[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A REVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CHIEF'S REPORTS
=======================================================================
(113-22)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 5, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-369 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, Columbia
Vice Chair JERROLD NADLER, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CORRINE BROWN, Florida
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
GARY G. MILLER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
SAM GRAVES, Missouri RICK LARSEN, Washington
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
DUNCAN HUNTER, California MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BOB GIBBS, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida JANICE HAHN, California
JEFF DENHAM, California RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky DINA TITUS, Nevada
STEVE DAINES, Montana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
TOM RICE, South Carolina ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
TREY RADEL, Florida
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
VACANCY
(ii)
?
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
GARY G. MILLER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia JOHN GARAMENDI, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
Arkansas, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Vice Chair Columbia
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
JEFF DENHAM, California ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
STEVE DAINES, Montana JANICE HAHN, California
TOM RICE, South Carolina SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina (Ex Officio)
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
VACANCY
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Major General Michael J. Walsh, Deputy Commanding General for
Civil and Emergency Operations, United States Army Corps of
Engineers; accompanied by Theodore A. ``Tab'' Brown, P.E.,
Chief, Planning and Policy Division, United States Army Corps
of Engineers................................................... 6
PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY WITNESS
Major General Michael J. Walsh................................... 36
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
Major General Michael J. Walsh, Deputy Commanding General for
Civil and Emergency Operations, United States Army Corps of
Engineers, response to request for information from Delegate
Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia.............. 19
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1369.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1369.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1369.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1369.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1369.005
A REVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CHIEF'S REPORTS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Gibbs. Good morning. The Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, Water Resources and Environment
Subcommittee, will convene.
At this time I would like to welcome General Walsh with our
testimony here. And our committee hearing today is to review
the United States Army Corps of Engineers Chief's Reports.
And at this time I want to ask unanimous consent that
Members not on the committee be permitted to sit with the
committee at today's hearing. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
At this time I want to yield time to our chairman of the
full T and I committee, Chairman Shuster, for any opening
remarks you may have.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
letting me go first. I have probably about a 14-hour day in the
Armed Services Committee today. I hope it is only 14 hours, but
we will see.
And I would also like to welcome Representative Cramer from
North Dakota, who has a keen interest in what the Corps does,
here today to sit at the dais and listen in.
Again, I want to say thank you to General Walsh. Thank you
first for your service, and I know you are going off to greener
pastures later in the year, so we really appreciate your
service, and thanks for being here today. As well as Mr. Brown,
thank you for being here. I look forward to hearing from you.
Today's hearing will play a valuable role in the
committee's development of the Water Resources Development Act,
also known as WRDA. Based on extensive studies, Chief's Reports
make final recommendations to authorize specific construction
activities. And that, I understand, is a Chief's Report. That
is the first I have seen of them. I have heard how large they
are and how extensive they are, but seeing is believing.
This hearing will bring greater transparency to the process
and will provide the committee the opportunity to closely
examine current pending Chief's Reports. It is critical for
Congress to reengage in the development of the Nation's water.
Congress must have a role in determining the agency priorities
and ensuring we fulfill our constitutional responsibilities.
Over the last few months, we have held a number of public
educational forums, roundtables and hearings on the Corps of
Engineers program. And I thank Chairman Gibbs for all his hard
work in putting those together and participating.
The themes that have emerged from these public forums
include the importance of project prioritization, public-
private partnerships, empowering non-Federal project sponsors,
and especially study acceleration. While it once took the Corps
3 to 5 years to complete a study, it has now become the norm
for the Corps to take 10, 12 or even 15 years to produce a
study. And it is no wonder it takes so much time since the
Corps by law and regulation has to review in detail many
different alternatives.
Just because a study is costly, complex and long does not
necessarily mean it is a better project. This is not
necessarily the fault of the Corps of Engineers. The agency has
to clear hurdles placed in their way by other Federal agencies
like the Department of Interior, and in some cases non-Federal
project sponsors have difficulties on their end.
Congress has only enacted two WRDA laws in the last 14
years, and we have many goals we want to accomplish in WRDA,
but one of the most important is to get WRDA back to a 2-year
cycle to ensure Congress has a fundamental role in the
development of the Corps of Engineers projects and in the
oversight of the agency. Again, that is absolutely for me
critical that we get back on a 2-year process. There is no
reason we can't as long as we all dedicate ourselves to working
towards that goal.
I want to again thank Chairman Gibbs for holding the
hearing. And again, General Walsh, thank you for being here
today and thank you so much for your service to the Nation, and
your wife's service to the Nation, because I know that she has
been there by your side all along. So again, thank you. And I
yield back my time.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Chairman Shuster. And I also thank
you for your interest and your hard work too in working on this
WRDA bill that really is going to improve our economic
competitiveness and move our commerce up, especially our
exports and job creation.
All right. At this time I yield time to Ranking Member Tim
Bishop for any comments he may have.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I too
welcome General Walsh and his colleagues, and I thank you very
much for your service to our country.
Let me begin with a very simple statement. The Water
Resources Development Act can create jobs and can provide
critical protection and support for our communities, our
businesses and our future. Over the last 6 months, this
committee has had roundtables, listening sessions, discussions
with stakeholders, meetings with the Corps of Engineers, and
has held hearings, all with the intent of working towards
developing a viable path forward on a WRDA bill.
Congress has been integral to the planning and construction
of water resources since--projects since our Nation's founding.
From the authorization of Aids to Navigation in the 1700s, to
the passage of several rivers and harbors acts in the 1900s, to
the enactment of the first Water Resources Development Act in
1974, Congress has established an ordered process for
integrating needed policy, direction and project authorization.
The original goal was to have a WRDA bill every 2 years, an
ordered process that would support a definitive water
management process. Since 1974, a period of almost 40 years, we
have had ten subsequent WRDAs, not quite the 2-year average
Congress had envisioned.
Our challenge is that the last successful WRDA was in 2007,
and now we are faced with substantial hurdles with respect to
water infrastructure needs, increasing numbers of water-related
disasters, national financial challenges, and reluctance by
this body to provide project-specific guidance to the
administration.
We have heard repeatedly from Members of Congress and the
public on the importance of WRDA to the Nation and to our local
communities. No one has questioned the value of a well
designed, constructed and managed Corps of Engineer project,
whether they are for flood control, navigation, storm damage
reduction or environmental restoration. The cumulative
assemblage of these projects helps the Nation.
Our responsibility in this committee and especially in this
subcommittee is to authorize WRDA projects and direct the
mission of the Corps of Engineers. If we do not perform that
responsibility, we end up with two things happening: one, the
administration ends up prioritizing projects, often on an
entirely different set of metrics than what we as Members of
Congress would want; and two, the process becomes more
convoluted and time-consuming, resulting in inefficiencies and
frustration.
Let me reiterate. A well constructed and legislatively
designed WRDA bill will provide jobs, provide direction and
most importantly allow water projects to be constructed that
will protect our communities, their economy and their lives.
Nothing could be more important for us to do.
Today's hearing is about the process that the Corps goes
through to develop, review and ultimately authorize Chief of
Engineers Reports. These Chief's Reports become the vehicle for
Congress to authorize a select group of new projects and get in
line for appropriations to actually construct them. Hearings in
this Congress have focused on several of the policy-related
issues that may be addressed in this WRDA. This hearing is
focused on addressing the 25 yet unauthorized Chief's Reports.
I wish to state clearly and unequivocally: a successful
WRDA must include more than just policy and Chief's Reports. We
have to find a way to address specific projects for flood
control, hurricane and storm damage reduction, navigation,
harbors and waterways, environmental restoration, and water
supply. This requires that we provide the Corps with adequate
resources and direction.
The bottom line is that we have to do more, and by doing
more, we will create jobs, jobs that will help sustain our
Nation's financial recovery.
Today we are going to hear about the amount of time that it
takes to get a Chief's Report developed and shepherded through
the process. The Chief's Report list today includes 25 vetted
and administratively approved projects. We have had some good
discussions with our colleagues across the aisle and with Corps
technical staff to look for ways to make the process more
efficient. While we all may have our own ideas about why it
takes so long, in the case of some of these Chief's Reports,
upwards of 10 years to make it through the system, one thing
has become clear to me, and that is we have met the enemy and
it is us.
Congress, in our desire to help direct the administrative
activities of the Corps of Engineers, has set up a long,
convoluted, multistep process to move projects from planning to
construction. We, the Congress, have overlaid a project process
largely developed by technical experts with one developed by
politicians, overlaid by yet another that is defined by the
reality of the appropriations process, overlaid by yet another
process, the budget oversight approach performed behind closed
doors by the Office of Management and Budget. The end result is
a mind numbing, convoluted, multilayered flow chart that now
includes a minimum of 21 major steps along the journey. We have
aided and abetted in the creation of this convoluted and time-
consuming approach, and we now have a chance to move ahead if
we work together.
In summary, our approach can be captured in three simple
bullets: the Water Resources Development Act is designed to
work most efficiently when it is done under regular order with
Congress providing leadership on moving specific projects
insist a timely manner; WRDA works when projects are funded at
the appropriate levels, not nickel and dimed over 10 years and
done in spurts and starts; WRDA works best when Congress, not
the administration, determines project priorities and when it
is done in a bipartisan way.
We are committed to working with the chairman of both the
subcommittee and the full committee and staff to develop a WRDA
bill that will meet the needs of the American people, our
colleagues and the administration.
I thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. And I will yield myself time for an
opening statement.
First like to welcome General Walsh and also thank him for
his service as he looks for retirement here in October. I think
the Corps is going to lose a huge asset.
Today we are holding a hearing to review the Army Corps of
Engineers Chief's Reports, the process the Corps undertakes to
develop these projects and some of the steps the Corps is
carrying out internally to accelerate the process.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the Federal
Government's largest water resources development and management
agency. The Corps began its water resources program in the
1800s when Congress for the first time appropriated money for
improving our river navigation. Today the Corps of Engineers
constructs projects for the purpose of navigation, flood
control, beach erosion control and shoreline protection,
hydroelectric power, recreation, water supply, environmental
protection, restoration, and enhancement in fish and wildlife
mitigation.
