your team.
We look forward to a decision of record here fairly soon, or a
record of decision, fairly soon.
I want to speak just a little bit to you, Mr. Secretary,
about the rollout this week, and just applaud, thank you so
much. Anything that you can do to make the agency more
efficient and effective in the very important work of your
mission, I applaud. And if there is anything we should be doing
to help codify any of that, please be open with us on that. I
would really want to be part of that solution, if you will.
And I think, and this is a bipartisan issue, in fact, we
have had some very good hearings already on permitting reform,
and I think about the very specific role that your agency
obviously plays, that the Corps plays in infrastructure
buildout. Even your discussion, just listening to the last
several minutes to your discussion with Senator Whitehouse, I
think we are all on the same page.
Let's do stuff better, faster, more efficiently with lower
costs if we can, while not cutting corners, just doing things
in a better way. Let us know how to be helpful on that.
On the regulatory front, I do want to speak a little bit
about the efficiency of jurisdictional determination as it
relates to what is and what is not a Waters of the United
States. As this new rule is in the making and really grateful
to the EPA for the hearing out in North Dakota that we had, I
hope we populated the record in a helpful way there. I feel
like we really did.
One of the areas that has always frustrated me about the
evolution of WOTUS is that even when the court has been crystal
clear about what is not a Waters of the United States, which
has always been fairly obvious to me, the idea that a
jurisdictional determination is still required is one of my
great frustrations.
So as we get to finalizing a rule, maybe just help me
better understand that piece of it. How can we help landowners
know intuitively, intellectually, obviously what is not a
Waters of the United States? Is that an area of opportunity for
us in efficiencies?
Mr. Telle. Senator Cramer, thank you for the question. I
think you are touching on something critically important that
we are hard at work on as part of our Building Infrastructure,
Not Paperwork initiative. On March 12th of last year, I will
say we have already got a walking start, because the Sackett
decision that was rendered by the Supreme Court in 2023 was the
law of the land. On March 12th of last year, we issued interim
guidance to our regulators throughout enterprise about what it
meant to follow the law as it stands.
We have also, as you mentioned, gotten busy with our
partners at the Environmental Protection Agency on making sure
that our rules match the law as it stands today. We are intent
on following the law.
The point that you are making, I believe the point you are
making, which is a critically important one, is even when we
have a new law, new rule, we still rely on the employees in
General Graham's enterprise, whether it is at the Huntington
District or the Portland District or the St. Paul District, we
rely on our regulators, who are wonderful people, to interpret
the law.
Quite often, I have heard frustration from Members of
Congress, from the public, about the inconsistency they see
across the landscape. If it is the law, it ought to be
interpreted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers employees
consistently. And it ought to be in keeping with the law.
So we began the process in the fall of a very rapid
acquisition of the latest technology to make sure that we can
use the tools available that we have, the never before seen in
human history data that we have to tie geographic features
about what a Water of the United States is back to the law, all
the way back to the Clean Water Act of 1972 and through all the
decisions that have come ever since.
If we can provide this tool to our regulators, we can take
subjectivity out of the equation. If we can get our regulators
a tool, the tool may not provide the final decision. That may
still be our regulators. If they have a tool, which we are very
rapidly developing to coincide with the finalized rule, it will
provide clarity and durability to the public in a way that we
have not seen yet.
Senator Cramer. That is a really great point. Because you
are right, the diversity of ideas out there and philosophies,
even, probably, among the regulators, is a bit of a problem.
And that is what presents a lack of clarity to the developer,
the landowner, an engineering firm in Bismarck, whatever the
case may be.
I might just add to that, though, how about the
determination by the developer or the landowner themselves to
see what is obviously not a wetland to be able to say, I always
put it like this, we do not ask every driver on the interstate
to call the highway patrol every few miles to ask permission to
drive the speed limit. Now, the nice thing about the speed
limit is it is not only on the sign at the side of the road, it
is on your GPS in your car. So, there is clarity there.
It just seems to me, we need to get that down to a more
local level.
Mr. Telle. Senator Cramer, you are right. The best version
of what we are trying to do would enable the public to have
transparency in real time about what is and what is not a
Waters of the United States. These decisions should be made
instantly, with the technology we have today.
This is complicated by the legal wrangling that has
happened over the decades. I am committed to looking at what
the law says today and providing technology that provides
clarity in real time to the public.
Senator Cramer. Thank you.
Senator Capito. Senator Merkley?
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all
very much. The Corps does such important work in the northwest
quadrant of the United States of America. We have a very close
working relationship with the Corps that we much appreciate.
I do feel like the flow of information has changed a bit
over this last year. I am very concerned about that. I have
seen situations where an administration has previously not
answered the QFRs until right before the next hearing, but I
have never seen a situation where they just absolutely did not
answer them at all.
And the QFRs that I submitted after our September gathering
have never been answered. I just do not understand that. Why
not answer them?
Mr. Telle. Senator Merkley, I agree with you. I agree with
you. I think it is unacceptable that we have not answered the
questions for the record that were submitted prior to our
previous hearing. This is something that I did not anticipate
would take so long. Obviously, we had the longest government
shutdown in history in the middle of that period, but it is
still no excuse.
Senator Merkley. I really appreciate that. You have
answered my question, that you want to get it done.
Mr. Telle. And I will just say, both for this committee and
for the House T&I committee, the QFRs are in the final stages
of administrative review. We expect them very soon.
Senator Merkley. So, in the northwest, where we have put a
lot of hydroelectric dams and flood control dams on the
Columbia and on the Willamette and on its tributaries, there
has always been this partnership in which we have said, well,
we know those dams will have a big impact. The fish ladders
will not get the fish through, so we have mitigation
strategies, including hatcheries. And those hatcheries have
been kind of a sacred responsibility to maintaining the salmon
and other species that travel through the river system.
It has appeared that the work that the Corps has been doing
on the hatcheries has slowed down or stopped. Is there a
strategy for the Corps to say that they are not going to
continue this partnership that has been so important to the
economy and the culture of the northwest?
Mr. Telle. I am not aware of any particular strategy,
Senator Merkley. I will defer to General Graham on the latest
on that project.
General Graham. Senator Merkley, thank you for that
question. Absolutely not. Where we have fallen behind is the
capital reinvestment of those hatcheries. I took a look at what
the Portland District is doing on the four hatcheries that it
has on the Willamette. We think that it probably has $160
million to recapitalize those facilities.
That is where we need to go. We are thankful for the
roughly $9.4 million that we received in the latest
appropriations to work on Cole River. And we will put that
money to good use to design how to replumb that facility. As I
mentioned, there is $160 million of backlog and we have not
been investing in that. And it is time to capitally reinvest on
those facilities.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, General. When I asked
in September, you shared that you had ranked, after
consultation, the hatcheries as a C minus or D at most
locations, and indicated a desire to establish a long-term plan
to reinvest in those hatcheries.
Is that plan currently under development? Because I thought
that was a very good idea when you suggested that in September.
General Graham. Senator, that plan is, first step on any of
that plan is to make sure that we truly understand the State of
the facilities that we have, so we can put a good cost estimate
together. And talking about the Portland District, that is
underway.
Senator Merkley. Well, if we need to formalize that in some
way, I will be happy to work with you. I think the hatcheries
are suffering. And Cole Rivers is such a critical one, but it
is only one of many, many hatcheries that have been part of
sustaining the fish on these multiple rivers.
So I want to really highlight that, and continue to work
with you all on that.
I want to turn to, WRDA 2022 authorized a study to examine
dredging in different regions across the Country. Dredging is
particularly important to our many harbors on the west coast,
our many riverways. It is very important to our recreational
fishing, to our commercial fishing, to commercial traffic up
and down the Columbia.
And that study, we do not have it. How do we get this
study?
Mr. Telle. Senator Merkley, I will push to General Graham
in just a moment to give you a response on the study. I just
want to reiterate something you said here. Dredging is the
lifeblood of the American economy.
I have been using the analogy lately with all the winter
storms, which is particularly appropriate today, with Senator
Whitehouse stuck in Rhode Island, that our dredging capacity is
really, it provides the same function to our economy that snow
plows provide when we are trapped under inches of snow. We
clear the roads, we can get back to work.
