[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A REVIEW OF RECENT UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CHIEF'S
REPORTS AND POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORTS
=======================================================================
(113-68)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 29, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
87-700 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
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 ANDREE 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
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina
DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
(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 LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Arkansas, Columbia
Vice Chair EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
JEFF DENHAM, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin JANICE HAHN, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
STEVE DAINES, Montana ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
TOM RICE, South Carolina DINA TITUS, Nevada
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois (Ex Officio)
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina
DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Major General John Peabody, 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 John Peabody....................................... 31
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, request to submit letter from Eric
Garcetti, mayor of Los Angeles, California, April 29, 2014..... 14
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A REVIEW OF RECENT UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CHIEF'S
REPORTS AND POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORTS
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m. in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Gibbs. The Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment, will come to order. Welcome.
First, I want to do a little bit of housekeeping here. I
ask unanimous consent to allow Congressman Farenthold to
participate in today's committee hearing.
[No response.]
Mr. Gibbs. With no objection, so ordered. Also, I ask
unanimous consent that the hearing record be kept open for 30
days after this hearing in order to accept other submissions of
written testimony for the hearing record.
[No response.]
Mr. Gibbs. No objection? Without objection, so ordered.
Today we are here to review the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Chief's Reports and Post-Authorization Change
Reports. And we have General Peabody as our guest. And I will
yield to myself, first, our opening statement.
First, welcome again, and we are holding this hearing, the
Chief's Report, and the process the Corps undertakes to develop
these water resources development 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 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, and fish and wildlife
mitigation.
The Corps of Engineers planning process considers economic
development and environmental needs as it addresses water
resources challenges. The planning process addresses the
Nation's water resources needs in a system context, and
explores a full range of alternatives in developing solutions
that meet both national and local needs.
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 Resource 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 an 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 adverse
impacts to be included in each of the alternative plans to
review--are reviewed in the study. The Corps of Engineers also
is 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 the
alternative plan.
These planning efforts do not take place in a back room
somewhere. There are public meetings as well as interagency
meetings involving local, State, and other Federal agencies.
Typically, a plan recommended by the Corps of Engineers is a
plan with the greatest net economic benefit, and consistent
with protection of the Nation's environment. However, the Corps
does not have the discretion to recommend another alternative--
does have, I should put it, does have the discretion to
recommend another alternative if there are overriding reasons
for recommending another plan, based on other Federal, State,
or local concerns.
By now, many of us have seen the actual size of typical
studies carried out by the Corps of Engineers. While these are
complex projects that need to 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. 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 are ultimately supposedly to provide.
As we have constructed a policy-heavy Water Resources
Development Act, WRDA, both the House and Senate conferees are
focused on accelerating the study and project delivery process,
as well as better prioritizing these worthwhile investments
that the American public has relied on in the past for decades.
And I am interested to have--to hear General Peabody's
testimony on what--their process they are doing to streamline
and expedite the process to get these projects going. Because,
as we all know, time is money. And we are falling behind in our
global competitiveness by not having our infrastructure where
it needs to be.
So at this time I yield to my ranking member, Mr. Bishop
from New York, for any comments he may have.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I thank
you and committee Chairman Shuster for holding this hearing on
outstanding Chief's Reports and 902 project budget increase.
This hearing is a critical step towards closure and completion
of the Conference Report and final bill language for the long-
awaited Water Resources Reform and Development Act. This
hearing provides Congress the ability to perform one of our
most important roles: oversight and review of the Army Corps of
Engineers programs, and authorization of specific projects.
Before I begin my statement, I would like to welcome
General Peabody here to this morning's hearing. Thank you, sir,
for your service and attention to the water engineering needs
of our country. And, most importantly, for assisting the
northeast coastal States as we recover from Hurricane Sandy.
Thank you very much, sir.
With the passage of H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform
Act, in October of last year, we authorized 23 Chief's Reports
that had been submitted to Congress by the Corps of Engineers.
These Chief's Reports had been completed after the last WRDA
bill was passed in 2007. Since the passage of WRRDA in October
2013, 11 new Chief's Reports have been transmitted to our
committee. These 11 Chief's Reports are the focus of this
hearing.
In addition to these Chief's Reports, we are also
evaluating requests from the Corps to authorize an increase in
cost of eight other projects. Collectively, this group of
projects should be included in the WRRDA 2014 Conference
Report, and hopefully subject to approval in both the House and
the Senate within the next few weeks.