The Corps of Engineers planning process considers economic
development and environmental needs as it addresses water
resources problems. The planning process addresses the Nation's
water resources needs in a system context and explores a full
range of alternatives in developing solutions.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is subject to all Federal
statutes, including the National Environmental Policy Act,
NEPA, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered
Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and all
previous Water Resources Development Acts, Flood Control Acts,
and Rivers and Harbors Acts. These laws and associated
regulations and guidance provide the legal basis for the Corps
of Engineers planning process.
For instance, when carrying out a feasibility study, the
National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, requires the Corps of
Engineers to include an identification of significant
environmental resources likely to be impacted by the proposed
project, an assessment of the impacts, a full disclosure of
likely impacts and a consideration of a full range of
alternatives, including a no action alternative and action by
other alternatives. NEPA also requires a 30-day public review
of any draft document, and a 30-day public review of any final
document produced by the Corps of Engineers.
Additionally, when carrying out a feasibility study, the
Clean Water Act requires an evaluation of the potential impacts
of a proposed project or action and requires a letter from a
State agency ensuring the proposed project or action complies
with State water quality standards. The Army Corps of Engineers
also has to formulate alternative plans to ensure all
reasonable alternatives are evaluated, including plans that
maximize net national economic development benefits and other
plans that incorporate other Federal, State and local concerns.
Mitigation of advance impacts is to be included in each of the
alternative plans reviewed in the study. The Corps of Engineers
is also responsible for identifying areas of risk and
uncertainty in the study so decisions can be made with some
degree of reliability on the estimated costs and benefits of
each alternative plan.
Typically, a plan recommended by the Corps of Engineers is
a plan with the greatest net economic benefit consistent with
protection of the Nation's environment; however, the Corps does
have the discretion to recommend another alternative if there
is overriding reasons for recommending another plan based on
other Federal, State and local concerns.
By now many of us have seen the actual size of the typical
studies carried out by the Corps of Engineers. On the desk down
here on the dais is one feasibility study from the Louisiana
coastline that is 9,000 pages. You can see it stacked up there.
While these are complex projects that need be reviewed by
the public and other State and Federal agencies, the level of
analysis required by other laws and regulations are crippling
the project delivery process. For example, the study at the
Sabine-Neches Waterway navigation project was authorized in
June 1997 and the Chief's Report was transmitted to Congress in
July of 2011. According to the feasibility study of the Sabine-
Neches Waterway navigation projects, more than 120 alternatives
at nine different depths were evaluated prior to a completed
Chief's Report.
We are literally studying infrastructure projects to death,
but this is not solely the fault of the Corps of Engineers.
Congress needs to change the way the Corps of Engineers carries
out its business. It is no longer acceptable that these studies
take dozens of years to complete. Ultimately the Federal
taxpayer is on the hook for these studies and for the length of
time it takes to carry them out, delaying the benefits these
projects ultimately are supposed to provide.
As we move forward with what will be a policy heavy Water
Resources Development Act, we will be focusing on accelerating
the study and project delivery process as well as better
prioritizing these worthwhile investments that the American
public has relied on for decades.
At this time, again I want to welcome General Walsh as our
one-person panel. General Walsh is the deputy commanding
general for Civil and Emergency Operations of the United States
Army Corps of Engineers. And he is also accompanied today by
Mr. Theodore ``Tab'' Brown. He is the chief of the Planning and
Policy Division for the Army Corps of Engineers.
So, General Walsh, welcome again, and the floor is yours.
TESTIMONY OF MAJOR GENERAL MICHAEL J. WALSH, DEPUTY COMMANDING
GENERAL FOR CIVIL AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS; ACCOMPANIED BY THEODORE A. ``TAB'' BROWN,
P.E., CHIEF, PLANNING AND POLICY DIVISION, UNITED STATES ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
General Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of the subcommittee. I really am honored and it is a
privilege to be testifying before you today to discuss the
planning process and the Chief's Reports for the Army Corps of
Engineers.
My full testimony will describe all 21 reports that have
favorably completed the executive branch review since enactment
of the WRDA 2007. These proposals fall within the main missions
of the Corps of Engineers and all of them will provide a net
benefit to the Nation.
I want to take the time here to discuss the four campaign
goals of the Corps of Engineers and specifically the efforts we
are making to transform the Civil Works program.
First, we must support the warfighter with our work in
areas of operations under the combatant commanders and on U.S.
installations around the world. Many of our deployed civilians
have civil works experience, which supports the mission inside
the theater, and this work also provides them a broadening
experience that will assist them and us when they return from
harm's way.
Second, we must transform Civil Works by modernizing the
project planning process, enhancing the budget development
process, using a smart infrastructure strategy to evaluate our
portfolio of water resource projects and improving our methods
of delivery.
Third, we must reduce disaster risk and continue to respond
to natural disasters under the national response framework as
well as our ongoing efforts and authorities under flood risk
management.
Fourth, we must prepare for tomorrow, positioning our
workforce and processes for the future challenges and focusing
on research and development efforts that will help solve the
Nation's greatest challenges in the Army and in the Nation.
The Corps has been working to better equip the Civil Works
program to effectively meet the current and future needs and
ensuring that decisionmakers are fully informed. The Corps
planning process modernization effort emphasizes execution,
instills accountability, and improves the organizational and
operational model to produce quality products that address the
water resource priorities.
The current focus of our planning modernization efforts is
to facilitate the timely completion of decision documents that
appropriately address the increasingly complex water problems
that plague communities and constrain economic activity.
The Corps has recognized the need to modernize its approach
through the initiative that we call SMART planning. SMART
stands for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Risk-Informed, and
Timely. The SMART planning approach to investigations reduces
resource requirements by appropriately focusing on the key
drivers to resolving water resource problems while complying
with all the applicable laws and regulations. The goal under
SMART planning is to complete most feasibility studies within 3
years for $3 million or less. The end product is a decision
document that has been fully coordinated by all three levels
inside the Corps of Engineers organization. In shorthand, we
call this goal 3x3x3. The Corps expects full implementation of
this new approach in fiscal year 2014 and has been working with
its Federal and non-Federal partners to use this new approach
in evaluating water resource problems.
The Corps is prioritizing its current portfolio of planning
studies and applying this new approach to new and ongoing
studies, thus reducing the number of active studies in its
portfolio and focusing on efforts to complete these studies
more effectively by prioritizing funding.
Ensuring the continued performance of key features of our
infrastructure is becoming more costly over time. Operational
demands have also grown and changed, particularly over the past
30 years, creating additional stress, and we are working on the
infrastructure strategy to address these growing needs.
The infrastructure strategy incorporates four focus areas:
integrated approach to asset management, managing a system over
its life cycle, evaluating whether a project or group of
projects or related projects should remain a Federal
responsibility prior to substantially furthering investment in
that project, and potentially looking at alternative financing
mechanisms.
Transforming the way we deliver Civil Works programs
requires state-of-the-art processes and a highly skilled
workforce that is capable to responding to current and future
demands. The strategy is to have reliable and efficient methods
of delivery by linking technical capabilities to uniform
national standards, maintaining corps competencies, and having
consistent methods and processes throughout the Corps.
The Corps has a strong tradition of working collaboratively
with non-Federal interests and plan to deliver products. The
current transformation initiative is no different. Our
transformation partners include States, tribes, local
governments, nongovernment organizations, nonprofit agencies,
and the public. These partnerships are increasing and will
likely continue to increase as we share a common goal of
looking at reliable and resilient infrastructure for our
Nation.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. And, again, I
appreciate the opportunity to address today.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. I will start a round of questions
here.
We are talking about the process, and sometimes there has
been multipurpose projects, navigation projects and eco-
restoration projects in conjunction. Let's give an example: if
we have a port for a deepening project, which we know we have
major challenges to a lot of projects that way, should it be
bootstrapped with a restoration project, ecosystem restoration
project, or can we break these projects up and focus on the
economic ones to help move our economy along and really look at
the economic benefit. And not saying there is nothing of merit
to environmental benefits, but if we can get an economic
benefit right away by focusing on that project and maybe laying
off the rest of the complex projects. Does the Corps see itself
moving that way to look at the benefits, both economic and
environmental, and say if we get this part of the project
going, we can get this part done and then maybe work on the
latter later when the resources become available, especially if
the partnership of the local sponsor is having challenges
meeting their obligations for their cost share?
General Walsh. Yes, sir. On a particular project, we have
three major missions in the Corps, as you know: flood risk
reduction, navigation, and ecosystem restoration. As we put
forward the President's budget, we look at a balanced approach
in making sure the portfolio is funded in all three of those
major missions.
In a specific project that has different features, we work
along with the local sponsors in putting together a schedule
that tries to meet all of the requirements in that balanced
project.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. I noticed in these 25 Chief's Reports we
have here today before us, it is totaled about $14 billion of
proposed spending. And I noticed on the navigation side, it is
about $2.1 million, environmental restoration is about four
times that, flood control is about $4 mil---if I get it right,
billion. So basically, what we are looking at, environmental
restoration four times more and navigation twice as much on
flood control.
Can you comment why there is such a difference in the
numbers when you have four times more in navigation, twice as
much in flood control? Why that would come about that way,
especially when you consider the challenges we have out there
on our infrastructure on rebuilding and refurbishing our hard
assets.
General Walsh. Mr. Chairman, I think they came in, because
that is how the Chief's Reports were completed. They were not,
as far as I know, directed one way or another. I know that
there are more Chief's Reports that are out there that will be
coming in between now and the end of the year that will change
that ratio drastically as well.
Mr. Gibbs. But you are aware that----
General Walsh. Yes.
Mr. Gibbs [continuing]. You know, that the ratios are sort
of----
General Walsh. Yes.
Mr. Gibbs [continuing]. Way out of place there.
On your SMART process, you talk about SMART planning, I
have a chart here of the Civil Works project delivery process.
It is a 20-some-step process. This could take, I don't know how
many years, maybe 15 years. Seven years to get a Chief's
Report. Is that typical?
General Walsh. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gibbs. Are you familiar with this?