It is the same thing with our economy at a much larger
scale. It is the secret to our economy, it is how we project
economic power across the globe. And it is critically
important.
I will let General Graham answer the specific question on
the Columbia River.
General Graham. Senator Merkley, thank you for that.
Section 8205 of WRDA 2022 asks for that report. That report is
still under administrative review. As the Assistant Secretary
spoke to, we will work diligently to get that information over
to you.
We are looking to, one point would be to look at dredging,
we look at right now regionally, not so much as the Columbia
system. Under Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork, we are
going to look to harness the power of, we are the largest
purchaser of dredging services in the Nation, and we are
looking to leverage that to get a better deal for the American
people, to include the many industries on the Columbia River.
Senator Merkley. Thank you, General. My time is up, but in
both the case of this dredging study and in the case of the
report that was required for the impacts of de-authorizing
hydropower in the Willamette Valley, I just had, the Peoples
Utilities came in yesterday and said, we really want to get
that report, because it appears that some of these smaller
operations get a little bit of hydropower, but at a very, very
elevated cost, way above other ways. They do not know for sure,
and that is what this report was all about.
Both of these reports in September, we were told, is under
administrative review, the words you just used, which means it
is stuck at OMB. It is just essential in a democratic republic
that when the reports are done, I understand a short look at
them, and sometimes some correcting. To just have them die
because somebody somewhere has never gotten to them or somebody
somewhere does not like something that is in the report, we
need to have the information flow. And if the information is
not accurate it creates a conversation, we bring in other
experts.
Please commit, both of you, to getting those reports out of
OMB and delivering them. It is not acceptable in a democracy to
have these authorized and funded by law, done, completed, the
hard work that your team has done, General, that your team has
done, Assistant Secretary, get us the reports, please.
Mr. Telle. Senator Merkley, we will be happy to press on
those reports. It is important that we coordinate across
interagency. That does not mean it should be indefinitely
delayed, as you point out.
There is value to making sure we have a coordinated
response, and that is what these administrative reviews are
often for. I apologize for the delay. We will get you a status
update on both of those.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Senator Capito. Senator Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Chairman Capito and Ranking
Member Whitehouse, for hosting todays' hearing. And thank you
to our witnesses for being here. We very much appreciate it.
I certainly, Assistant Secretary Telle, applaud the
Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork process improvement. You
know from our conversations I am a big believer in process
improvement. And it is a great step toward accelerating project
delivery. This is of course necessary as we look to
infrastructure projects that will prevent future flood events.
One of those flood events we discussed, when we talked in
September of last year, can have devastating impacts. In 2019,
we had the most widespread flooding in State history in
Nebraska. During that flood, four people lost their lives, and
it cost Nebraska more than $3 billion, our farmers and ranchers
lost a billion dollars of that.
And as we look to improve the Corps and its authorized
programs, preventing loss of life should be the top priority.
It is concerning that it is currently not being treated that
way.
In the 1979 Missouri River Master Manual, flood control was
clearly prioritized over the Corps' other authorized purposes.
In this document, the purposes were explicitly ranked.
Following lawsuits filed by environmental groups relating
to the Endangered Species Act, the Corps created a 2004 Master
Manual to comply with a Minnesota court order. This amended the
1979 Master Manual to reverse the Corps' historical flood
control water management practices, and put all project
purposes on the same level as flood control to comply with the
Endangered Species Act.
As a result, farmers and landowners saw disastrous flooding
along the Missouri River and filed the Ideker Farms v. United
States in 2014. This case claimed that the Corps' 2004 policy
shift led to recurrent flooding on their land between 2007 and
2014.
In 2018, the court found that the Corps was responsible for
recurrent flooding due to its 2004 decision to deprioritize
flood control. Despite that ruling, the current Master Manual,
last updated in 2018, is still governing the Corps' operations
on the Missouri River, and still leaves the authorized project
purposes unranked.
General Graham, does the Corps currently treat the eight
identified authorized project purposes as equal priorities?
General Graham. Senator Ricketts, no. Life-health safety is
No. 1.
Senator Ricketts. So when I asked you last year, you gave a
similar response. How do you prioritize flood control and life
and property when your Master Manual has the authorized project
purposes are all ranked equally the same?
General Graham. Senator, project by project, as those are
formulated, life-health safety is always our top priority.
Senator Ricketts. So even though you do not have it written
down in the manual, it is kind of an unwritten rule or an
unwritten thing that your team knows that if it involves lives
and property, that gets ranked above the Endangered Species
Act?
General Graham. Life-health safety is always our No. 1
priority. I will get back to you on how we have codified that
in our procedures. Life-health safety is No. 1.
Senator Ricketts. All right. So, Assistant Secretary Telle,
to protect life and property from flooding, would you say that
Congress needs to act to make flood control supersede species
protection?
Mr. Telle. Senator Ricketts, I am not in a position to make
that assertion today. It certainly seems that President Trump
has prioritized protecting human life and human prosperity.
I will say, thank you, I would say on the Building
Infrastructure, Not Paperwork initiative, I would say thank
you, because you were part of the inspiration for that, given
your run as Governor of Nebraska and everything that you did
there. I will also say, related to the topic you are asking
about, I am in the process of planning a trip along the entire
Missouri River this spring. This is something I want to take a
close look at, so that I can understand and help inform General
Graham's process.
I absolutely think that protecting life is, it is always
our No. 1 priority in everything that we do.
Senator Ricketts. Well, I laid out the timeline of what I
think the legal case is that has happened here. So I would
certainly appreciate an opportunity, and when you are on the
Missouri River, let me know. If I can make it, I would love to
be there with you to talk about this. Because I think it really
has created a problem based upon the legal history of what has
happened here. This is obviously where I think that Congress
does need to step in.
According to a congressional briefing with the Corps and
U.S. Wildlife Service last year, the Pallid Sturgeon has
demonstrated measurable recovery metrics. However, these
updated metrics have not been made publicly available, limiting
transparency and preventing meaningful review.
Assistant Secretary Telle, can you work with me and make a
commitment to work with Fish and Wildlife Service to make these
metrics public and provide them so we can have more
transparency?
Mr. Telle. Senator Ricketts, absolutely. This is something
we are already hard at work on. Tim Petty, with the National
Marine Fisheries Services, as well as our friends at Fish and
Wildlife Service, we have been raising these types of issues at
what is called the Water Subcabinet.
I think we are in a position in this administration to have
a very practical view of these types of issues and solve them
globally, and at the Washington, DC. headquarters level, so we
can provide certainty across the Country for issues like this
one, where we are trying to do our best to follow the laws as
they relate to our environment, while also allowing the type of
activities that benefit humanity to continue.
Senator Ricketts. I see my time is expired, and with the
Chair's indulgence, I am just going to hit upon a couple of
points real quickly.
One of the things that I started when I was Governor was
the Perkins County Canal. This is a canal that would bring
water from Colorado to Nebraska. It is under a compact that we
have with Colorado that dates back to 1926, and I look forward
to working with the Corps as we push forward on this project,
it is a very important project, to make sure that our folks in
Nebraska, whether it is our water users, regular consumers or
our farmers and ranchers, have access to water. So I look
forward to working with you on that.
And then finally, also, one of the big issues we have
occasionally is ice jams. And one of the things I think we need
to address, and I will followup on this later, is releasing
water out of Gavins Point Dam to be able to address some of
these ice floes. Salix, Iowa, for example, had its power
generation curtailed in 2022 when we had a snowstorm there,
Winter Storm Elliott. So again, I think the Ranking Member
probably is feeling a little of that pain right now.
I want to highlight that one of the alternatives that
people always throw out there is, hey, well, we can use
explosives to try and break up the ice packs. Nobody wants
using explosives on any of our river systems to break up the
ice packs. So please, help work with us on other solutions so
we do not have this ice jam problem.
With that, Chairman Capito, thank you.
Senator Capito. Senator Padilla?