Our responsibility in this subcommittee, and as Members of
Congress, is to represent the public in the review and
direction of what the Army Corps of Engineers accomplishes. If
we fail to execute proper oversight, two things happen. One,
the administration ends up prioritizing projects and making
decisions based on their set of metrics. Those metrics may or
may not be the same ones that are important to Members of
Congress. Two, the process of authorizing and moving projects
from design to planning to construction becomes more time-
consuming, complicated, and costly.
By authorizing these 11 Chief's Reports, along with those
already captured in H.R. 3080, combined with Section 902
changes for a limited number of ongoing projects, we will
support what this country needs most right now: the creation
and retention of real jobs and wages that will help lift our
economy. Real jobs for Americans means a stronger Nation.
We too often take for granted our water infrastructure and
inland water highways and harbors. It is easy to forget about
the vital work the Army Corps of Engineers has done over the
years to protect our communities, beaches, rivers, and
coastlines. In the heat of debate it is also easy to lose sight
of the importance that these projects have in employing
millions of people across this great Nation.
In my opinion, the process we have embraced with this WRRDA
bill reflects what we have been set here to do: to legislate
cooperatively, and collectively do what is right for the
country. We may disagree over how the administration manages
the Army Corps, and how the Corps then performs its job. What
we can agree on is that, without a commitment to sustain,
maintain, and continually develop our engineering and project
capacity, we will be wasting the investment that those before
us have made.
So, once again, let us do our due diligence here today,
authorize these projects and get WRRDA across the finish line.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Gibbs. At this time, the chairman of the full Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure, Chairman Bill Shuster
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman. Congress is preparing--
or prepared I should say--to re-engage in the development of
our water resources and our infrastructure, to carry out that
role, to prioritize the projects and activities carried out by
the Army Corps of Engineers.
Historically, as I think many in this room know, water
resource legislation has been enacted every 2 years to provide
the oversight and the policy direction that the Corps of
Engineers--and to authorize the need of the projects and
improvements. But since such a measure has not been passed
since 2007, Congress has been silent on needed reforms and has
failed to take action to develop, maintain, and support our
Nation's vital water infrastructure needs.
One of our top priorities is the development of our Water
Resources Reform and Development Act, WRRDA, legislation in the
House, and our work in the conference has been the importance
of strengthening oversight, transparency, and accountability.
Over the last year-and-a-half this sommittee has held
numerous public educational forums, roundtables, and hearings
on the Corps of Engineers program. This process included an
oversight hearing on June 5, 2013, that provided Members the
opportunity to review the Chief's Reports submitted to
Congress, and was an important part of the development of the
House WRRDA bill that passed by the slim margin of 417 to 3,
and I am very proud to tout that number.
Today's hearing continues our strong oversight of the Corps
of Engineers, and will provide Members the opportunity to
review the 11 Chief's Reports and 8 Post-Authorization Change
Reports submitted to Congress since June 5, 2013. This
oversight hearing will be extremely valuable to our work in
conference, which we are hopeful is very near to resolution.
And once we finish this WRRDA bill, it is critical to get WRDAs
back on a 2-year cycle to ensure Congress has a fundamental
role in the development of Corps of Engineers projects and the
oversight of the agency. And, as I have said many times, as
soon as the President signs this WRRDA bill, we are going to
start working on the next WRRDA bill for the next Congress.
I want to thank Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member Rahall and
Bishop for their hard work in this matter, and happy to say
that 417 number reflects much bipartisan support for that bill.
So I can't thank them enough for their good work.
And I want to thank General Peabody for your service to the
Nation. If it was an easy job, running the Corps, or being at
the top of the Corps, we wouldn't have given it to the Army,
because we know you guys can get the job done. And with that, I
yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. I recognize the ranking member of the
T&I Committee, Mr. Rahall from West Virginia.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do want to thank
you, Chairman Shuster, subcommittee Ranking Member Tim Bishop,
for holding this hearing on the outstanding Chief's Reports and
project budget increases for the Water Resources Development
Act Bill of 2014.
Throughout the extensive evolution of WRRDA over the last
year, Chairman Shuster and I have worked in a bipartisan,
transparent, and collaborative manner to ensure that proper due
diligence and oversight is performed by the committee. I
believe that the proof of what we can do when we work together
is the WRRDA bill that will soon come out of conference.