General Walsh. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gibbs. Is there any way in your SMART or your 3x3 that
you can combine some of these different areas and condense
them, do you have any recommendations?
General Walsh. Yes, sir. The key item that we are looking
underneath the SMART planning process is to make sure that we
have the project scoped realistically. Many times we have
looked at a lot of alternatives that may have not quickly gone
to a solution that is required by the project.
I am not looking at particularly cutting out particular
processes there, but making sure we get through them more
rapidly by putting together a planning charrette, which is
where we bring all three levels of the Corps of Engineers, the
headquarters, the division and the district together and we
come and look at that scope rapidly, make sure that we agree so
that we give direction to the district to move forward more
rapidly.
Mr. Gibbs. And let me just interrupt you right there,
General. I have got a question on that. When you bring the
district, the region and the DC headquarters together, I assume
the purpose is everybody is looking at it the same time, so it
is not going through one level and then they don't know about
it, but I guess my concern would be if it is done right, it
makes sense, but my concern would be is that we don't have just
a top-driven system from Washington that overrides and doesn't
let the process work either, so I am really concerned about
one-size-fits-all policies coming out of this town.
So if they are all looking at it the same time to speed up
the time, that makes sense, but I would have a concern about
taking the local and the regional more out of the picture of
the decisionmaking process. How do see that fitting?
General Walsh. Sir, the local sponsor who typically comes
up with a good deal of the funding has significant control of
the of the process. When we go through the planning charrette,
we are looking at the different alternatives and whether they
are going to have policy issues as they bring things forward.
We also look at risk assessments if there is a particular
solution that they want to bring forward. There are half a
dozen risks that you need to identify and work through to get
through the policy review that we do here at the headquarters.
Mr. Gibbs. I think you have been in this position a little
over a year now?
General Walsh. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gibbs. I think you have made some work to speed up some
of these processes. What have you seen of the backlog? How are
we doing on the backlog?
General Walsh. Sir, we have been working on the planning
process specifically. We had about 650 feasibility reports that
were out there in various shapes, many of them unfunded for
many years. We went through a process of putting these projects
that were active into an inactive status and took those off the
shelf. We reduced that to about 200, and will be funding those
that are closest to being complete. We will put a priority on
those, finish those and get to the next one.
Mr. Gibbs. That makes a lot of sense. My time is up. I
yield to Ranking Member Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Walsh, thank
you very much. Just to pick up on one of the points that the
chairman made in his question, he cited the Chief's Reports
that are post-WRDA 2007. The 14 Chief's Reports that we are
getting in between now and December 31st, their breakdown,
navigation 21 percent, environment 14 percent, flood risk
management 43 percent, and hurricane and storm damage 21
percent. So it just shows the difference that you had one crop
that had a density in the environment, we now have another crop
that has a density in flood risk management. So I would imagine
that that is typical in terms of how projects distribute
themselves over a period of time. Is that about right?
General Walsh. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. General Walsh, you have been perhaps
the prime mover of the 3x3x3 process. It has been in place now
for about 3 years. Can you identify with some degree of
specificity how it has actually worked? Has it improved the
efficiency? Has it reduced the time it takes to move a project
from the point where it is initiated to the point where it is
ready for construction or actually under construction?
General Walsh. Yes, sir. I believe that it will move the
process forward in regards to getting a Chief's Report, mostly
because we will have the full vertical team, that is the
division headquarters, my headquarters and the district,
working together before a project starts in what we call a
planning charrette to make sure that we are looking at all the
alternative solutions to a particular project. Really what we
are looking at is at the start, make sure that we have
realistically scoped what the possible solutions are. We then
put together a risk register, those things that we have looked
at but we think are not going to be a major player in a
particular project. We will put a risk register together, say
we looked at that particular issue and don't believe it is
going to be a major part of the project, so people understand
that we have looked at that particular issue and moved it off
to the side.
So, yes, I think we are going to move things more rapidly
as we move into a decision type of report, not getting so much
data just to fill the report up and look at a lot of different
things. What are the minimum things that I need to look at for
the decisionmaker to make a decision. We have been looking at a
more efficient and effective way of doing planning for a number
of different chiefs. General Strock was looking at that
specifically, General Van Antwerp as well. And General Bostick
has adopted this approach in his Campaign Plan. So the 3x3
method of planning modernization is codified in the Chief's
Campaign Plan.
Mr. Bishop. What impact, if any, has the 3x3x3 approach had
with respect to the process followed by other Federal agencies
with respect to Corps-related projects?
General Walsh. Sir, we are working with the other Federal
agencies both here in Washington and at the local level,
explaining to them how the process works as we move from
decision to decision to decision, so I think we are working
together closely.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Thank you. It remains the case, does it
not, and please, please correct me if I am wrong, that the
biggest impediment to moving a Corps project from its
initiation to its completion is the funding source, whether it
be the funding source from the Federal Government or whether it
be funding from the non-Federal partner with which the Corps is
working. Is that correct?
General Walsh. Yes, sir. The stop-and-start funding
certainly hurts or increases the duration of a study.
Mr. Bishop. OK. So when I said in my opening remarks that
we have met the enemy, and it is us, in part what I was
referring to was a process that we have imposed on the Corps,
coupled with the process that exists in other Federal agencies,
but the other is that we are simply not giving you sufficient
resources to do the jobs that we have tasked you with doing. Is
that correct?
General Walsh. There are two things, sir. One, a lot of
projects throughout the U.S. and trying to get to them all with
the limited funds that we have. What we are looking at now is
taking those projects that are closest to completion, give
those a little bit more on the budget priority, knock them out
and go to the next one, but certainly how much funds we put on
a project significantly impacts its duration.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Crawford, questions.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And General Walsh,
thank you for being here today. In your testimony, you
mentioned the need for the Corps to prioritize Federal funding
on the highest performing projects and studies. Could you give
us some more detail on how the Corps measures the performance
of pending projects and studies?
General Walsh. There are a number of metrics that we look
at. Certainly one that we utilize is the net economic
development number, the cost-benefit ratio, but that is just
one of the items that we look at. We also look at impacts to
the environment and a number of other ratios as well, sir.
Mr. Crawford. What role does the Corps division and
district office play in determining priority projects?
General Walsh. Sir, when we were looking at the 600
projects that were on the shelf, I asked the division and
district commanders specifically which ones that they would not
be able to continue because of lack of funding or a non-Federal
sponsor, and they sent back to us which ones they were not able
to move forward. So they are clearly inside the loop and
prioritizing.
Mr. Crawford. OK. Let me shift gears a little bit. Can you
give me your assessment of the MRT, Mississippi River and
Tributaries project?
General Walsh. Could you repeat that question, sir?
Mr. Crawford. Your assessment of the MRT.
General Walsh. Yes, sir. My assessment is that it has been
quite successful from a systems approach. In 1928 after the
1927 flood, the Chief of Engineers at that time decided to look
at the lower Mississippi as a system. The Nation has invested
about $13 billion over the last 60 years on that project, and
it has prevented hundreds of billions of dollars worth of flood
damages.
In 2011, when we had the record high flows, we had to open
up all three floodways so that we were able to move water
laterally and not stack it up and lose some of our major
cities.
In 1927, tens of thousands of people lost their lives. In
2011, there was no one that lost their life due to flooding
because of that project.
Mr. Crawford. And how would you gauge the recovery of the
MRT in light of the 2000 flooding that took place? Has it
recovered pretty well?
General Walsh. General Peabody has been repairing the
levees and using the emergency supplemental funds that were
appropriated, and so I think it is recovering very well. Right
now there are heavy flows, heavy water down in the lower
Mississippi, and the system hasn't been significantly impacted
from the damages that we had from 2011.
Mr. Crawford. Excellent. And, finally, in October 2012, the
Corps began reducing lock hours of operation due to stagnant
funding and the need to address a growing list of maintenance
projects. Is it currently possible for the Corps to accept non-
Federal funds to increase the hours of operation of Corps-
operated locks?
General Walsh. Sir, we are looking at that specifically as
to how to address the concern where we have for what I call
levels of service. If you have over a thousand lockages a year,
then we will continue to provide the 24/7 service that many
folks have gotten used to. If you have less than that, then we
are reducing those levels of service on a graduating scale.
We have a team trying to figure out how to pull together a
public-private partnership on how to transfer some of those
lockage responsibilities to someone else.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, General. And congratulations on
your retirement and thank you for your service. Yield back.
General Walsh. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gibbs. Representative Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And to dovetail,
General--and thank you for your service, and good luck on your
retirement.
General Walsh. Thank you so much.
Mrs. Napolitano. One of the things that is not spoken to is
the sequestration impact on your staff, on your ability to move
some of the projects. And if you were to by some crystal ball
magic or something get the money to do the projects that need
to be done, would you have the trained personnel to do it?
General Walsh. It is tremendously important that we have
trained people. I look at really to be a master at this, you
need three things. You need education, you need training and
you need experience. A lot of our staff have that, but a lot of
them are reaching that mature age and moving on to other
places. So we are revamping our training, particularly in the
planning community. We are putting that training together now,
and we are requiring that planners be certified in the work
that they do.
Mrs. Napolitano. So it is possible you may not have enough
experienced personnel to carry out some of the projects if you
did have some of the funding?
General Walsh. Congresswoman, we call this methods of
delivery. If the planners in one particular district don't have
the experience needed to bring a feasibility study home, they
will go to other districts that have that trained personnel
that can get that work accomplished.
Mrs. Napolitano. You are borrowing from Peter to pay Paul?
General Walsh. No. Actually it is to work that experience
part. And so those people that have a lot of experience, let's
get them in there and they will----
Mrs. Napolitano. OK.
General Walsh [continuing]. Bring the folks who have not
done a feasibility study along with them. The sequestration has
required us to put $253 million off to the side for the
sequestration bill, which is significantly impacting the water
resources program.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for the answer. The fact that in
my area we have had a problem with raising levees, and one of
the water agencies wanted to participate and be able to help
pay for the study, and we were finding it very hard to have the
Corps accept money. So that should be a priority, because there
are entities that are willing to work, financially support a
project or at least to increase the State portion of it to be
able to get it done, because of many factors: security, the
environmental, keeping more water captured, et cetera.