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Before I get to my first question, I want to make a
statement that is going to echo the theme and concerns from a
number of my colleagues on this committee. So let me start by
being California-specific, and say that the Army Corps process
for funding and implementing projects in California is
fundamentally broken. I can not support a WRDA bill without
seeing some real changes.
Let me review what has happened with California's highest
priority Army Corps projects just within this last year.
Sacramento has among the highest flood risk of any major city
in America. The Army Corps gets it. Eighty-six percent of its
homes are at risk.
Nevertheless, over $126 million was stripped out of the
Corps' Fiscal Year 2025 work plan as part of the political
transfer of over $250 million from States that have elected
Democrat leadership to States with Republican leadership. That
is trying to shift from Blue States to Red States.
On October 17th of last year, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget announced that over $11 billion in Corps
funding for projects in Blue States, including California, had
been paused. We understand the Corps' district commanders were
told which projects were frozen, but were also directed not to
inform the local project sponsors or the public.
So there is great uncertainty over where California
projects are being frozen, and for how long.
What we do know is that many critical projects in
California are also facing arbitrary obstacles. For the San
Francisco Waterfront Project, we are hearing the Corps will no
longer approve a Chief's Report that had been scheduled for
this year. Work on the Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration
Project has stopped, because the Corps is simply no longer
processing the city's requests for a project cost increase,
even thought Lieutenant General Graham publicly committed that
the requested cost increase would be administratively approved
in time for this year's WRDA, just a few months ago.
And a recycled water pipeline in Los Angeles County has
been stalled for over 3 months now by a new policy requiring
the Assistant Secretary's office to review project cooperative
agreements that have already been signed off on by the Corps
district and the division.
So, Madam Chair, how can I possibly support a business as
usual WRDA, when so many critical California projects are
either arbitrarily stopped, stalled, or facing fundamental
uncertainty whether they will still have funding going forward?
To support a WRDA bill, I believe we need some certainty that
when Congress has enacted and the President has signed into law
specific funding announced for specific projects, these
projects cannot simply be indefinitely frozen or stalled.
That being said, let me jump into my first question.
General Graham, I want to ask you about the San Francisco
Waterfront Coastal Flood Study, which is a critical project to
protect downtown San Francisco from potentially severe coastal
flooding.
The study is on the verge of completion after substantial
local expenditures, per the Corps' longstanding schedule, and
has been executed in full accordance with existing Corps
guidance.
Yet in the late stages of a mature study, the new 35
percent design requirement, which you and I discussed at a
recent hearing, last September, it presents major challenges
for the authorization and advancement of this important
project.
If the Port of San Franciso is willing to work with you to
forecast and control costs through future cost shared work,
what can the Corps do to complete the Chief's Report on
schedule this year?
General Graham. Senator Padilla, thank you for that
question. I have spent time in both the Embarcadero, meeting
with the Port over the years. And you are correct, that is the
path that we had gone down. We have gone down this path of
looking at these very complicated projects in many areas,
coastal Texas, the harbor in New York City.
And what we have come up with are multi-multi-multi-billion
dollar projects. And the update I got this week on where San
Francisco Waterfront was is somewhere between $17 billion and
$32 billion. Our construction budget every year is two to
three.
So under Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork, we are
trying to take these looks at these very long, complicated
projects and try to break them down into digestible pieces that
we can actually get after and make San Franciso, that amazing
place that it is, safer.
Senator, you have our absolute commitment that we are going
to work diligently to break these projects down. We have to
make sure that we get the engineering right in the cost
estimates that we are giving you. We have been too long asking
authorization from this committee when the engineering behind
those cost estimates are only at 5 to 10 percent.
So I ask in this case, where do we think the design
maturity is in total for the San Francisco Waterfront? It is
about 10 percent.
So I think the way forward is, it is just such a big,
complicated problem. We have great sponsors there.
So Senator, our commitment to you is to keep working on
ways to take a look at these broad problems and break them down
into manageable pieces.
Senator Padilla. And that is the beginning of what I want
to hear. What is the path forward? I know some of these
projects represent a big budget, big dollar amount. So that is
why this new 35 percent requirement is, it is not part of a
one-size-fits-all, because not one size does fit all.
So what is the path forward? We have talked offline about
the Everglades authorization precedent that was set. Nothing
has to be that exact model, but there are other models that I
would just love to get a commitment from the Corps on, that
this is how we are going to tackle those unique challenges of
these bigger ticket projects that are so critical.
I know my colleagues have talked about life-safety. This is
life-safety for San Francisco.
Mr. Telle. Senator Padilla, if I may respond?
Senator Padilla. Mr. Telle?
Mr. Telle. I would just point you to a new process that we
have developed as part of Building Infrastructure, Not
Paperwork, to get at the exact challenge that you are
identifying. We have incentivized our non-Federal sponsors to
build these big, complex projects and we wind up studying them
for decades. It turns out that to get them to the fidelity of
engineering that is required to provide the Congress with
accurate information, we may have to study them for another
decade after everything changes in a community like San
Francisco, that is a dynamic community.
The rapid process allows us to take features within a
project and lift them out and design them to 35 percent
maturity, so that we can submit them to you with confidence
that we know what we are talking about, we know what the cost
is going to be. And then get that project authorized and
funded, start delivering for the American public, for your
constituents. And then move on to the other features within the
project, rather than seeking to boil the ocean right away.
Senator Padilla. My time is up, and there are two things I
will ask, some additional followup questions for the record
after today. I do want to reassure my colleagues that there has
been significant investment from local partners on this and
other projects in California, for that matter, to date.
So as we may pivot to a different model of breaking this
down and getting to completion in a different way, I want to
make sure that those initial investments are credited and not
overlooked. There is value there.
So with that, thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Senator Boozman?
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank both of
you for being here and the great work that you are doing.
I want to start off and really take just a second to thank
you, Secretary Telle, for the support during the Dardanelles
Spillway failure that nearly forced Arkansas Nuclear One
offline. The incident exposed real vulnerabilities, not just
for navigation, but for our regional grid and the 1,800
megawatts of nuclear generation that rely on stable pool
levels.
So again, this really was a crisis, and the Corps did an
excellent job of stepping in and getting that done in a timely
fashion.
Secretary Telle, one of the things that concerns me, and I
know it concerns both of you, is that Congress and our project
sponsors continue to encounter inconsistent explanations
between districts, divisions, and headquarters when it comes to
project readiness and work plan prioritization. These
inconsistencies slow projects and create confusion for local
partners.
Can you tell us about reforms that you are in the process
of implementing to create a more transparent, uniform, and
predictable process, so that Congress and sponsors can
understand how decisions are made and what is required to move
a project forward?
Mr. Telle. Absolutely, Senator Boozman. Thank you for
raising this point.
One of the features of Building Infrastructure, Not
Paperwork, has to do with harmonizing and making consistent the
work that we do from district to district. We are very blessed
that the Corps of Engineers is out in the communities of
America. I believe the stat that I quote is that only 2 percent
of our work force is here in Washington, DC. The other 98
percent is out in our communities. That is a blessing and a
wonderful strength that we have.
It also means that we have to work doubly hard to make sure
that we have consistency, that when a State like yours is
divided among multiple districts and you have communities that
border those districts, and one part of the community may have
to deal with one district, and another part may have to deal
with the other.
They ought to get the same customer service and the same
level of support, the same level of transparency that they get
from each district, whether they are in the Little Rock
District or the Memphis District, for instance.
So this is something I have been working on since I took
this job. General Graham has been a great help ensuring that we
can have consistent and coherent programs across the
enterprise. We can not, I want to make very clear, this is not
trying to centralize our work here in Washington. This is about
empowering our commanders, taking some of the work off their
plate that we can handle at the Washington, DC. level so that
they can get after the type of work that we have been
describing here today.
Senator Boozman. Mr. Secretary, many permit applicants,
including State and local governments, and private developers,
rely on the Corps' for timely review of permits and
consultation. Section 214, funding agreements have been
successful in Arkansas, very successful, increasing capacity
elsewhere in the Corps and expediting the permitting process
for critical infrastructure projects.
For example, the Arkansas Department of Transportation has
been able to fund a liaison to the Corps, increasing
coordination and advancing key infrastructure projects, Fish
and Wildlife, same story.