This WRRDA bill will direct the reform Corps of Engineers
project process within the reality of refined budgets and
congressional expectations. It is our intent over the next 2
weeks to complete the Conference Report on the combined and
revised House and Senate WRRDA bills, bring the bill back to
the House for approval, and then to get it down to the White
House to be signed into law.
Our combined commitment to working together will bring jobs
to America and improvements to the way the Nation manages water
resources and infrastructure. The hearing this morning is part
of the commitment we made last year when we said that there
will be no projects or programs in WRRDA that have not
undergone congressional review and oversight. That is our
responsibility, and one we hold as critical to maintaining our
role of oversight and authorization.
So, again, I want to thank you, Chairman Shuster and
Chairman Gibbs, and Ranking Member Bishop, for the cooperative
manner in which we have worked together on this bill. And I do
welcome Major General Peabody and thank him as well for his
service to the country, and also his staff, who worked to
support the overall program of the Corps of Engineers. Thank
you both for being here today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, thank you. Today we have one witness, Major
General John Peabody. He is the Deputy Commanding General of
the Civil and Emergency Operations of the United States Corps
of Engineers. Accompanying him is Mr. Theodore Brown. He is the
Chief, Planning and Policy Division, of the United States Army
Corps of Engineers.
Welcome, gentlemen. And, General Peabody, the floor is
yours.
TESTIMONY OF MAJOR GENERAL JOHN PEABODY, 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 Peabody. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Bishop, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, distinguished
members of the subcommittee. I am honored to testify on the
Corps of Engineers project planning process, recent Chief's
Reports, and Post-Authorization Change Reports. Joining me is
Mr. Theodore ``Tab'' Brown, the Corps Chief of Planning and
Policy.
My full testimony includes descriptions of the six Chief's
Reports that have completed executive branch review, eight
potential projects that have Chief's Reports still under
administration review, and eight projects with Post-
Authorization Change Reports.
My written testimony also includes a more indepth
discussion of Civil Works Transformation, and a discussion of
the life cycle of the Corps' Civil Works project, including the
planning phase, which begins with a reconnaissance study and,
if warranted, proceeds to a feasibility study that identifies a
viable non-Federal sponsor, and makes an investment decision
recommendation to Congress and the administration in the form
of a Chief's Report.
For the last several years, the Corps has been developing a
strategy to address the Nation's current and future water
resource needs, including the reliable performance of our
infrastructure in an era of increasing physical pressures,
shifting demographics, changing social values, and climate
variability. This evolving strategy, which we have dubbed
``Civil Works Transformation,'' is currently focused on four
main areas: budget development transformation, infrastructure
strategy, methods of delivery, and planning modernization.
I am firmly committed to this effort to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of our Civil Works program, in
collaboration with sponsors, resource agencies, and national
policymakers. This year we embarked on an evaluation of this
strategy with the intent of capitalizing on early lessons to
make some adjustments, but I remain confident that the Civil
Works Transformation is the right general framework for the
Corps.
Today we have made good progress. We are beginning to
synchronize Corps investments with those made by other Federal,
State, local, and nongovernmental organizations. We are using
risk-informed decisionmaking to improve the reliability and
resiliency of our infrastructure portfolio. We have sharpened
our technical competence and improved organizational efficiency
by developing technical centers of expertise. We have reduced
the time to deliver feasibility studies, with investment
recommendations supported by high-quality analysis. And,
lastly, we continue improving our enterprise metrics and
business processes focused on delivering on our commitments,
enhancing communications, and driving cultural change.
As one of the key elements of Civil Works Transformation,
planning modernization is focused on improving the delivery of
high-quality studies in order to make water resource investment
recommendations. All studies must comply with key principles,
including clearly defined objectives, well understood and risk-
informed programming, integrated project management business
processes, solid quality control, and consistent and policy-
compliant communications.
Four tenants guide these planning modernization efforts:
people, projects, program, and process. First, people. An
effective planning program must have well-trained, experienced
people with the technical skills and collaborative spirit to
work with stakeholders to address complex challenges by
delivering innovative solutions. Investing in them is our most
critical planning priority.