General Walsh. Yes. We have an ability to do that, it is
called contributed funds, and there is a process where we are
taking sponsors' funds above what is required, making sure we
bring it through our oversight committees, and we are accepting
their funds.
Mrs. Napolitano. I would love to have some of that
information, General.
The other question, from your experience, has the Chief's
Report development process provided a viable process to address
critical procedure or construction issues, and are there
examples of where your report development process has uncovered
concerns that have led to a project either being rescoped or
abandoned?
General Walsh. Yes, Congresswoman. As we try to find
solutions to the challenges that are out there, sometimes we
will find where the solution costs more than the problem. We
call it the national economic development number--NED--the
benefit-cost ratio is less than one, and then we will stop work
on that particular project. So, yes, as we go through the
process, there are some that drop out because there is not a
viable solution that we, the Corps, can be involved with.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, from your experience, does the
Chief's Report development process capture, review the
necessary technical and financial issues that are important for
the implementation of most cost and time effective Corps
construction projects? If not, can you identify where
additional oversight or review could be value added?
General Walsh. Congresswoman, WRDA 2007 requires an
independent technical review of our work on particular projects
that are over $45 million or are contentious. So Congress
required us to do that, and have outside folks come and take a
look at our work.
Since Congress put that into place, we have executed 29
projects going through the independent expert review panel at a
cost of about $9 million. Most of those reviews have not
changed anything in our reports in regards to the solutions.
They have recommended a number of different areas where we tell
the story slightly differently as we put our reports together.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for your answers. Mr. Chair, I
yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Denham.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. Good morning, General. It is a
project the Corps has been working on prior to my time and my 3
years in Congress and even prior to my 8 years before that in
the State Senate. I have continued to work with them before I
was in elected office and now for nearly 11 years that I have
been in elective office. And my question is not so much on the
project as much as it is on the process. And you presided over
a Civil Works Review Board on March 27th, and that resulted in
a unanimous vote on Orestimba Creek, the project that I am
talking about. And as you know, this project has been long
overdue and many of the new SMART planning techniques that you
discussed in your testimony eventually applied to this study.
So my question is, can you discuss the challenges that have
led up to the delay in completing Orestimba Creek and how your
new planning techniques were applied to get over the finish
line, ultimately leading to a planning award that you received
for the project; and secondly, do you think Orestimba can be
used as an example for legacy projects going forward?
General Walsh. Thank you, Congressman. Yes. Part of the
delay was the funding stream that came in for that particular
project that would start and stop, $100,000 one year, $50,000
the next year, the following year there wouldn't be any funds,
and so that caused a lot of concerns.
Another good portion of that project was where the local
sponsors wanted to find a solution that was not viable, and so
we looked for a dam or flood storage up in the foothills, and
we had to look at that from an engineering perspective, also
from an environmental perspective and its impact on California
water. It took a number of years to look at that and describe,
as mentioned by Congresswoman Napolitano, that that solution is
not viable. It took a while to get through that.
Finally they came up with the solution that they delivered
to the Civil Works Review Board 2 weeks ago, and it is an
excellent product. We will put that out for State and agency
review now. It is about 100 pages of what is needed to make
that decision.
Mr. Denham. So now the study has been released for the 38
State and agency review, when do anticipate a completed Chief's
Report?
General Walsh. We will put it out for public comments,
address those comments, and I suspect we will have a Chief's
Report by the end of the year.
Mr. Denham. And going forward, what do you believe is the
best course for Congress to take in authorizing new projects
and ensuring they are completed in a timely manner?
General Walsh. The process is to put together a WRDA and
authorize the reports that the Chief of Engineers has gone
through extraordinary details in making sure that they are
complete and together. Before that report comes to Congress, we
do a district quality control, make sure that that is reviewed
from a quality control point of view. We take that report and
bring it to another district to review it again, and we call
that agency technical review, and then we have policy reviews
up here at the headquarters. Twice it goes out for public
review, State and agency review, and so by the time it comes
over here as a Chief's Reports through the administration, we
are giving you an excellent, excellent product. I usually call
the Chief's Report the gold standard for Congress to authorize
through a WRDA process.
Mr. Denham. And as we are moving through the WRDA process,
is there anything that you can see that can help us to make
this process more efficient, more streamlined, things that you
would need congressional authorization for?
General Walsh. Sir, there are a number of items that we are
working on as we are trying to streamline and husband the funds
that we do have. We have a lot of projects that we should be
looking at and perhaps seeing whether they should be de-
authorized or repurposed or taken off the Federal books because
they are not providing a Federal return. We are looking at the
de-authorization process and how the administration can figure
out how to work that particular process.
Another thing that we are looking at, sir, is our
alternative financing. Is there a way for others to finance. If
we are not going to be able to get a steady stream through the
Federal appropriations process, maybe others can do that, very
similar to here in Virginia, where they have a public-private
partnership where the private organization has built portions
of the highway and are being reimbursed from a different
process. There are a number of different ideas that are not
quite ready for us to share; we are still working on those
things as we move forward.
Mr. Denham. And a final very quick question. Are dams no
longer viable in California under the Corps opinion?
General Walsh. I am not sure how to answer that. I think
those dams that I worked on when I was a district commander in
San Francisco and Sacramento, they were needed for their
intended purpose. There are some projects where the intended
purpose is no longer necessary, and they should probably be
transferred off of Federal books to somebody else who does need
those particular projects, but I couldn't say from a blanket
statement that any dam is not needed.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. I will follow up in writing on more
specifics on my question. Thank you. Yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Representative Frankel.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, you know, one of
the reasons I am sitting here is because projects that Army
Corps is working on are very, very essential to the economy of
south Florida, where I represent, and also helps in safety,
because just for example, Everglades restoration and major
dredging projects in our ports are very, very important.
And I want to just say to both the chairman and the ranking
member that I agree with both of your statements, and I am glad
that we are stepping up to the plate to take responsibility,
because just from my experience working back home, the process
of getting a project--getting a Chief's Report is--you just
could pull the hair out of your head really. I can't--I guess
that is the best way I can explain it, without attributing
blame, because I always think that--I think Congress should
take the responsibility, and therefore, streamline this process
and fund it where it is appropriate, but I don't think it is
one or the other. I think it is both that perhaps--certainly we
are not doing our job with the funding, but it seems to me that
we have created some roadblocks, maybe overprotectiveness in
certain areas that we could really give a little bit of leeway.
And, Mr. Chair, I wanted also to comment that I know the
approach the Senate has taken, which is basically, it seems to
me, to give away our responsibilities on these projects by, I
think they have said that they are going to allow--authorize
any project that has a Chief's Report. And from my point of
view, I will say from south Florida, we have been waiting, for
example, for a Chief's Report in Port Everglades for more than
a dozen years; I don't know, maybe 15 years or so. I think we
are on track now, but maybe not to be finished till the end of
the year. And with the--it is a dredging project. With the
expansion of Panama Canal, we really can't afford not to have
an opportunity to be authorized just for the amount of money.
Mr. Gibbs. Would you yield for a minute? Would you yield? I
believe the Senate WRDA bill gives any Chief's Report that goes
through a Chief's Report, gives OMB the ability to move it
forward. The Senate WRDA bill actually delegates our response--
I believe our congressional responsibility to the executive
branch in a 3-year timeframe, my understanding. So I believe
that is what you are referring to.
Ms. Frankel. Yes. That is right.
Mr. Gibbs. OK.
Ms. Frankel. Yeah. Right. That is correct. So, I mean, I
think that--well, I think we should keep the authority, Mr.
Chairman, but I also--I am concerned about the timing of
getting these Chief's Reports out and getting these projects
authorized. And I wanted to emphasize the fact with the Panama
Canal expansion, I think in 2015, is that the projected date,
that, you know, ports like Port Everglades, and there are
others, really need to get moving on these dredging projects.
So one of the questions--sorry. I have a very sort of
simple question, which is, without authorization in this
particular Congress, if we actually do pass legislation, is it
true that there is--that you cannot go to the next--even if you
get a Chief's Report, let's say by the end of the year, that
you cannot go on to the next stage of the planning and the
design, that we would have to wait for another bill, another
authorization?
General Walsh. To begin construction, we would have to have
the project authorized. There is a process where we can start
planning, engineering and design to do some of the work prior
to that, but again, from a funding level, there is less and
less ability to put planning, engineering, design funds on a
project before it is authorized.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you.
And just--Mr. Chair, I just would urge that--I agree with
your--I absolutely agree with your comments that we need to
streamline what is going on, but I hope that we will not use
that as an excuse not to move some of these very important
projects forward. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Hanna.
Mr. Hanna. Thank you, Chairman.
Of the total number of projects that you work on, how many
fit within the 3x3x3 criteria?
General Walsh. Congressman, it is going to start in fiscal
year 2014, although most of the districts have taken and
wrapped up with the ideas of SMART planning, looking at making
sure we have the scope down correctly and are moving forward.
The direction from the Chief out to the field is if you want to
be in the budget request in the 2014, 2015 budgets, then you
need to have your project rescoped using the 3x3x3 method. So
you----
Mr. Hanna. But what does that look like in real terms? I
mean, how many--you said we can look backwards and figure out
how many projects would fit into that criteria. So as a
percentage, what does it really cover, and are we avoiding the
vast number of much larger projects that are even more
important, letting them fall to the 8-, 10-, 12-, 15-year
timeline?
General Walsh. No. Those projects will be in the 3x3x3
methods, with the exception of watershed studies; we are still
looking at how to streamline a watershed study.
Mr. Hanna. You used from the 1974 Public Law 93-251, a
discount rate for water--and this is in your testimony--Water
Resource Development Act of 7 percent. You mentioned that this
is not the same discount rate as used by the executive branch
for budgeting and economic benefits.
How do you--since it is almost 40 years old, how accurate
is that and how much sense does it make to have two discount
rates out there?