How do these agreements fit into your transformation of the
Corps? What can we do in Congress to expand and improve these
agreements where needed? And also, are we undergoing, is that
part of the hiring freeze or hiring freeze now that is going
on? Is that impacted? Because programs like this, to me,
actually seem, the way they are working in Arkansas actually,
you are able to expand your work force, without cost to you.
Mr. Telle. Senator Boozman, you are absolutely right. This
is a key part of Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork. This
committee has provided us with myriad authorities, 214 is just
one of them, 203, 204, 1043. These are authorities where this
committee has given us the ability to do what you said. We have
this huge demand for our work, whether it is in the
infrastructure part of our work or in the permitting part of
our work. We have this huge demand.
And our districts have been incentivized in the past to
hold all that work for themselves, to justify, in some cases to
justify their existence. We have capacity out there with our
non-Federal sponsors, with our State and local partners, with
the private sector, where we, as a Nation, if we want to get
after Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork, we would be
foolish to not take advantage of expertise and expand our
capacity beyond just what we are able to deliver.
So, Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork is all about
leveraging our partners, and 214 is an example of that.
Senator Boozman. Very good.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank both of you again for
working so hard to get us moving in the right direction.
Mr. Telle. Madam Chairman, I just want to touch on
something that Senator Boozman raised early in his statement.
We had a situation in Dardanelles, Arkansas, last August, where
one of the gates on the dam there got stuck in the up position.
I raise this because we, our folks there at the Little Rock
District for days could not get that gate back down. And water
was rushing through the dam, and the pool behind the dam was
going down.
This did not get much media attention, but Arkansas Nuclear
One, which powers much of the State of Arkansas, was within
hours of having to shut down. Because the water behind that dam
was getting to a low level.
And I just, it occurred to me when this happened and I
heard about it, that this really is a great illustrator of the
cyber, the vulnerabilities our critical infrastructure has from
cyber. Because if a nefarious actor wanted to access our
critical infrastructure, this is the type of effect it could
have. I am really proud of our team in Branson, Missouri, which
is looking after our critical infrastructure.
I just wanted to point to the Dardanelles, Arkansas,
example as something that is a lesson for us all to learn as we
think about our vulnerabilities.
Senator Capito. All right, thank you.
Senator Alsobrooks?
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you so much, Chair Capito, for
holding this important hearing, and thank you especially to our
Secretary, Secretary Telle. Thank you also, General Graham, for
being here today.
Maryland communities depend on the Army Corps to deliver
critical flood protection, ecosystem restoration, and
navigation projects that Congress has authorized and funded.
So, Secretary Telle, I want to talk to you, because Senator Van
Hollen and I sent you a letter earlier this month that outlined
several Maryland priorities, which we hope the administration
will include in the Corps' work plan for Fiscal Year 2026.
This included a Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem
Restoration Project, dredging to maintain safe navigation
channels for the Port of Baltimore, and C&O Canal Rewatering in
Cumberland, which is key to cultural, environmental and flood
mitigation in our State.
Now, the Mid-Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project is critical
for dredged material management, as Poplar Island reaches
capacity. I know you understand this, because you visited.
Would you explain how the Corps' plan to ensure that
funding, contracts, and construction schedules are in place, so
that this transition does not cause delays to the Port of
Baltimore's dredging operations?
Mr. Telle. Senator Alsobrooks, you are absolutely right.
Ports like the Port of Baltimore, in particular, it is not just
about dredging the channel to ensure that commerce can
continue, it is also about having a place to deposit the
dredged material that comes out of the channel that is so
important, like the Port of Baltimore.
And you raised Poplar Island, that is where we have been
depositing that material for many years. That is a place where
we get beneficial use. We get to take that dredged material and
restore ecosystem there in the Chesapeake Bay. As you said, it
is running out of capacity. We have to expand that capacity,
not just for the Chesapeake, but to make sure that the Port of
Baltimore can continue to be the important terminal that it is
for the Eastern Seaboard and our Nation.
We are ready, I believe that all is in order as it relates
to that expansion. It is something that is important to me. As
we develop the Fiscal Year 2026 work plan, we will absolutely--
you have been a great advocate for this, and we will absolutely
keep that in mind as we work through that.
Senator Alsobrooks. Okay, thank you.
General Graham. Senator Alsobrooks, if I could just add, in
March, we do plan to award with the $168 million we do have on
hand, to award the Site One Prep contract. Then we will wait
for additional funding and the work plan to come after that,
eventually, to keep that project moving forward. Right now, as
the Secretary spoke to, we are on track.
Senator Alsbrooks. Okay, great to hear.
Dredging capacity in the mid-Atlantic is limited by aging
equipment and few available vessels. So what specific
investments, procurement plans or operational strategies is the
Corps implementing to ensure that navigation channels serving
Baltimore remain safe, reliable, and capable of handling
increased vessel traffic?
Mr. Telle. Senator Alsobrooks, thank you so much for
raising this question. You hit on a very important thing here.
Our Nation depends on dredging capacity. Unfortunately, the way
that we are acquiring that dredging capacity and contracting
with our private sector partners is inefficient.
Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork, is going to tackle
that in a number of ways. One of the ones that I will highlight
that I think you are hitting on here, the way that we deal with
the contracting for this is we quite often have regional
contracts that do not look at the national scope and make smart
decisions about how we deploy the resources nationally.
We also have environmental challenges related to dredging
that we have not updated in sometimes decades. The way that I
equate it is, sometimes we have these windows that we have to
get in environmentally to dredge, and there is a small part of
the year, I equate it to something, your spouse asking you to
run errands on a Saturday and you have to go to 10 different
places.
You and I both live in Prince Georges County, Maryland. And
you have to go all the way across the Washington, DC. metro for
errand No. 1, you have to go back across the Washington, DC.
area, metro, for errand No. 2.
Any rational person would go to the stop that is closest to
them first, then the stop that is closest to that next, and the
stop that is closest to that next, and have an efficient
Saturday of errand-running. Right now, the way that we acquire
our dredging, we are sending our dredgers all over, and they
are spending, quite often, more time in transit between our
ports than they are in the ports dredging.
Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork, is going to get
after this in a number of ways and give us more efficient
dredging that is going to benefit the Port of Baltimore, it is
going to benefit ports all up and down the east coast and the
Gulf and on the west coast as well.
Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you.
Now, on October 17, Russell Vought, the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, posted on X that the
``Democrats shut down,'' this is his quote, ``has drained the
Army Corps of Engineers' ability to manage billions of dollars
in projects.'' He further stated that over $11 billion in lower
priority projects, including projects in New York, San
Francisco, Boston, and Baltimore would be paused or considered
for cancellation.
In response, my colleagues and I, on October 30th, sent a
letter to you, Secretary Telle, urging you to defend the Corps
against politically biased decisionmaking, and that letter
remains unanswered. Our staff continues to not receive
information on the affected projects or studies. I, along with
members of the Maryland delegation, sent a letter following up,
requesting Maryland-specific details, as these threatened
cancellations impact the safety, flood protection, and economic
well-being of communities across our State.
I see our time is tolling. So I want to ask two quick
questions, whether the failure to respond, because I know you
said transparency was important to you, communication was
important to you, and whether or not you regard that as a break
in that commitment, and whether or not we can have that
commitment from you, that we will have the answer. It has been
4 months, we have no answer to it yet. We need that commitment.
Mr. Telle. Senator Alsobrooks, we had the longest shutdown
in our Nation's history last fall. It was very unfortunate. It
caused all kinds of problems for us in the delivery of what we
do. It caused General Graham all kinds of problems. It was
terribly unfortunate.
What I will say about projects is that we are assessing and
reviewing all of our portfolio all the time. We empower our
project managers, we empower our districts, our divisions,
General Graham or me, if we see something going wrong with a
project, to stop and take a look and make sure we get back on
track.
This is normal, an everyday process within what we do to
deliver good oversight and----
Senator Alsbrooks. Secretary, I know that I am going to get
cutoff in a second here. When can we expect a response?
Mr. Telle. Senator Alsbrooks, we are happy to get you a
response.