Projects. Delivering a study outcome with a project
investment recommendation is the whole purpose of the planning
program. Since the passage of WRDA 2007, the Corps has
completed 36 Chief's Reports, with an approximate estimated
total cost of nearly $28 billion. In the 3 years prior to
planning modernization, which began in January of 2011, we
completed 11 of those reports, 6 of which were 10 years or
older, for a total net investment of $6.6 billion. Since we
began planning modernization, we have completed 25 Chief's
Reports, 14 of which were 10 years or older, for a total net
estimated cost of $21 billion. It is clear that we have already
made great progress because we have completed 2\1/2\ times the
reports with greater complexity in less than the same amount of
time since WRDA 2007 in the last 3 years.
Process. The planning process is a deliberate, incremental
decisionmaking approach that assesses the full range of
reasonable alternatives. This process has received considerable
attention with the now-infamous 3x3x3 rule, prompted in part by
Section 233 of WRDA 2007. However, the key to our ability to
actualize this goal lies in the SMART--standing for Specific,
Measurable, Achievable, Risk-informed, and Timely--planning
approach.
And, lastly, program. This tenant focuses on coherent,
total study program management. A key has been to focus
resources only on those studies most likely to be completed. We
have achieved this by defining active and inactive study
categories, reducing the total portfolio from over 650 studies
to an active portfolio that we are managing of 158. By placing
over 490 studies in an inactive status, which could be
activated at some future point, and terminating 19 studies, we
were able to harness our energies and deliver studies to reach
a conclusive outcome.
Wrapping up, I would like to finally add that certain
provisions in the proposed WRRDA bills under consideration,
especially elimination of reconnaissance studies, defined fixed
lengths for feasibility studies, and project permitting
constraints, could unduly constrain the Corps and our partner
Federal agencies from exercising the same initiative that
resulted in the successes we have seen in planning
modernization.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to be
here today, and I look forward to the committee's questions.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, General. I will start off with some
questions here. Of the 11 Chief's Reports and the 9 Post-
Authorization Reports that we have here before us today that
were delivered here since June of last year, this is kind of a
blanket question on all of them. Has the Corps encountered any
significant opposition to any of these reports? And, if so, can
you generalize--generally characterize the opposition?
General Peabody. I am not aware of any opposition to any
one of those studies. In general, there are always concerns
that reveal themselves during the study process, especially
during the public comment period. That is why we go through the
NEPA process. And we work very hard to properly address
concerns through the public comment period. But I am not aware
of any specific, significant opposition to any of those
reports.
Mr. Gibbs. My followup question, now that you mentioned
public comment period, you know, how do you respond--it doesn't
necessarily have to be a NEPA issue, but I mean just a project
that is being laid out there, and let's say there is certain
entities that aren't happy with the proposal that is being laid
out, and maybe there is an alternative plan. How do you--how
does the Corps react to those alternative ideas that might be
thrown out, and study that, and how do you relate back to the
comments?
General Peabody. Sir, I would say in two general ways. The
first is we work very hard to balance all of the expressed
concerns in a proper way, and the actual recommended
alternative in the feasibility study that makes it through the
Chief's Report. And the second way is we document those
concerns, we address them specifically. We address how we have
resolved them. Or, if they are not resolved, how we have
addressed them in the final report.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. And I guess to follow through that a little
bit, independent external peer reviews basically agreeing with
the data the Corps is using, you know, what is the status with
that, with the independent reviews, when they look at the
processes and----
General Peabody. Yes, sir. Since the passage of WRDA 2007
we have executed approximately 75 independent external peer
reviews, for a total cost in excess of $12 million.
In general, we have not found any comments that have made
significant changes to our reporting. I would say, however,
what this has revealed is that often times we don't document
our reports with sufficient clarity, so that generates a lot of
the comments that we get in the independent external peer
reviews. Basically, we need to train our engineers to be better
masters of the English language, and write in clearer fashion,
so that our conclusions are understandable to all audiences.
Mr. Gibbs. I see, because it raises more questions that
didn't have all the information.
General Peabody. Yes----
Mr. Gibbs. That is kind of typical. We get that, too, a
lot.
Another thing I would talk about, ask a question, you know,
this economic downturn we have gone through, do you feel that
the projects that provide economic benefits, should they
receive a higher priority than projects that might be more like
environmental restoration projects that maybe don't provide an
economic return? I mean how do you balance that?
General Peabody. Sir, that is kind of a judgment call. But
I got to tell you, growing up on Lake Erie as a kid in the
sixties, and going to Nickel Beach where it was littered with
dying fishes, I am very personally sensitive to making sure
that we properly care for the environment.