General Walsh. Sir, as we put together the Chief's Reports,
we use the current rate. And as it goes through the
administration budget process, they use the 7-percent rate as
they try to, I guess, equalize the studies that were finished 7
or 8 years ago or 30 years ago to those studies that are coming
through now.
Mr. Hanna. How much time is spent spinning your wheels
around a project that is funded and takes over 5 years and
during the process actually the funding is lost and not
refunded?
General Walsh. I am sorry, sir. I didn't understand the
question.
Mr. Hanna. Congress funds these projects for a period of
time, and clearly that time span in many cases before the
process can be studied has expired. What does that mean in real
terms to you?
General Walsh. Certainly it slows the project down, both
Federal and non-Federal funding; if there is not a steady
stream of efficient funding, the project continues to be
inefficient and not able to deliver on its benefits.
Mr. Hanna. But does it also suggest, because you take so
long to study these that the process shouldn't even be started
unless the funding is given to you through the entire timeline?
General Walsh. We use the funds that are appropriated
until----
Mr. Hanna. Hope for the best.
General Walsh [continuing]. And then put a project on hold
for lack of funds.
Mr. Hanna. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Gibbs. Representative Holmes Norton.
Ms. Norton. Actually, the question of my colleague went to
one of my major concerns. Given the number of projects that
have been fortunate enough to be started but not completed, is
that process--does that process of funding depend upon annual
appropriations or upon funding in your--that you have set aside
somehow in your own budget?
General Walsh. Typically, Congresswoman, that is from an
annual perspective but there are a number of caveats that if
you have funds that you didn't expend in 1 year you can carry
those funds over and keep the project going with carryover
funds as well.
Ms. Norton. I am wondering what happens if a project is
started, no funding for a number of years, I very much
appreciate the new approach, seems to me a commonsense
approach, I don't see how it could have been avoided in the
first place of going to those who were closest to completed,
but the very fact that you are only doing that now suggests
that you weren't doing that before. If you weren't doing that
before and you had all of these uncompleted projects, how did
you keep the funds from being wasted?
How were you funding these projects if you weren't going to
the ones that were closest to being completed?
General Walsh. Congresswoman, each of the projects that we
have moved forward began with the idea that we are going to
bring them to conclusion. As we are putting together a planning
study, we are doing engineering analysis, we are doing real
estate analysis, we are doing flood, economics, environmental
and all of that data is still there and available and if we
can't use it to move forward with the Federal project, perhaps
the locals can use that for a project.
Ms. Norton. I am interested in projects that may have been
started and not completed.
How many projects were out there that have been started and
for lack of funding have not moved forward?
General Walsh. Many.
Ms. Norton. Now if you ever get back to such a project,
don't you find that some of the work has to be repeated or that
there has been deterioration from an engineering point of view?
Would you describe to me what letting a project lie fallow for
years waiting for funding does to that project, its completion
and the efficiency of doing so?
General Walsh. It will significantly impact generating the
benefits that the project was supposed to do.
Ms. Norton. There is some deterioration and degeneration of
work already done?
General Walsh. If we start a physical construction
certainly that will be the case, and we have a project that we
call Olmsted that will be out of authority at the end of the
year and we will start slowing this project down to the point
where we will be taking all the workers off of the site and
just putting a security guard at it.
Ms. Norton. If anybody is interested in Government waste,
this is one of the most, one of the greatest wastes one could
even imagine because if you ever get back to that project and
you can't even assure me, General Walsh, can you, that you will
ever get back to such a project because the funding may not be
there?
General Walsh. Right. Without the authority and the funding
to move forward to complete a project, we would have to close
it down.
Ms. Norton. So you are going to have a partially done
project. All of that money should be counted as wasted. There
is a project here in the District of Columbia which is
considered quite high priority, and I am talking about the
levee on the Mall. And the reason, of course, that it is high
priority is that all your iconic monuments are located either
on the Mall or in the vicinity of the Mall. You have difficulty
with the contractor. I have been briefed on that.
What is the state of this levee project on the Mall to
protect the National Mall where you were only funded for phase
1 and what will come of phase 2?
General Walsh. We will be able to use the funds
appropriated to move forward as far as the funds are available
and hopefully it will be enough to finish up phase 1. As you
mentioned, we have had a challenge with the current contractor,
and we have moved him off the site and asked his surety, his
insurance bond, to come and take that project over. The
district commander is still in negotiations with the surety.
Ms. Norton. Is there any chance that the levee on the
National Mall would be left unfinished?
General Walsh. If there is not enough funding then we would
not be able to finish the project.
Ms. Norton. But you say the funds had been appropriated,
you had problems with, of course, the contractor. You have
surety. Now that you have surety, can you assure me that with
the available insurance the levee, the Mall levee will be
completed?
General Walsh. I can't give you----
Ms. Norton. At least phase 1.
General Walsh. I can't give you that assurance right now
but I will talk to the division and district commander and
respond to you.
Ms. Norton. I wish you would get the response to the
chairman, who I am sure will let me know within 30 days.
[The information follows:]
The Corps and the surety are finalizing a takeover
agreement to resume construction of Phase I of the
project. Upon execution of the takeover agreement,
construction of the 17th Street closure structure would
resume, and should be completed within available
funding.
Mr. Gibbs. OK.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. Time is expired.
Mr. Webster.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question,
General, there is a list of final reports that are still under
development and we have four projects in the Everglades I know
you know about and there is still one that is still not
finalized which would be the fifth project. There is an
italicized date here of December 2013, which would be this
year, that the potential of it being finished. There is,
though, a little sub thing that says, barring any legal
problems. The project is the central Everglades pilot project
and there is an ongoing decades old lawsuit dealing with water
quality, and I would assume that would be maybe the biggest
hold up, I don't know.
But my question is, is there any guarantees that that could
be settled before the end of this year or anything that you
might be able to tell me about that, that we could finalize
that after it has been going on for a long time.
General Walsh. Yes. We are working on it diligently. We
brief the Assistant Secretary of the Army fairly often on that
particular project. I couldn't guarantee we are going to have
it done but we are putting the appropriate amount of effort to
make sure we can deliver on that.
Mr. Webster. Would it be true if we were to stay with the
way it is done right now in the 2007 WRDA bill and policy would
remain the same, if we miss that deadline for getting the
Chief's Report in, it would have to wait until the next passage
of another WRDA bill in order to get included; would that be
true?
General Walsh. People sometimes think that it just needs a
Chief's Report submitted to Congress. What it really needs is a
Chief's Report which has been submitted to the administration,
goes through administration review and then sent over to
Congress. I believe the current authority is those Chief's
Reports that come to Congress from the administration are
available for the Congress to authorize. So it would----
Mr. Webster. Yes. I was only looking at my next step which
is a big step is getting that Chief's Report.
General Walsh. The next step is the Chief's Report but it
won't be over to Congress until it comes through administration
review.
Mr. Webster. But my question is if we miss that deadline,
we would have to wait, if current policy stayed in place we
would have to wait until the next WRDA bill in order to get
that project moving.
General Walsh. Yes. That will be the next opportunity for
regular order to authorize a project.
Mr. Webster. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Nolan, do you have a question?
Mr. Nolan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And General Walsh, thank you for your service and your
testimony here today.
I have got, I just have a couple of quick questions here. I
don't know if you can answer them or not. I hope so.
A person who is quite familiar with the committee and the
Army Corps and some others have suggested to me that in
reviewing the Chief's Reports over the years that perhaps as
much as two-thirds of Corps projects have been concentrated in
the southern United States. And perhaps that is the result of
Katrina and the BP oil spill, but the States of Mississippi,
Louisiana, Texas, Alabama and Florida, how much of the total
Corps budget in your judgment is spent in the Katrina impact
area versus elsewhere in the United States?
General Walsh. Congressman, the Congress authorized $14
billion to build the flood damage risk reduction system around
greater New Orleans. And so that large amount of funding kind
of changes the ratio of what things look like from around the
U.S.
I don't know what data your friend gave you, but certainly
that $14 billion is--we are about $11 billion into that
particular project, $3 billion left to work.
Mr. Nolan. So if you exclude that, take that out of the
picture, how does it apportion across the country do you think?
General Walsh. I hadn't looked at it from that perspective,
Congressman. I have worked as a district commander in
California in both San Francisco, Sacramento, and we had plenty
of projects there to work on. I was a commander for South
Atlantic Division and we had a number of projects also in the
Southeast and then I was a commander for the Mississippi Valley
Division. So from where I have sat it seems to be evenly
placed. But I never sat down to work the numbers or the
authorizations. It really would depend on what data that you
are looking for, authorized projects or funds or I am not quite
sure what that data would show.
Mr. Nolan. I am trying to get a feel for where all the
projects and all the money is going.
One other unrelated question but an important one, and that
is how much additional revenue do you estimate is needed for
the Corps to meet what the Corps perceives to be the Nation's
existing needs?
General Walsh. Sir, I don't know if I can have an answer to
that. Certainly the water resource needs of the future in
America is going to become more acute, I think. Oil was the
significant liquid in the last century. Water is going to be
the significant liquid in this century certainly in the United
States. As water becomes more dear we are going to have
significant problems like we have between Georgia, Florida and
Alabama on who is going to be able to take water out of the
river, the same thing with the upper Missouri and the lower
Missouri States are arguing over water as well. I think they
are going to be more acute in the future and we are going to
have to address those as we get to it.
Mr. Nolan. Are you reasonably certain in your mind that we
will need additional revenues to meet the ongoing needs of the
future?
General Walsh. Yes, Congressman. We are going to have to
address the water problems of this Nation in the future.
Mr. Nolan. And that will require more revenue in your
judgment?
General Walsh. And that will require more authority and
more funding.
Mr. Nolan. All right, thank you very much, General, for
your service and the great job that you guys do.
General Walsh. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you. General Walsh, Mr. Brown, thank you
for being here. Jen Greer, thank you also for being here. It is
always nice to embarrass the staff once in a while as a former
staffer.
General Walsh. I try and do that as well, Sir.