Senator Alsbrooks. Okay, perfect. Thank you.
Senator Capito. All right. Senator Blunt Rochester?
Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Chair Capito. And thank
you so much to the witnesses for being here.
Some of my questions will probably just pick right up on my
colleague's. First, I want to also say thank you for
highlighting the focus on the vulnerabilities that we have with
our critical infrastructure. I think that is something that we
as a Congress need to pay particular attention to. Those
vulnerabilities can be cyber, those vulnerabilities can be the
elements. This is really, really important to all of us.
I wanted to start off by saying that during WRDA 2022 and
WRDA 2024, I had the opportunity to work very closely with our
former Chairman, Tom Carper, Chair Capito actually came to
Delaware for a field hearing as well. Part of the work with
Senator Carper was to authorize individual Environmental
Infrastructure programs for each of Delaware's three counties.
As you know, the Environmental Infrastructure programs
support local water, wastewater, and stormwater projects in
partnership with non-Federal sponsors.
In conversations across my State, it is becoming clear that
Delaware communities are having difficulty accessing funding
for these programs. So Secretary Telle, how are you working to
implement the Environmental Infrastructure authorities
previously outlined in WRDA 2022 and 2024? What specific steps
are you taking to make these projects more accessible to
communities?
Mr. Telle. Senator Blunt Rochester, thank you. When it
comes to the Environmental Infrastructure authorities, and
funding that Congress has provided, we are going to follow the
law.
I will point out that while there has been a lot of good
that has come from that program in terms of supplementing local
communities' water capacity, this type of project is one that
has not been included in the Presidents' budgets, whether the
President is a Republican or a Democrat. This is not something
that has been prioritized in Presidents' budgets.
And there is a reason for that. It is because the Corps of
Engineers is the greatest civil engineering entity that
humanity has ever devised. There are municipal needs that are
critical. We all want clean water and wastewater in every
community in America.
I think the question that confronts us, confronts me, is
that, whether or not we are going to use United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) engineering excellence on these
municipal functions. I see Senator Kelly is here, and I think
about NASA, the greatest space agency humanity has ever
devised.
We would not expect NASA to be in charge of every county
science fair. I think that is where I think administrations of
both parties have seen environmental infrastructure.
With that said, there are needs out there that the Corps of
Engineers can address. Congress asks, gives us authority to
address them and the funding to address them, and we will
follow the law. Quite often, that means contracting with the
same providers that a municipality would contract with to
deliver that service.
We do not have that inherent expertise within the Corps of
Engineers, but we are happy to continue to follow the law and
execute the funding that is provided by the Congress.
Senator Blunt Rochester. So, just to make sure I am clear,
WRDA 2022 and WRDA 2024, this was the priority that we talked
about. So are you saying, and when you compare NASA and a
science fair, are you comparing the Corps with communities? Is
that the analogy there, that you are saying municipalities,
communities do not meet the standard of--I am just confused a
little bit. I thought this was an easy question.
Mr. Telle. No, ma'am, I probably made it more complicated
than I should have. The bottom line here is that for a long
time, as administrations of both parties have racked and
stacked the priorities for funding for the Corps, this type of
activity has not risen to the top. This dates back decades.
With that said, this has been a priority for Congress. And
because it is a priority for Congress, and Congress includes
the laws that tell us to do that, we will do it.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Well, I will tell you, I meet with
our League of Local Governments, I meet with our communities.
We just did a beach tour, and we have communities that, in
Lewes, Delaware, where they need to elevate sanitary pumps. So
I want to make sure we are following the intention of what we
as Senators and Congresspeople representing our constituents
are following up on.
Which leads me to two other questions in followup to
Senator Alsobrooks. In October, the Corps paused the $11
billion in projects, including two from Delaware. We have been
having challenges getting updates on those programs, one being
Oak Orchard.
I am sure that you probably can not tell me specifically
right now, but I would love a commitment to get, by next week,
an update on the Oak Orchard project. And also, I wanted to
confirm with you, because I know there have been these pauses
and you mentioned the shutdown, are the other paused projects,
are they all from both Democratic and Republican States?
Mr. Telle. Ma'am, we do not--
Senator Blunt Rochester. I would hope you do not.
Mr. Telle [continuing]. classify States as Republican or
Democrat. We look at--
Senator Blunt Rochester. Well, you understand what I am
saying. Right now, unfortunately, I am going to hate to have to
even ask this question, but unfortunately, we have actually
seen where whole lists of States have been included on projects
and they are only from States that represent Democratic
Senators. So I just want to confirm, because I would assume you
are non-partisan. And maybe I would ask that you also get back
to me on that question as well.
Mr. Telle. Our concern is with the protection of the
American public.
Senator Blunt Rochester. And so is ours.
Mr. Telle. And the American economy.
Senator Blunt Rochester. And so is ours. So, last, I will
also just say again, we support the work of the Army Corps. My
sister is an industrial engineer, my brother-in-law is a
nuclear engineer, my husband was a mechanical aerospace
engineer. So we understand how important engineering is, how
important it is.
We also have a job to do here. We want to continue to work
in partnership with you to make sure our communities and our
States are also taken care of, especially in this very
important time.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Kelly?
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you both for
being here.
Mr. Telle, the Rio de Flag project at Flagstaff, it is
designed to protect the city from flooding. We have bad
wildfires in the region, we discussed this project during your
nomination hearing.
It has hit the 902 limit. So for folks in the room that do
not understand what that is, that means construction is on hold
until the L.A. District completes a cost validation study, and
then that study has to be reauthorized in some sort of water
bill to restart construction. You know this, Mr. Telle.
The non-Federal sponsor has been told by the L.A. District
that this report will be completed and submitted to Congress by
May 2026, so in about three or 4 months, and in time to be
included in this year's Water Bill.
So let me start with General Graham. Is that the timeline
that you are tracking for completion of the validation study?
General Graham. Senator Kelly, thank you for that question.
Yes, it is. The Director's report is scheduled to be on my desk
May of this year.
Senator Kelly. So, Secretary Telle, will you then commit to
making sure that this study is submitted in time for WRDA 2026?
Mr. Telle. Senator Kelly, I believe, and I will check with
the Chairman, that May 26th will be sufficient time to have
that included in WRDA 2026. I would also point out, this is a
project that is affected by real estate issues related to
railroads, as you well know.
Senator Kelly. Yes.
Mr. Telle. This is an issue that part of our Building
Infrastructure, Not Paperwork initiative about how do we solve
some of these local real estate challenges, railroads are a big
one. I think we can work with the railroad industry to have a
better, nationwide, to have a better working relationship that
will help projects just like this one.
Senator Kelly. Well, that is great. That is good news. It
will be in time for WRDA 2026.
Similar issue, the Winslow Levee Project. Right now, the
entire city of Winslow is in a flood plain. This project, this
levee system will fix that.
So let me quickly go through the timeline here. In 2020,
Congress authorized the project. In 2022, I secured the full
Federal match for the project. In 2024, the Arizona
legislature, they stepped up and provided the full local match
for the project.
Once again, like the other one, this hit the 902 limit,
which means construction can not start.
General Graham, when do you expect that the validation
study for this one, the Winslow Levee Project, will be
completed? And will this be in time for WRDA 2026?
General Graham. Senator Kelly, direct answer, no. I do not
believe that we will be able to get the documentation for a PAC
up here in that time. Let me explain that.
It was authorized, and this is behavior that we are working
under Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork. This is behavior
we are trying to prevent. It got authorized at roughly 5
percent design. So, shockingly, when we start to actually put
the real engineering behind what it is going to take better
protect Winslow, we realize that, well, there is more and that
more is going to be more expensive, and in a different place.
Acknowledge absolutely that the other challenge here is
that it is a ring levee basically around the town. So we can
not just come up with, let's just do a little piece, because
eventually the water will surround it. So we have to do this
the whole thing.
So that behavior of asking for authorization for projects
when we don' have enough engineering to give you what a good
cost estimate is, I own that. We are working hand in hand with
the Secretary's office to fix that.