In my view, there is no need for the two issues to be in
competition. Clearly, there is always a competition for limited
resources, but both purposes are important for the Nation to
prosecute, and need to be fully considered.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes. I guess one thing I have said--I am going
to make this statement, so it is clear how maybe I personally
feel--obviously, I think the environment is important, and we
should do what we can. But I am concerned when I see the
President's budget. There is a lot more--like, I don't know,
several times more--investment in restoration projects than in
infrastructure projects, and I am concerned that if we don't
maybe prioritize our--those investments a little bit more, then
we won't get the economic return, then we won't have the
dollars to flow through to do the environmental stuff.
So, we have to find a balance there, and that is a concern
that I have, that there might be a higher priority set on the
things that, you know--find a return, but in a different way,
not an economic return. So I have concerns about that.
Just quickly in 3x3x3, you know, why not 2x2x2 or 4x4x4?
How did we end up with 3x3x3?
General Peabody. You know, sir, at the end of the day we
did a lot of introspection on this issue. And Mr. Brown and I
were just talking about this yesterday. When it came down to
it, it was our judgment that WRDA 2007 put those bounds out
there between 2 and 4 years, $2 million and $4 million. But our
judgment and our experience concluded that most--not all, but
most--feasibility studies, especially ones that are well
bounded geographically and by purpose, could be executed in
those parameters. And so far our experience is playing that
out.
Now, we do have a goal of delivering some in 18 months. Not
many make that. I think Cedar Rapids is one that was close to
that amount of time. But most of them are much closer to the 3
years so far.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. I will follow up then with another round of
questions. But I will yield to Ms. Edwards, sitting in for Mr.
Bishop.
Ms. Edwards. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
also to Chairman Shuster and our ranking members, Rahall and
Bishop, because I think this is a really important and timely
hearing. And I appreciate, General Peabody, you and your staff
being here this morning.
Also wanted just to take a moment to acknowledge--I don't
have a daughter, but I get a daughter for the day--Alia
Matthews, who is with Girl Scouts Troop in Upper Marlboro 3255,
and I am just glad that she is here, so she can see a Congress
that is actually working and doing something today.
You know, I think Senator Cardin, Ben Cardin, and I have
the honor and responsibility of representing Maryland in
Congress on the authorizing committees and also on the WRRDA
conference committee. And so I think I share the view of our
chairman and our ranking members that we will get WRRDA
completed in short order. And this bill takes us a really long
way into doing that.
For our State--and we have the belief in our State that
when you invest in restoring environmental infrastructure, that
that actually is infrastructure investment and requires, you
know, a lot of job creation in order to do that. We happen to
have the fourth longest coast line in the continental United
States. The Chesapeake Bay, several of its tributaries--through
the Fourth Congressional District I think I have three or four
tributaries that flow through the Fourth Congressional District
in Maryland--these resources provide billions of dollars in
economic activity for our State. And maintaining and
modernizing Maryland's waterways and its ports, including the
Port of Baltimore, is essential for supporting and expanding
our Nation's--our State's industries and economy.
I want to ask you, because we have been engaged, obviously,
with the modernization of the Port of Baltimore, its public
terminals, its foreign and domestic cargo, which total about
9.6 million tons in 2013, and was equal to the prior year. The
port's public and private terminals handled 652,000 cars in
2012, the most among all U.S. ports. And in 2013, automobiles
and light truck tonnage increased 11.4 percent at the terminals
at the Port of Baltimore. With this kind of volume, the Port of
Baltimore plays a vital role in Maryland's economy, and also
has a significant impact on the economy of the entire east
coast, and even into the Midwest, providing for good-paying
jobs for Maryland's families. And it really is one of the most
important economic engines in the State.
On February 26th the Corps transmitted to Congress the
Post-Authorization Change Report for Poplar Island in Maryland.
Poplar Island is located on the Chesapeake Bay in Talbot
County, and is currently being rebuilt by the Corps using
dredge material from the Chesapeake Bay's approach channels to
Baltimore. And so, I wonder, General Peabody, if you could
comment for us about that project, and how it is coming along.
And then, if you would, also talk about the 3x3x3 process.
Since you have been engaged in January 2011, you have really
significantly reduced the number of projects that are
outstanding in the process. And I think that that speaks well
to what will happen in the future.