Mr. Davis. Well, good. Jen and I have worked together since
she was in the St. Louis District and I have had the pleasure
of working with the St. Louis District personnel, Rock Island
personnel and Louisville District personnel for the last 16
years and you have some fine people that work for the Corps of
Engineers. So thank you for what you do.
General Walsh. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Davis. I want to center most of my comments and
questioning on the Metro East levee project in southwestern
Illinois. As you may know the levee district, a local levee
district was created in 2009 called the Southwestern Illinois
Flood Prevention District which was set up to bring in revenue
to provide the local share of upgrading our levees that protect
many of the areas in southwestern Illinois.
It seemed at that time that FEMA was going to go through a
de-accreditation process to move the levees into, to de-
accredit them to put them in much more of a flood hazards zone
and therefore rising costs for many of my constituents and Bill
Enyart's constituents in southwestern Illinois.
The locals have done their job, they have put together the
plan of action, they have made sure that they have gotten a
revenue source to be able to move projects forward and they are
a little frustrated right now.
The first issue that has been brought to my attention is
that there seems to be multiple layers of review in the St.
Louis District and in Washington, DC, and it seems to stall the
project to the sense that we are sometimes fighting a battle of
who is going to wait the longest, FEMA or the Corps or the
locals to actually get this project done. At a time when
Federal funds are limited and we are asking these local
sponsors like the Southwestern Flood Prevention District to
take on more responsibility for improving these deficient
levees, what is the Corps doing to expedite and streamline the
technical and regulatory review process of these locally
sponsored projects?
In particular in the Metro East we have projects that are
designed by private engineering firms, licensed professional
engineers with documented expertise, but it seems these designs
just get caught up in these layers that I mentioned. Can you
explain this and answer this question?
General Walsh. Yes, Congressman. By the way, the local
levee district was excellent in bringing in revenues so that
they can fund the projects that they need to move forward. The
Metro East project was authorized to provide about 500-year
level of protections and the locals want to work through, not
go right to the 500, they want to go through a 100-year level
or 1-percent chance of flooding to the 500-year. We have been
working very closely with that board in making sure as they do
the engineering, we have something that is called a 408 permit,
to make sure that they are doing the engineering correctly
before they significantly influence that levee. We wouldn't
want, and I think you would agree, we wouldn't want them to do
something on a levee that protects that city that was not a
tried and true method of providing flood risk reduction in that
particular area.
They were using a technique that we hadn't seen used in a
large way in that area. So we had to make sure that it was not
only cutting edge but also going to be providing the benefits
that were talked about.
I think over time they recognized that that was not the
solution and they have gone back and come up with a different
more tried and true engineering solution to that project.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you, General Walsh. My time is
running out so I am going to throw a few things in my last line
of questioning to get you to respond.
First of all, when do you expect the decision that might be
made so that we can move through this 408 process? What is
your, is any other information that the locals need to provide
that is subject to review? And could we get a timeline on when
a decision is expected?
Also, could you let me know when a decision is expected on
the request by the locals for a project labor agreement? The
comment period is still open. I want to know if you expect a
decision soon and if so when.
And also, General, I look forward to working with you on a
couple pieces of legislation that I have introduced. One is the
private partnership, the Public-Private Partnership Act, the
WIN P3 Act. I am really looking forward to seeing projects up
and down the Mississippi and Illinois River move forward and I
would love to hear a response on how you think that could
affect the outcome of upgrading our locks and dams. And also
since I represent an ag district we have a bipartisan piece of
legislation called the Mississippi River Navigation Act. So
hopefully both of these proposals that are in the Senate WRDA
bill will be put in the House WRDA bill, and I would like your
take on both of them.
So thank you.
General Walsh. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, thank you very much for the work that you and the
men and women in the Corps do. It is extraordinarily important
across the Nation, I believe we have some issues on the
Missouri or one of the rivers this morning with some levee
breaks, so the protection of our population from flooding is of
utmost importance. It certainly is in my district, I represent
200 miles of the Sacramento River Valley, including the Feather
and Yuba River systems and the Delta of California. For us,
here in the dais, we have the responsibility, we just took $250
million out of your budget for this year in sequestration and
asking you to do more. I don't think that is responsible for us
to do such a thing but we did it. Hopefully we can replace that
money and more. The earmark is an issue, we have had many
discussions about that in this committee, and we really need to
get at that. It is something that is very, very important. We
have the responsibility and we have foregone that
responsibility by eliminating our ability to direct projects,
and I would, I think we all know that. We have to find the
courage to revisit and overcome the earmark.
Specifically, General, you mentioned the 408 in the
previous question. We have a 408 issue on the Sutter Butte
Levee project, the Feather River program, about 40 miles of
levee of utmost importance to Yuba City and the surrounding
communities. I know this is being processed and I thank you for
the work that is being done in getting that 408 approved and
out of the way. There are no issues but if there is a further
delay, we will miss this year's construction on a section of
the Feather River Levee that has broken twice in the last 40
years. Earlier many lives were lost. This is a Shanghai Bend
portion of that. I ask for your attention to that and, if
possible, quick action on it so that that project can get
underway. It is not Federal funding involved here, it is a
local program and State.
Beyond that, there are going to be many issues. The WRDA
bill that has been passed by the Senate only authorized those
projects that have a Chief's Report at the time of enactment,
which will probably cause projects that are important to
Members in this House and maybe some Senators to be delayed, as
was discussed a moment ago, for some period of time until there
is a new WRDA bill. I think we ought to take a very close look
at that.
General, your comments on this would be appreciated. How
can we overcome that particular problem where we would be
dependent upon a Chief's Report until there is a new WRDA bill
which could be years in the making?
General Walsh. Congressman, both the chairman and ranking
member talked about that in their opening statements. When the
Water Resources Development Act started in the seventies it was
planned that it would happen every 2 years. It hasn't and that
is the method to authorize water resources projects. So I won't
comment on the Senate piece but getting back to regular order
as mentioned by the minority member probably is the approach.
Mr. Garamendi. I suppose it wasn't a fair question to you.
That is a question for us I suspect. So my apologies, General.
I will let it go at this. If you would just take a quick look
at the Sutter Butte project on the Feather River, the 408 issue
is before you and your shop and quick review, all of the issues
were addressed in the earlier review and if you could pop that
out it would be very helpful and we can get that project
underway this summer in anticipation of next year's rain,
particularly on the Shanghai Bend.
Thank you very much, General, and, Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
General Walsh. Yes, Congressman. We will take a close look
at it. It hasn't made it to headquarters yet. I am expecting it
later this month.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Chairman, if I might, General,
California has been in the President's budget, has been well,
not well cared for but there are many, many projects and a lot
of work and I want to once again thank the Corps and the men
and women in the Corps for their work on those projects
throughout California and we really appreciate it. Hamilton
City and others. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Ribble.
Mr. Ribble. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Reid
Ribble. I am from northeast Wisconsin, including the cities of
Green Bay and Appleton, so right on the shore of Lake Michigan
there. And I apologize in advance if my questions are redundant
from something you have heard before. I had to step out of the
room for about 10 minutes and somebody else might have talked
along the same line but I have heard a lot of comments today
about how do we speed things up, how do we make this more
efficient, how do we actually get there.
And based on your testimony today it sounds like a project
typically begins with a reconnaissance study, which when that
is done initiates a feasibility study, which is six steps in
the feasibility study; concurrently going on there is a NEPA
study, there are a series of checkpoints during this study to
make sure you are complying with laws, and then after that
there is a quality review of the study. After that there is an
agency technical review of the quality review and then an
external peer review.
Going on into your testimony, the MSC commander performs a
quality assurance review on documents that they are going to
transmit to Corps headquarters which then Corps headquarters
performs a 45-day policy review in advance of the Civil Works
review. After the CWRB determines a report is sufficient, they
release, the study is released for a 30-day State and agency
review. After the State and agency review is done, the report
of the Chief of Engineers is finalized and processed and the
final package includes the agency responses to that, a signed
report of the Chief of Engineers transmits a recommendation to
the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. It then
goes to there upon receipt of the report of the Chief of
Engineers shall review and provide any recommendation regarding
the project to Congress within 120 days. The ASA(CW) prior to
transmittal of a Chief's Report to Congress is responsible for
determining that the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
are compliant with other policy, including applicable laws,
Executive orders, and regulations, which entails an additional
review to make sure that there are no unresolved issues. In
addition, at the end of this you say in addition then the
Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12322
reviews the proposed project for consistencies with the
principles and guidelines.
Well, I am glad that they are reviewed.
I am assuming some of these are required by law, that men
and women like those of us sitting at the tables up here are
making you do all these reviews. Some of them are probably your
efforts to make sure that things are done right.
But it seems to me that we have created a system of review
that is now handcuffing the Corps from doing things that your
Corps competencies should be able to do without these layers.
And I am wondering is there a lack of confidence in your
teams that you require all these reviews? Or how do we get to a
place where we could actually streamline these things so that
the process can move forward which would save the taxpayers'
money and work would actually get done which would boost our
economy?
General Walsh. Thank you, Congressman. Sounds like you have
got our process down. It is a difficult challenge to move a
Chief's Report through all of the processes, which is why the
Chief of Engineers has adopted our planning modernization
process as part of his Campaign Plan so that we can do a
Chief's Report in 3 years. That is his requirement to us, and
we are moving forward with putting those together.
What that means is at the beginning of the process, we
bring the three levels of the Corps of Engineers, the
headquarters, the division and the district, and the non-
Federal sponsor together and we go through to make sure that we
are scoping the project realistically. If it is a flood control
project, what are the solutions to solve those, let's look at
the policy level issues at the beginning of it as we are
scoping the project and bringing it forward.
Mr. Ribble. Can I interrupt you for a second? Is this
process the same for all projects? Or is there a difference
between a flood management project, which seems to be fairly
complex, and maybe dredging the harbor way in Green Bay,
Wisconsin, which seems pretty simple to me? Is the process the
same?