We will see if we can beat, well, we are not going to make
it, WRDA 2026. We will make a commitment to make WRDA 2028 with
the information--
Senator Kelly. Is there anything that the local sponsor
should have done differently here? This is frustrating, because
it feels like they did everything right, and now we are in this
downward spiral of--
General Graham. Senator Kelly, that is on us. We own that.
We have to work hand-in-hand with the local sponsors. We will
see if there are some options where they might be able to
provide funds. To try to get this over here by the end of May,
I do not believe that we are going to make it. I understand
that is a challenge for this community, that they are
vulnerable. We will continue to work with a great sense of
urgency to do everything we can to offer protection.
Senator Kelly. How many projects nationwide are currently
under 902 reviews?
General Graham. Senator, the number I have in my head is
29.
Senator Kelly. And what do you think that is as a
percentage of all projects?
General Graham. We have thousands of projects, Senator.
Senator Kelly. So it does not feel like a high percentage?
General Graham. Every one of those is a commitment we have
made to this committee and we are not delivering on it. So
those are unacceptable. As part of Building Infrastructure, Not
Paperwork, we are going to take a look at every one of those
902 busts to see why we have had to come back.
A lot of this is going to be, we have it authorized with
immature engineering. Some of it is we just do not have the
right team on it. So we will take a look at that. And if that
is the case, we will move it to a different team or different
district.
Senator Kelly. Yes, but it seems like with this one,
especially, it is going to be a scenario where to get it
reauthorized, it is going to take more time. And in that period
of time, cost is going to go up, and then it is going to hit a
902 limit again, and then it is going to get reauthorized
again, and new engineer and cost estimates. And you wind up
spiraling, and you never get the project done.
General Graham. That is the spiral of doom that the
Secretary and I are working with to get the Corps out of.
Senator Kelly. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam
Chair.
Senator Lummis. [Presiding.] The Chair thanks the member
from Arizona.
The Acting Chair recognizes herself next. Gentlemen, thank
you so much for being here.
I have a couple of questions. I am going to start with one
about algae blooms. In my State of Wyoming, we struggle with
algae blooms in our reservoirs. These are working reservoirs,
so they support irrigation, drinking water, fisheries, and
recreation. These harmful algae blooms that we have result in
costly delays for communities and recreation.
So through WRDA 2024 implementation, what have you learned
about preventing and responding to harmful algae blooms,
especially in western reservoirs? And the question is posed to
both or either of you who wishes to respond.
General Graham. Senator Lummis, thank you for that
question. I wish that algal blooms were only confined to the
western States, but we certainly have this throughout the
Country. It is a large challenge to all water resources
agencies, to include the Corps. We are very thankful for this
committee and for Congress to give us authority to do research
and development on how to prevent these algal blooms.
We break this down into a couple of buckets. One is figure
out how to detect them at the earliest stage possible, see what
we can then do to prevent them, and then efforts to manage
them. We are looking to find solutions that are scalable to the
large reservoirs out in the western States.
We have some ongoing R&D efforts in the western States, and
we have some potential research opportunities in the future,
pending available funding.
Senator Lummis. Do you ever work with groups like the
National Science Foundation, or other research-oriented
government agencies to kind of double your efforts on things
like algae?
General Graham. Senator Lummis, we absolutely do work as a
Federal family on that. Secretary Telle and I, when we leave
this hearing, we are going to fly down to Mississippi. We are
going to go to our large research lab in Vicksburg,
Mississippi, where they are doing a lot of the cutting edge
research on this.
Those researchers there are incredibly well tied into the
rest of the Federal family, as well as the State level.
Senator Lummis. Thank you. Go with God on this one. It is
an important issue to address in our Nation. Thanks for your
attention to that.
Now I want to talk a little bit about snowpack, especially
this year where we are in real trouble in the Colorado River
Basin and elsewhere, due to a historic lack of snowfall. And of
course, Wyoming's water supply depends heavily on snowpack and
runoff forecasting.
How does the Corps utilize soil moisture and snowpack
monitoring authorities to improve long-term water supply
forecasting and drought preparedness? We are into, I think
here, like 20 or 21 in terms of non-historically low flows into
the Colorado River Basin in particular.
Mr. Telle. Senator Lummis, this is a critically important
point. One of the techniques that we use, we have been using
for quite some time, is called forecast informed reservoir
operations. This is where we take an existing piece of
infrastructure, we look at the weather, we look at what is
headed our way, and we can make risk informed decisions about
how to operate a reservoir to squeeze the most water out of it
for water supply purposes, or hold the most water back for
flood risk mitigation purposes.
I was out in California recently and some communities in
California were talking to me about how actually snowpack
monitoring can be even more critical to the operation of their
dam than forecast informed reservoir operations. The technique
that is done here is to fly LiDAR when there is no snow on the
mountains, then fly LiDAR with the snow on the mountains. We
are able better than ever to understand the snow that is there,
or the lack thereof.
So this is critically important, because our infrastructure
operators need as much information as they can possibly have,
especially when water supply is low or floods are imminent, to
make decisions that do not waste water when we need it, or that
do not release water when there is too much of it.
This is a place where we have a lot of work to do in terms
of the R&D. We are working on it right now at the facility that
General Graham just referenced. It is a place, we can do a lot
more of this to make better use of the infrastructure that we
have.
General Graham, do you want to add anything?
General Graham. Senator Lummis, just to add, we certainly
are tracking the no-to low-snowpack out on the Plains and the
Upper Missouri watershed and the Upper Colorado watershed are
of great concern to all of us. Our water managers are watching
that really closely. Thank you for that question.
Senator Lummis. Thank you for your responses. I look
forward to working with you and other Federal agencies who can
provide guidance, expertise, scientific research and answers
for those of us who are struggling with these important issues.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today, and for your
service.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Schiff.
Senator Schiff. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to reiterate I think what has said by some of my
colleagues earlier, we want to arrive at another WRDA
reauthorization bill. They have been typically very bipartisan.
When projects are canceled on a partisan basis, a political
basis, it obviously makes it very difficult to get to agreement
on a new bill, if we can not assume that what we appropriate
money for is actually going to be spent and utilized.
Along those lines, last year the Army Corps of Engineers
canceled several flood control projects for, in particular, in
California and others in Washington State. It looked like what
we have seen in the cancellation of energy projects and other
projects, like it was targeting Blue States.
So let me ask you, General, what was the rationale for
canceling four California flood projects last year?
General Graham. Senator, what I am tracking on this, there
were four projects on the Sacramento River that had an excess
carryover of funds. They carried them in from last year into
this year. And when we receive money, the Corps of Engineers,
we are supposed to obligate, put that money to use that year.
And we had not done that.
So those four projects were using that carryover money and
putting that to work now.
Senator Schiff. General, is it your testimony that it just
happened to be in California and Washington State, two Blue
States, that you found carryover funding that you could cancel?
That that was not the case in any other State in the Union?
General Graham. Senator, I will defer to the Assistant
Secretary for a broader discussion of that. Those four
projects, it was carryover funding that we were not using, or
we had not put that money to use that last year. So asking for
more money when we had not used last year's, and that amount of
work we would not get to in this current year.
Senator Schiff. Are you going to use that money this year?
General Graham. The $332 million, yes.
Senator Schiff. So those four flood control projects will
go forward?
General Graham. Yes.
Senator Schiff. And I have your word on that?
General Graham. Yes.
Senator Schiff. Let me ask you about something you gave
your word on last year, and that is the flood control project
in the L.A. River Ecosystem Restoration Project. Last
September, I think you testified in front of the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that the PAC,
Post Authorization Change Report for the L.A. River Ecosystem
Project would be completed in time for WRDA 2026.
Although funding for this project is congressionally
appropriated, and expressly designated for this specific
purpose, we are now hearing that the court has halted work and
funding for the project. I understand from your testimony
earlier that they have given us a justification for reneging on
the commitment from last September that real estate costs have
gone up in the region.
Why is not that clearly incorporated into the report? Why
is that a reason for not issuing the report?
General Graham. Senator Schiff, thanks. And absolutely, we
are not able to deliver on the commitment I made to Congress
just back in September. We are not going to be able to get that
PAC or justification document in front of this committee for
WRDA 2026.