And then, lastly, General Peabody, in this year's
authorization--I mean this year's administration fiscal year
2015 request for the Army Corps, it is about $80 million. And
that is $45 million less than fiscal year 2014. Can you tell us
how you would move ahead under the Civil Works Transformation
Program, and prioritize where and how $80 million in
investigation dollars would be allocated?
I know that is a lot, but take it away in a minute-and-a-
half.
General Peabody. Yes, ma'am. So Poplar Island, as you
discussed, is one of the Post-Authorization Change Reports that
we have submitted for recommended cost increase. This is really
important for the Port of Baltimore, which, as you pointed out,
is one of our Nation's premier cargo handling ports because the
dredge material in the port needs to be placed in upland
locations, and this provides not just a place to do that, but
also beneficial use for some critical habitat. I forget the
exact acreage, but it is a significantly large amount. It also
provides an opportunity to reliably place that dredge material
for a very long period of time, multiple decades.
With regard to the 3x3x3 process, I think one of the
challenges is we just started this formally 2 years ago. We
started budgeting for it 2 years ago, which means the 2014
workplan is the first year we are actually starting to fund
studies that are 3x3x3 compliant. So we really need to get
through the execution of the 3 years of those studies and, in
my judgment, at least one and perhaps 2 years beyond that, to
cultivate enough lessons that we can see the trends, we can
distinguish what is working and what is not working, and draw
conclusions with great clarity.
I will say, however, as I tried to mention in my oral
statement, that so far the early indicators are, because of the
number of reports that we have executed, that it is working and
it is working well.
With regard to your question about the budget amount, the
reality is the Corps is a very small part of the much larger
Federal Government that has an obligation to live within fiscal
constraints that we are all very well aware of in these times.
And the judgment of how much money we should get is up to
policymakers such as yourselves. And what we will do is
prioritize the most important studies and all of our training
programs to fit within whatever amounts that we are allocated
and appropriated.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you very much for your indulgence, Mr.
Chairman. And, General Peabody, very politic answer there.
Thank you.
General Peabody. Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Shuster?
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to stay with
the 3x3x3 for a minute. And you have already started doing it
from the district to the division to the headquarters
consolidating those. Have you been able to determine how much
time savings you have been able to squeeze out of the system
when you implement that? Has it been in process long enough to
be able to----
General Peabody. I don't think we have got enough data, or
have analyzed it to the point that I can tell you with any kind
of precision, sir. However, as I indicated earlier, the fact
that we produce 2\1/2\ times the reports in a little less than
3 years versus the 3 years prior to starting this is a good
indicator that we are executing faster.
You hit on the vertical integration. To me this is perhaps
the most important aspect, and it is more complex than just
vertical integration, because it is horizontal integration,
with all the stakeholders and resource agencies, as well. But
what this allows is the people with the experience and the
understanding of the policy pitfalls and challenges that most
projects face to engage much earlier with the people in the
field who understand the specifics of what the sponsor needs
and the specifics of the project, and then hone down and focus
on the alternatives that are most likely to both achieve what
the sponsor desires, and also be policy-compliant.
So we really crush out a lot of blind alleys by doing that
approach.
Mr. Shuster. That is good. And I think that is the most
important part, too. I agree with you. The 3x3x3 concept is
making all three of those operations work together to get it--
to move forward.
Approximately 20 percent of the 48 Chief's Reports that
were authorized in the 2007 WRDA received Federal funds for
construction. Of those not funded, if Congress were to
authorize a public-private partnership which we have put a
pilot in, how many of those Chief's Reports of those 48 would
you say would have moved forward by now, if the public-private
partnership were expanded?
General Peabody. I guess we would have to know the
specifics of the authorizing legislation. Each project would
have to attract private investment, based on its own merits.
And frankly, sir, I haven't done an analysis where I could tell
you how that works. I would say that the deepening in Miami
Harbor, which is being done with advance funds, is an indicator
that there are projects out there that there is great interest
in funding, with or without Federal investments.
And so, there is no doubt in my mind that some of them
would go forward. It would just depend on the specifics of the
legislation and the specifics of the attractiveness----
Mr. Shuster. Right.
General Peabody [continuing]. Of the various projects to
investors.
Mr. Shuster. Well, you mentioned the Port of Miami. What
about the Port of Savannah, too? I understand that Georgia has
lined up their money, they are ready to move, and there has
been some concern by the Governor of Georgia that the Corps is
not on the same page. But I believe this legislation will allow
Savannah to move forward with their own money.