General Walsh. If the project is going to get authorized by
Congress, they have to go through this process. Now if it is a
small project we have the Continuing Authorities Program for
those projects that are $5 million and less, and some people
say abbreviated process. But I think trying to get to a Chief's
Report in 3 years is the key item that we are working on, to
get through all of those hoops and hurdles that you just
mentioned, and I call them hoops and hurdles, but there are
good policy reasons on why we do a lot of those, particularly
State and agency review and public review, because there are
things that we might not have looked at as we are doing the
engineering analysis. And so we are looking to get those things
completed now in 3 years.
Mr. Ribble. And I would encourage you to the ability that
you can to let us know what we can do to help you to streamline
this process, whether it is concurrent review system or
something, because this is hugely expensive to the taxpayer and
the delay is even more costly to the economy.
Thanks again for being here. I don't mean to be critical. I
am just trying to get my arms around what we can do to get a
better policy moving forward. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
General Walsh. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Gibbs. Ms. Esty.
Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and as I have recently
had the pleasure of welcoming your crew from New England to my
district a couple of weeks ago which made people very excited
to have our Corps Day and you have an excellent crew, and I
want to thank you. My grandfather helped build locks and dams
on the Mississippi with the Corps back in the 1940s, so a long
history.
In the past, as has already been mentioned by my colleague,
Mr. Garamendi, Congress prioritized projects in the Continuing
Authorities Program. Given that that is not now happening and
we are much more restricted in that, I am concerned that the
program is oversubscribed heavily. And can you talk to us a
little bit about how the Corps prioritizes projects in the
Continuing Authorities Program at this point, how many projects
are currently in the queue for example.
General Walsh. The Continuing Authorities Program is
oversubscribed and trying to get to those projects that are
closest to being complete, prioritizing those, funding those at
the highest that we can for capability reasons and then
bringing them to a conclusion and then going to the next one
down on the list is the best way I know to go get them to
completion and then go down so you can get the next one. So
instead of lots of projects with limited funds, let's just work
down the list.
Ms. Esty. And if you can give is us any advice. For
example, I have a big I have a project in my district in
Meriden, Connecticut, that has matched funding coming in from
EPA on some elements on brownfields funds coming in from the
State government on a variety of different issues.
Is that something that would receive additional priority
because you already have committed funds, HUD funds and
elsewhere?
General Walsh. It would certainly be included in the
thought process in regards to prioritization. But again I don't
know where that project is and how close it is to completion. I
would have to look at that, but certainly having more people at
the table contributing funds to a particular project is
something that we are looking forward to in the future.
We are looking forward to putting a future budget together
based on the watershed approach. Right now we look at the
program project by project and sometimes a project may have
negative impacts in another area. So we are looking at how to
evaluate all of the water resource needs in a watershed. We
would bring together all the Federal agencies, nongovernmental
and local governments, and try to figure out how to work on
solving the water resource needs from a watershed approach.
Ms. Esty. Well, I am very grateful to hear that because we
are not in the water stressed regions of California but rather
these issues on watersheds where if one community does one
project, you can actually just aggravate issues further
downstream with flooding issues. We are working very hard in
Connecticut, for example, on restoration of borders of streams.
Well, that has come in conflict with levee requirements in
areas from 50 years ago and we are having a great deal of
tension around that. So I think a watershed approach would
actually be extremely helpful for a district like mine with New
England where sadly with the increase of severe weather events,
which was my previous hearing we were hearing about severe
weather events on the Science Committee, that we are going to
see more of this and we are going to see more rapid downpours
putting stress on watersheds that previously didn't have
flooding and now are going to have flooding.
So again we share concerns about inadequate funding making
your job difficult, making your task and our shared task of
ensuring the safety of our communities and our citizens,
putting them at risk. And we look forward to working with you.
Thank you for your service. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
Mr. Rice.
Mr. Rice. Thank you, sir, and thank you, General Walsh, for
being here today. I have had the opportunity to meet with
General Walsh, and your decades of service--distinguished
service--I believe him to be an honorable and bright man who
has done a lot for our country and your work on this 3x3 is
critically important. I don't think there is anything more
important than keeping our Nation competitive with the rest of
the world. I think we are feeling a little bit in that regard
not because of your efforts but because of ours, and
infrastructure is the key to that. It is so hard to find the
infrastructure dollars and when we have these processes and
regulations in place that require these lengthy studies that
you have to undertake, then a lot of those infrastructure
dollars end up being diverted into the studies rather than into
digging ports or laying asphalt or building levees.
So, that is my key concern.
I listened to the processes that Mr. Ribble ran out. I
realize that we have got an incredible amount of work to do in
that regard. Certainly we have to protect the environment, but
we also have to protect our economy. So anything we can do, I
think we have placed you in a vise. You are caught between
Congress encouraging you, pushing you to make things happen
more quickly and trying to satisfy the laws that we have in
fact put in place. So I feel for you. I know you are in a tough
spot. And I appreciate your efforts to do both. And I just want
to know what we can do to help you accomplish that.
General Walsh. Congressman, I think the recognition that
infrastructure is key to the future, being competitive is going
to be very important. A lot of times when we talk about
infrastructure, we talk about roads, rails and runways and
sometimes we forget to talk about rivers. And so as we as a
Nation address the infrastructure issues of the future we need
to also need to recognize that fourth R as we move forward.
The American Society of Civil Engineers released their
report a month ago that said that our infrastructure is a D,
and not getting well fast. And so I don't know how--it will be
a challenge to remain competitive as we move into the future,
as other people are beginning to develop their water resources
such as Brazil, India, China and others. And so I think we as a
Nation need to recognize that the infrastructure is
tremendously important and not so much an expense but an
investment on future benefits.
Mr. Rice. I completely agree with you and use those same
words when I look at projects like the Port of Miami which have
taken over a decade for approval and don't involve any Federal
dollars, and when I look at the fact that the Panama Canal will
be open for these post-Panamax ships in a year and a half and
we are going only going to have two ports on the east coast
that can take them, Baltimore and Norfolk. I recognize that we
have got to get ourselves out of the way and get these
infrastructure projects built because if they drop the cost of
transporting a container by 10 percent and we can't take these
ships then we are placing our American businesses at a
competitive disadvantage and we will lose real American jobs.
So we have got to work ourselves out of this conundrum. We have
got to simplify this process.
I so appreciate the fact that you have put yourself into
this with this 3x3. My only encouragement to you is that we get
it to a 1x1 because when I think about the fact that they have
been working on in Miami port project for 13 years and you
mentioned Brazil and India and China, I wonder how many ports
have been deepened in those areas in that 14-year period, and
even if we started digging today that Miami port project would
not be completed by the time the Panama Canal is open.
So it is a real serious crux issue for this country. And I
look forward to your suggestions on how we can deal with it.
Thank you very much, sir. I yield back my time.
General Walsh. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Davis [presiding]. The gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Meadows, is recognized.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Chairman Davis, and thank you,
General Walsh, for being here. Mr. Brown, thank you as well.
And I don't want to address any specific projects, but I do
want to go back and follow up on what the gentleman from South
Carolina was hitting on and it is about the speed of those
projects.
We never kill a project, we just study it. And the problem
with that is we study it and study it and study it until
eventually it either goes away or it gets defunded or people
holler so much that we have got to do something about it. And
so with the 3x3 process, I see a lot of our problem being more
regulatory and administrative law versus just laws that are
dedicated by Congress. And so what I would ask you to comment
on specifically is what regulatory agencies do you see, whether
they be Federal or State agencies, are creating the most
burdensome regulatory compliance issues that you are having to
deal with in order to get some of your studies done so that we
can get construction to actually happen?
General Walsh. Well, sir, we work with all the Federal and
State regulatory agencies.
Mr. Meadows. So if you could eliminate one which one would
it be?
General Walsh. I don't know I would eliminate the mission
of any of the agencies that are out there. Certainly, and I
know you might agree if you have traveled to a lot of
international places, there are places that don't put as much
effort in their environment, their water and air, and it is
just deplorable. I think our environmental laws were put in
place and have significantly helped our environment.
Mr. Meadows. So you are saying you wouldn't change any of
them? Because what I am trying to find out are what are the
regulatory things that you are having to deal with that if you
were in my position you would say well, let's get rid of this
and you are saying every regulation and every policy that we
have out there right now has an ultimate good, I think your
quote was it is good policy.
So you are saying you wouldn't get rid of anything to speed
up the process?
General Walsh. At this point as we go through the
regulatory processes, people are looking at the things that
were authorized by Congress for them to look at if they are
talking from a Federal perspective.
From the State, certainly the State historic preservation
is something that we need to look at as we go through a
particular project. And I think there, to look at things from a
historical perspective is important and we should be doing that
as well. So I can't think of something that I would say this is
the red star cluster that I should ask you to take out.
Mr. Meadows. Not a single Federal regulation that you would
get rid of?
General Walsh. Not a red star cluster that I would tell
you, no, sir.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Are there any other agencies that
you would prefer to be under your purview where you don't have
to work with somebody from a different agency so you can
streamline the process that way?
General Walsh. Sir, I think the laws of the land have put
these agencies and processes into place to look at----
Mr. Meadows. Let's assume that we can change the laws. What
would you change?
General Walsh. I wouldn't be able to put that out to you
right now in regards to change. We work very closely with our
regulatory agencies so that we can respond to their
requirements and meet the national goals from an environmental
point of view.
Mr. Meadows. And so if we give you additional time, can you
come up with recommendations that you can submit to this
committee or are we just going to be going to have these kind
feasibility studies that are sitting here in front of me
forever that 90 percent of the people don't read anyways? What
can we eliminate to streamline the process?
General Walsh. What we are looking at now is, again,
bringing the three levels of the Corps of Engineers to look at
a project, at the scoping mechanism. We are looking at how to
scope it realistically, and so I think that is what is really
going to drive a smaller project volume than what you see there
to what I am looking at--probably a 100-page report that we can
bring over here to Congress.
I think we can streamline from that perspective.
But having our reports go through environmental, State and
agency review I think is important to meet all of the needs of
a particular project.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So I am out of time and I will
yield back, but this last question. So am I to understand there
is not a single regulatory act or agency at this point that you
would do away with to streamline the process other than the
State historic?