I walked that project at least twice over the last 5 years.
This is one of those challenging projects at the USACE level,
at the non-Federal sponsor level, and we can not just seem to
get it together. Everybody understands that nobody wants a
giant concrete trapezoidal ditch in their back yard. And there
is so much opportunity here in downtown Los Angeles to achieve
the benefits that this project is intended to pursue.
The real estate costs are over $3 billion.
Senator Schiff. General, they did not balloon just in
September. Right? We are just talking about a few months ago.
So why was it possible in September that led you to believe to
the point of committing to getting it done in September. And
now you are telling us you are not going to meet that
commitment.
Are you testifying here that real estate prices changed
that much since September, that this is the sole reason this is
happening?
General Graham. Senator, real estate, that is not the sole
reason. It is a huge reason. And part of it is the larger
acknowledgement on the Corps' part that these large, challenged
projects, we really have to come up with a viable plan. I am
struggling to come up with a viable way forward on L.A. River
Ecosystem.
Senator Schiff. I guess what I am asking, General, and I
will be very blunt about it, is this rationale about real
estate costs since September in fact the reason why this PAC
report is not going to be completed? Or has there been a
political decision made not to go forward with this project?
Senator Lummis. The gentleman's time has expired, but you
may answer.
Senator Schiff. I would ask the General to answer.
General Graham. Senator, we are not political, as you well
know. My struggle with this project is just putting the pieces
together to move it forward.
Senator Schiff. So you have not been given a political
instruction to cancel the project?
General Graham. No, sir. No.
Senator Schiff. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Lummis. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Alaska, Mr. Sullivan.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, General thanks for being here. Thanks for
your responsiveness on a whole host of issues.
Mr. Secretary, I know you remember this in your
confirmation hearing, the President's Executive Order on
Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential, the only
State in the Country that has its own EO, a lot of it to
reverse the previous administration's lockdown of Alaska.
And when I asked you a question about all the different
directions you guys are getting, Corps of Engineers, you had
probably one of the best answers I have ever heard in a
confirmation hearing in my career. You said, Senator, ``I have
already tattooed that section of the EO on my heart.'' That is
pretty good.
So, is that still tattooed on your heart?
Mr. Telle. Senator, I read it last night, in fact.
Senator Sullivan. From your heart?
Mr. Telle. Honestly. Yes. No, I don not even have to use
paper anymore.
Senator Sulivan. Okay. Well, look. Let me first compliment
you guys. You know I am going to go to the Juneau issue,
because it is a really, really, really big issue. And I will
admit, it is a challenging issue. It is actually the kind of
issue that Corps of Engineers is perfectly designed for, when
you look at the Corps' history. Because it is literally
thousands of homes being flooded every summer, probably happen
again this summer. This very kind of unique glacier outburst
that happens every summer.
By the way, it is incredible that no one has been killed.
Because I have been out there the last two summers right after
this has happened, talked to the homeowners, talked to some
just a couple of days ago when I was in Juneau.
And it is remarkable, particularly two summers ago. Middle
of the night, giant flood, freezing water, all over and nobody
was killed. Thank God. Alot of property is at risk and
currently at risk.
So I want to compliment you initially, because you guys
have been very responsive. You have been responsive, Mr.
Secretary, General, you and your team, when I asked you guys to
work on this last year around this time, you got the Hesco
barriers up quick, which by the way, saved the whole community.
It is kind of amazing, you saw how close the flood--those Hesco
barriers worked, right? We want to keep that without jinxing
it. Because we are probably going to need them again this
summer.
And then you, when the flood happened, you guys surged your
brigadier general. I went out there, they were there for a
week. It was really, really, really good.
And then I was in Juneau just last week, met with the
Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Secretary, I read them the text that
you sent me. So I appreciated the text, too. And your test
said, hey, we are working on this, we want to make sure that it
is a quicker solution than some of the things we are looking
at.
Now, but just lately, I will tell you, this was an article
from the Juneau Independent yesterday. Madam Chair, I would
like to submit this for the record. It is a giant issue, as you
can imagine, in Juneau.
Can I submit this for the record?
Senator Lummis. Without objection, so ordered.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sullivan. So, and it says, U.S. Corps of Engineers
Rescinds Promise to Pursue Lake Tap as Long-Term Flood
Solution, ``Disheartening pivot leaves Juneau leaders `a bit
speechless' as assessment of worst case flood scenario rises
significantly.''
So, look, a lot of times things happen where the
transparency is not as good as it should be. Now, there is real
frustration in the community. In December, the lake tap became
as the preferred option. People thought there was momentum
building. And the concern is, in Juneau, is the Corps has
pulled back on quiet without clearly explaining the changes in
direction to the community.
So what I want to do here is I want to be able to put that
issue to rest. I know people in Juneau are literally watching
this hearing. It is that big of a deal. There is a real
frustration in the community.
And I think with transparency--and look, I trust you guys,
right? You have been on it. And a clear path forward with
tangible progress on a long-term solution.
Can you confirm to me the Corps is fully committed to
delivering a durable, long-term solution to Juneau as quickly
as possible? And that we are also ready for the short-term,
right? Because again, we are probably going to have, there are
estimates of record flooding again this summer.
And then finally, we are working on the WRDA bill. And I
guarantee you, my colleagues here, because I have explained
this to them, on both sides of the aisle, if you guys have big
asks in the WRDA bill, hey, Senator, we are going to need this
special thing for Juneau, I have already talked to the Chairman
and the committee.
I think both my Democrat and Republican colleagues would be
flexible with me to get you authorities that you need to really
attack this, including the money, which will be significant. On
the other hand, like I said, this is what the Corps of
Engineers is designed for. We have people who are going to be
flooded every summer, up to thousands of people in the
Mendenhall Valley.
So can both of you talk about that? Look, a lot of times I
think my colleagues know, and Madam Chair, if you will just
work with me here, I know I am going over my time limit, but
this is a really important issue, you know, I will come and I
will rip the hell out of witnesses, does not matter Democrat or
Republican, when I think they are not keeping their word.
I do not think that's the case with you guys. I have a lot
of faith in you, Mr. Secretary, General. Both of you. I know
you have been really committed to this. And I do not fully
understand why, because I was just in Juneau, there is this
perception that things are going dark, people are nervous
again, that the Corps is not engaged.
I just want you to A, be able to clear that up, and again,
once again commit to me, hey, we are going to work this, this
is a challenging issue but we will it with speed, time,
urgency, short-term, medium-term, and long-term, kind of like
what your text said.
And I did read the text. And by the way, I appreciated the
text. You knew I was going to Juneau. I told you and your team,
hey, I want to be able to clarify this.
So maybe it will take maybe another meeting, a Zoom meeting
or something with leadership in the Juneau community, me, you
guys. I kind of want to put this to rest. Because I know you
are committed, but the transparency, and look, people get
nervous, right? If it were your home getting ready to be
flooded for the third summer in a row, geez Louise, I would be
nervous, right?
So a lot of people are stressed about this. And I have
committed to them, my team and I have been working on this very
diligently. I think you have too. It would be a really good
opportunity right now for both of you to kind of clear this up.
And again, we need more, it is kind of perfect timing, we are
working on WRDA right now, this is the kind of thing we can get
into that.
So, Mr. Secretary, can you address that first? I know you
knew I was going to ask about it. And this is not like fake
news, right? This came out in the paper yesterday. People who
really want to work with you are very concerned that there is,
it is kind of going dark.
Senator Lummis. The gentleman's time is expired. I do ask
the witnesses to respond.
Senator Sullivan. Madam Chair, if I can just--
Senator Lummis. Absolutely.
Senator Sullivan. Because there is no one else here, and
this is important to me and my constituents.
Mr. Telle. Senator Sullivan and Madam Chairman, you will
have to indulge me because I have a lot to say.
Senator Sullivan. Good.
Mr. Telle. Senator Sullivan, when you and I have talked
about this in the past, in private and in public, every time, I
have told you that I am committed to delivering the short,
medium, long-term option.
Senator Sulivan. And your text said that as well.