General Peabody. Sir, I think you are aware that Savannah
is one of those legacy projects that we spent years on and I
think in excess of $40 million studying. The biggest challenge
with Savannah was that it is basically co-located with a
national park and some pretty sensitive environmental habitat.
And so, working through that was part of the challenge.
The Corps fully shares all the stakeholders' desires to get
that project underway. But right now we are waiting on an
authorization from the Congress, which the administration has
deemed is needed before we can move forward.
Mr. Shuster. Which--we hope to have to you in short order.
General Peabody. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shuster. Because, again, I know that to the folks in
Georgia, the Governor, it has been an extremely important
project. And I think they have $230 million or $240 million
ready to go, as soon as we get that authorization out there.
So, I thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Mrs. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I associate
myself with the remarks of my predecessors about the Army
Corps' work. We are very happy with our group in the L.A. area.
The Los Angeles River Chief's Report is currently being
worked on and will be finalized this year, of course. And we
have advocated--several of my colleagues--on the Los Angeles
River inclusion in the WRRDA. But I realize this may not
happen. I would like to submit a letter, Mr. Chairman, for the
record from the Los Angeles mayor, Eric Garcetti, a city of
over 4 million people, urging the committee to support the
locally preferred Los Angeles River.
Mr. Gibbs. So ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. The locally preferred
alternative provides the most robust ecosystem restoration
outcomes, while also providing four times more jobs than the
other alternatives, and will thereby be appropriately--most
appropriately redress historic environmental injustices that
have resulted from the river's channelization, providing new
public access to natural open spaces, improving public health,
stimulating regional and local economies, and enhancing the
life of quality not only for the city of Los Angeles, for the
whole county and the whole area of Los Angeles.
This locally preferred alternative includes both
significant restoration of the Los Angeles River confluence
with the Verdugo Wash near the city's border with the city of
Glendale and the only substantial western bank connection
providing a profound hydrological link between the Los Angeles
Historic Park and the river.
I believe the L.A. River's Chief's Report is being
reviewed, and I would hope that--I would like to receive, and
this committee may receive an update of where it stands.
General Peabody. Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much for the
question, Congresswoman. I was actually out there in January
and spent some considerable amount of time with the Los Angeles
District and the South Pacific Division, reviewing the project.
We did an extensive overflight. I have got a great appreciation
for its importance.
The current status, as of just a couple of weeks ago, the
mayor of Los Angeles, Mayor Garcetti, provided the district
with a letter of support, which is great. But he put some
language in that support letter that is unusual. And so we have
to work through that.
For example, he asked for a cost share provision that is
outside of normal statutory provisions. So we are in
consultations right now, analyzing that, ma'am. And we are
determining how we can continue to work with the mayor and the
local sponsors to move forward. Once we have resolved that,
then soon thereafter we will be able to move to a Civil Works
Review Board, which is the last major check point en route to a
Chief's Report. Generally, after a Civil Works Review Board is
executed and votes to proceed forward with State and agency
review, it takes usually about 3 months from that point to the
time that General Bostick would sign the Chief's Report.
Mrs. Napolitano. Would you elaborate a little bit more on
the issue with the cost share? Because I am not aware of it.
General Peabody. I don't recall the specific language, but
the mayor suggested that the cost share for alternative 20
would be higher than what the Federal Government would normally
cost share. Normally, the way it works is we cost share in
accordance with the statutory provision associated with that
particular project. In this case, as I recall, it is 65-35,
which is the case for most projects.
Because the Federal Government recommendation is
alternative 13 and the mayor wants to use alternative 20, which
is the alternative you discussed, normally we would require
that the cost share for the amount above the Federal
recommendation would be 100 percent handled by the local
sponsor. That is not what the mayor has suggested. So we are
going through internal process to analyze that and understand
what we might be able to address the mayor's recommendation.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, General. And anything we can do
to help, I would really appreciate being made aware of it, so
we can work with you from this angle.
General Peabody. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Napolitano. And I certainly am very pleased about the
way the Chief's Reports are coming forth, and letting us know
what they are so that we are aware and can approve of moving
them forward.
So, with that, I yield back the balance of my time, Mr.
Chairman, and thank you so very much.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Mr. Farenthold?
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much, General. Thank you for
being here. Thank you for all you do for the infrastructure in
this country and otherwise.
One of the consistent complaints that I hear from
businesses, and even governmental entities around the country
is, ``Give us some rules, and we will do our best to comply
with them. Don't change the rules in the middle of the game.''