General Walsh. No, sir. I wouldn't. I would not be able to
provide a list of those things that were put in place by law
and that I have to abide by. And I did not say that the State
Historic Preservation Office should be eliminated.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the Chair's indulgence. I yield back.
Mr. Davis. The gentleman from Long Island, New York, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to pick up
where the gentleman from North Carolina just ended. We have, I
thought Mr. Ribble did an excellent job of delineating the
process, the overwhelming majority of which has been imposed on
you by us. And so I guess I want to ask the specific question,
and I know you can't answer it now, but I do know that as we
are preparing WRDA 2013 there have been conversations at the
staff level about how we can try to streamline the process.
Can I ask that you come back to us, not now, in writing,
with whether of the 21 steps, are there any specific steps that
we could either eliminate or consolidate with other steps? Or
are there blocks of steps that we can either eliminate or
consolidate as we look to go forward here?
General Walsh. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, General. I appreciate it. I think
that would be very helpful for all of us as we try to work our
way through this process.
The other thing I just want to sort of emphasize a point
that I made earlier and then ask a question about that. When
Mr. Denham asked you the questions about the project that he is
interested in in California and his concerns about how long it
has taken, your response was, I am summarizing your response,
that basically the funding stream was uncertain which delayed
the project and that there was then, I won't say a
disagreement, but some lack of consensus with your local cost
share partner in terms of the right way to undertake the
project, is that correct?
General Walsh. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. So, two, a project that had a long gestation
period and two of the problems were the problems that we have
been talking about which are funding and cost share partner
having either insufficient funds or a different idea on how the
project should go forward.
General Walsh. That significantly impacts the duration of a
project.
Mr. Bishop. So here is my question. I represent eastern
Long Island. I have about 300 miles of coastline, including
about 75 miles of Atlantic coast. We now have $5.3 billion
through the Sandy supplemental that will go to the Corps to
repair Sandy-related damage and mitigate against further damage
if we are to get another storm of the same intensity as Sandy.
Now that is a lot of money.
Will that not give us an opportunity to see how the Corps
can work through a process when the funding stream is
guaranteed and, at least in this particular case, for Fire
Island and Montauk Point reformulation study area projects, the
local cost share, Federal Government is going to take 100
percent of the cost share. So that will give us a mechanism or
probably a living example for us to see how the Corps process
works when it is adequately funded, right?
General Walsh. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. OK. And that we also had that opportunity with
Katrina right? Which we have got an awful lot done in a
relatively short period of time with Katrina.
General Walsh. Yes, sir. The three things we had at Katrina
was full Federal funding, an abbreviated NEPA process, and a
commitment from the Nation to get it done in a short amount of
time.
Mr. Bishop. I guess what I am saying is I want to make sure
we keep our eye on the ball, that we are all talking about
regulatory agencies and 21 steps--and by the way I don't mean
to diminish the importance of those, but we could eliminate all
of that, and if we give you funding in dribs and drabs year
after year after year, projects are going to take a hell of a
long time to get done, right?
General Walsh. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, gentlemen. And I really
appreciate your work and I wish you well in your retirement.
Thank you.
General Walsh. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Davis [presiding]. Hello again, General. I left off my
line of questioning, I ran out of time and didn't give you
adequate time to respond to some of those questions. So I would
like to reiterate a few of them.
First off, can you give me an estimated time of when you
think the 408 permit process for the Southwestern Illinois
Flood Prevention District might be all issues settled and
offered?
General Walsh. Sir, the last time I looked at that was
about 3 months ago. I would have to get an update from that.
Three months ago we had not yet had the submission from the
local sponsor. So I couldn't give you an answer because we
hadn't gotten the submission and I don't know if we have it
yet. So I will have to go back and look at it and certainly can
have one of my staff call your staff later this week and tell
you where we are in that process.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
General Walsh. That particular issue had us look at 408
issues, both minor 408 and major 408, and if it is a minor 408
issue, they can resolve that locally, and if it is a major one
it has to come to headquarters for our review.
The last time I worked at that particular project, we
decided that it was a major 408. But again if the submission
has changed then it may be minor but I don't know the details.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much for that.
I know the locals have also requested to use a project
labor agreement on one portion of construction, on the Wood
River cutoff wall project in Wood River, Illinois.
Do you have an estimated time of when a decision will be
made of whether or not that request will be granted or denied?
General Walsh. I think it is still out for comment and as
soon as the comment period closes, the district commander will
make a decision. I will have to have staff get back with you
later this week on the timeframe because I am not familiar with
that.
Mr. Davis. OK, thank you for that.
Another one of my pieces of legislation that I talked about
hopefully it is going to be included in any WRDA bill that
passes our Chamber just like it is in the Senate, is our
Public-Private Partnership Act, the WIN P3 Act, which I think
could give the Corps some valuable tools to move projects that
are essential right now up and down the Mississippi River in
and around my district that are essential to my constituents'
jobs and our local economy.
Can you comment on how you think that piece of legislation
or that language that is in the Senate WRDA bill in the
language that is in our bill how could it positively affect
some of the large infrastructure projects that you may be
working on in the future throughout this country?
General Walsh. Congressman, generally, we don't make
comment on pending legislation. So I won't comment on either
the Senate or your----
Mr. Davis. But it is a good bill.
General Walsh [continuing]. Your bill as well. But I think
and we are working on how to use public-private partnerships in
the future. Certainly our hydropower systems are running at
about 89-percent efficiency. If we had more investments in our
hydropower system and bringing the efficiencies up from 89
percent to normal industry standards, which is about 98
percent, if we can't fund that out of the general fund then
let's bring in a public-private partnership, fund the
difference and figure out a way for him to pull his investment
out of that particular project.
I have got guys working on trying to figure out how to do
public-private partnership in water resources in the future,
and that hasn't developed far enough along for me to share yet.
Mr. Davis. OK. I have another bill, the Mississippi River
Navigation Act, that I know you can't comment on. So let me ask
you can you comment on how further study, more navigation tools
for the Corps and forecasting improvements can help Corps
prevent further problems like we saw last year during the low
water on the Mississippi when it comes to navigation?
General Walsh. Certainly we have a project that is called
NESP, Navigation Ecosystem Sustainment Program, that is work on
the upper Mississippi and we are trying to figure out how to
forecast grain prices 50 years from now and that is challenging
to do and put together a decent cost-benefit ratio on that. But
we are still looking at what kind of tools can we use to pull
that together.
In regards to floods and droughts, at the beginning of this
year we were in the flood stage and we were briefing everybody
that needed to be briefed and 2 months later we were in the
drought stage and we had to blow up the pinnacles down in the
St. Louis area and now we are in flood stage again. I don't
know, certainly working with the director of National Weather
Service I don't know if the climatologists were giving us this
variability in the last 4 months. I don't know that we have a
tool that could do that. But certainly we are working with what
I call the fusion cell between the Corps of Engineers, the
National Weather Service, and the USGS to figure out how and
where should we be investing resources so that we can have a
better predictability on water and water resources.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you very much for those comments.
I am concerned about the flooding that is going on right
now. I understand that you have to deal with a wide variety of
issues, droughts, floods. Thank you for all your district
service in helping to fight the floods along the Mississippi
right now. My heart goes out to the hard work that they are
putting in on a daily basis.
We want to give you more flexibility to be able to address
those situations, which is why I put that bill forward. So if
that is something we can do to allow you to come in and address
emergency situations, I think we should work together to make
that happen.
My last line of questioning has to do with infrastructure.
As I mentioned before, I have been working for your local
districts for upwards of 16 years and we have talked about
upgrading large lock and dam projects along the Mississippi and
Illinois. I have heard comments from the Corps that even if we
were to fully fund those projects that are authorized that it
would take upwards of 40 years to complete the projects.
Could you comment on the length of time that you think it
will take to actually upgrade the locks and dams along the
Mississippi and Illinois Rivers?
General Walsh. Right now the funding stream is restricted
with the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, which generates about $80
million a year and out of the general fund comes another $80
million, so $160 million a year to do the major work on the
locks and dams. And so with that small funding stream, we are
just not going to be able to keep up with the infrastructure
that needs to be repaired.
There is a lock down in Louisiana, it is call the Inner
Harbor and it is 89 years old. As you go through that and the
locks open and close, you can see concrete falling off the lock
walls into the river. We are not going to get to that at this
current funding stream for another 15 years. So it is going to
have significant impacts on our infrastructure with the funding
stream as it is currently structured.
Mr. Davis. I completely agree, which is why we have our WIN
P3 legislation that we are hoping to pass.
I am concerned too about Olmsted. I think the Corps had the
best intentions to build this in the wet and to come in as
close to budget as possible but going from $775 million on a 7-
year construction cycle to $3.1 billion, we have got some
issues when it comes to large infrastructure projects.
What has the Corps learned in constructing that project
that we can then take away to ensure that we don't hit those
limits again or exceed them again?
General Walsh. One of the issues that we are having with
the Olmsted lock and dam again is the amount of funding that we
can bring to that project. At $120 million a year is just a
struggle to put together an efficient program to get that
complete. What we have demonstrated down in Louisiana is if you
give us, and Mr. Bishop already talked about that and the same
thing for Hurricane Sandy, full Federal funding, we can go get
it accomplished.
In this case we are taking Federal funding and trust fund
funding and moving forward at this little amount each year.
The other piece is I think we just did not put together a
good cost estimate when we initially put the project forward.
So what we are doing now is we put together a center of
expertise on cost reviews. That is in the Walla Walla District
so every big project that we have we send over to Walla Walla.
They make sure that we are doing a fair job saying how much it
is going to cost as we move these projects forward.
We will be pulling the men off of this project and right
now we have three shifts. We will be pulling them off at the
end of the year because there is not enough authority for us to
put any more funds on that project. So it will have a
significant impact on the benefits that were supposed to be
derived from this project because of the funding, because of
funding authority at this point.
Mr. Davis. I hope we can work together and come up with a
solution to that issue and a solution to make sure that project
is completed.
I want to thank you again, General, thank you, Mr. Brown,
for being here. Thank you, Jen Greer, for being here too. He
pointed you out this time. Thank you all for attending this
hearing and the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]