Mr. Telle. I have been very consistent. I testified before
this committee and said that very thing the last time I was
here, in September.
That continues to be true. I will say it again, and I will
make sure that our entire enterprise can hear me, I will make
sure that the Pacific Oceans Division can hear me and the
Alaska District can hear me. We are committed to a short,
medium, and long-term solution for the challenge that faces
Juneau. This is a unique challenge that is caused by glacial
outburst flooding. Something that, as you said, is a technical
challenge.
Senator Sulivan. It is.
Mr. Telle. It is very difficult.
I mean, in my office in the Pentagon, I have maps of
Juneau, Alaska spread out on my table. I know how Suicide
Glacier intersects with Mendenhall Glacier, and I know the
flood pool at the base of Mendenhall Glacier. I know the outlet
that runs on the west side of Juneau.
General Graham and I talk about this almost every day.
Senator Sullivan. Good.
Mr. Telle. We have some work to do, because we have to make
sure that our Pacific Oceans Division and our Alaska District
understand the President's Executive Order which you
referenced. I think part of Building Infrastructure, Not
Paperwork, an initiative that we rolled out this week, is about
freeing our commanders and our engineers from assumptions.
Sometimes we ask the question of our engineers, hey, the only
laws I want you to focus on right now are the laws of physics.
Then we can talk about how we can work within the authorities
and the laws that this committee provides to deliver for the
public.
And that is the case here. We have to think about the laws
of physics first. Because this is going to require a solution
that is going to be unique. That is why long, medium, and
short, short, medium, and long is critical in this situation.
Because long is going to be too long.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
By the way, your text, I appreciate your text. Your text
said, hey, we are looking at this hard, because some of the
solutions, you said this to me in your text, I think will take
too long and I do not want it to be that long. So I appreciated
that sentiment.
Mr. Telle. Yes, sir, and I will just say, I mean, just to
give you an example and to give some relief to the citizens of
Juneau who are worried about this, I met with the city of
Fargo, North Dakota yesterday. Wonderful community. Perhaps as
much as any community in America. They had a flood issue in
Fargo, and they worked with us to figure out a public-private
partnership that was unlike any solution that we have ever
experienced.
I asked the Mayor of Fargo, I said, hey, Fargo and Juneau,
you know, similar latitudes, similar size towns, critically
important, would you mind mentoring and providing the St. Paul
District, can we go up to Juneau, can we get on a Zoom?
So I just want you to know, I am trying to use some of the
most creative processes that we have ever employed to help the
people of Juneau. I think, Senator Sullivan, we plan to be out
there in the next few weeks to focus on this issue.
Senator Sulivan. Good.
Mr. Telle. General Kelly and I were just talking about our
plans to head out there and work with General Goetz and Colonel
Palazzini out there. We have to get on the same page across the
four layers of our organization, and make sure that we are
delivering a reliable answer to you and the citizens of Juneau.
This is a top priority for us.
General Graham, I know you have other--
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you,
Madam Chair, for indulging me on these long questions and
answers. They are just really important. And it is a really,
really, really big issue to my constituents. I want to give
them assurance.
And look, I think a lot of this is miscommunication both
within the Fed department and some of the Alaskans. Also
probably within the Corps of Engineers, too, and I am glad you
mentioned not just you guys headquarters here, but the Pacific
Division and Hawaii and Alaska Division in Alaska.
General Graham. Senator Sullivan, if I could just add.
Senator Sullivan. Yes, please, General.
Senator Lummis. Very briefly.
General Graham. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Lummis. Thank you.
General Graham. I think this is actually, where we are at
right now is that we were working collaboratively. Everybody
was seeing our homework, but that homework is not done.
Senator Sullivan. Okay.
General Graham. So that is my sense in this. The guidance I
gave the district is, it is too soon to take any options off
the table, because what we are wrestling with most here is
time.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
General Graham. As you heard the city engineer talk
yesterday, the floods might get up to 22.5 feet. And that is
well over what the Hescos can do.
Senator Sullivan. I know. We have to figure that one out.
It is pretty scary.
General Graham. So the initial, this is just base, base,
base, rough, rough order of magnitude engineering, was 6 years
for a tunnel, Okay? I'm going to put a whole bunch of
contingency time on digging a tunnel through solid rock. And in
Arctic conditions.
So maybe somewhere between six to 10 years. And when will
the current barriers be overwhelmed? So then as Mr. Telle spoke
to, we have to look at an intermediate solution.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
General Graham. To see what efficacy that might have.
Because the time and money we can do everything, this, I am
really concerned that we juts do not have enough time.
So that is the engineering that this report is going to lay
out, which is, how much time do we have, and then we will take
a look at all of those options, all five of those options, to
see what is best going to serve those 2,855 homes that are down
in that valley.
Senator Sullivan. Yes, Okay. Well, look, I appreciate both
of your commitment, your focus. I will relay this to my
constituents back home. It will be good to get everybody
together.
And thank you, you have been responsive. And sometimes we
get communication gaps and people are nervous, and I do not
blame them for being nervous. This is a good answer, good
hearing, Madam Chair. I am sorry I went so long. It is a super
important issue for me.
We will continue to work with you guys. The need for sped,
short, medium, long-term. And again on the WRDA side, let us
know if you need authorities or money to get this going. We are
drafting up the bill right now, and I am very confident I can
get stuff relating to Juneau in the legislation.
Thank you again. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Lummis. The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member,
Senator Whitehouse, who I understand is joining us virtually
today. He is snowed in, in his home State. And if you are
available to us virtually, Senator Whitehouse, you are now
recognized.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chair Lummis. I appreciate
it.
I just wanted to close out with my gratitude to the EPW
team for allowing me to participate remotely. I am looking out
my window right now, and guess what? We are having more snow.
It could not get better.
So, we will see when I get down there, but I really
appreciate everyone courtesy.
Mr. Telle, I am grateful that you are focusing more on the
coastal aspect, and I would just make the observation that the
additional spending and additional work and attention on
coastal supplemental spending is probably a sign that the
baseline is not up to snuff at this point, that it takes an
emergency to get that attention to the coast. I look forward to
working with you to try to get that solved once and for all.
I think you also heard there is an array of communications
problems, particularly down our side of the aisle. So every
step that you can take to improve the Army Corps' communication
with us would be appreciated.
Thanks very much, Madam Chair. And thank you both, to Mr.
Telle and to the General.
Senator Lummis. Question for you, Senator Whitehouse. Can
you tell us a little bit about what you have experienced in
this blizzard, and how it is affecting your State?
Senator Whitehouse. It is the biggest snowfall in Rhode
Island history. There was the legendary East Coast Blizzard of
1978. We have blown through that.
As I mentioned in the beginning, the guy who usually plows
my driveway got snowed in and could not get his plow out. Last
night, a fairly good-sized pickup truck with a plow supported
by a front-end loader were unable to get through the
accumulated snow. They got about 50 feet, 60 feet into the
driveway and then that all came to an end.
So, it is very unusual conditions. It just requires, in
order to clear things, much bigger equipment than most people
have. A lot of people in Rhode Island expect snow, and they
have a pickup, and they have a snow plow and they go around and
plow things. This is overwhelming that cohort of response.
The big equipment is what is needed, and there is a lot of
demand for it, obviously, a lot of side streets still not
plowed. So people are getting through it, because we do. It is
a very unusual situation for Rhode Island to be in. I think the
Providence measure was 37 inches of snow, and then of course,
it blows around. So a lot of places it is more than 37 inches.
Senator Lummis. Well, we wish you and your colleagues,
Senator, a speedy recovery. Mother Nature is an awesome,
awesome sister.
Senator Whitehouse. She sure is.
Senator Lummis. We, again, thank you for participating
virtually.
With no further questions, I would like to thank the
witnesses and all my colleagues for your participation in
today's hearing. Senators who wish to submit written requests
for the record have until 5 p.m. on Wednesday, March 11th, to
do so. The witnesses' responses to those questions are due back
to the committee no later than 5 p.m. on Wednesday, March 25th,
and will be submitted for the record.
With that, and our thanks again to the witnesses, this
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]