I am cochairman of the Texas Maritime Conference, used to
represent Brownsville, Texas, until redistricting, and still
actively involved in all of the ports along the Texas coast.
And it was kind of disturbing to hear from Brownsville that it
looks like the Corps is moving the goal posts on Brownsville.
Let me give you a little bit of background.
The Port of Brownsville is working on the Brazos Island
Harbor project, which is basically a widening and deepening
project that has been going on now for about 7 years. I am a
frequent visitor to the Port of Brownsville, back when I
represented it, and after. It is, you know, one of the poorest
and most underdeveloped areas of our country near the U.S.-
Mexico border. And this deepening project will be hugely
beneficial. It looks like the cost-benefit ratio on that
exceeds six to one.
And it is my understanding that there is a very clean draft
Chief's Report, and it is tracking to be final in September of
2014. But we recently found out that the Corps unilaterally
decided to not go by the management protocol agreement between
the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Corps agreement
from December 29th of 2006, and the Corps is changing how they
are interpreting that, and it looks like they are getting a
potential biological problem.
The Port tells me they have worked hard with the Corps on
these and other environmental issues over the past--
specifically, the green turtle is an example where Brownsville
has worked very well, together with the Corps, for many years.
I guess my question is how--why are we shifting the rules now?
Are you aware of that, and is there a reason we are doing that?
General Peabody. Congressman, the first I became aware of
this issue was this morning. So, unfortunately, I am not
familiar with the details. However, I am going to follow up
immediately following this hearing and check with the
Southwestern Division. I am familiar with the project.
Mr. Farenthold. Right.
General Peabody. In fact, we had hoped to have a Civil
Works Review Board before now. A few months ago there were some
delays. In fact, I asked General Kula, the Southwestern
Division commander, to do a detailed root-cause analysis of the
reasons for the delays from the project. He has done that, and
we are using that information to contribute to the current
analysis that we are doing to potentially make adjustments to
some of the specifics on how we execute planning modernization.
Mr. Farenthold. And I understand----
General Peabody. But I am going to have to follow up with
you, sir.
Mr. Farenthold. And I would appreciate that. I guess there
is a delicate balance to strike. You know, if we want to
streamline things and do our job better, faster, and more
efficiently, we sometimes have got to change the way we do
things. But when we change the way we do things, if we move the
goal posts as part of that, that runs up the cost for
everything.
And, obviously, you know, there is a cost associated with
going through all of the process, both for the Corps and for
whatever entity, being a public entity, or, you know, whomever,
it is trying to deal with the Corps. And, obviously, costs go
up as the delays go down. I think if you look at what this
committee has been trying to do, whether in MAP-21 with
highways, or what we passed out in WRRDA, we want to protect
the environment, we want to do things safely, we want to get
the job done, but we don't want to have unnecessary delay.
There is cost involved in that. And so, you know, my request to
you is you keep that in mind in all that you are doing, not
just the Port of Brownsville.
And my final question would be what can we do to help you
get your job done in a better and faster manner.
General Peabody. That is a great question, sir. You know,
there has been great collaboration and engagement with the
Congress on what we are doing. I think the most important thing
is to work closely with us to understand what it is that we are
doing, to understand what the successes are, and understand why
sometimes things don't go as people would like.
We do need a little tactical patience. The effort we are
undergoing is going to take months and years to determine how
well things are working. And so, just continued engagement
would be the most important thing, Congressman.
Mr. Farenthold. Again, thank you. I see my time has
expired, so I will yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I also
want to welcome Daishia Fare, eighth grader from Northern
Middle in Maryland. Thank you for being here as part of Girls
Inc. Welcome.
So--and welcome to our guests here today. Thank you for
your service, appreciate it. I want to say what I am going to
say--tell you with the utmost respect, but I am coming from
representing a delegation of Members from south Florida who,
basically, are pulling their hair out right now, in a dither. I
am saying that respectfully.
And the reason for that--and I don't want to necessarily
fault the Army Corps, because, you know, you look in the
mirror, and we are the enemy, the Congress--because I believe
we have given much too much authority to the executive in
deciding which projects are actually going to end up getting
authorized, since our bill, which is bipartisan, went in the
direction of authorizing Chief's Reports. And for me, I think
that gives much too much power to the executive, and really
removes a lot of transparency that I think the public expects
and deserves.
And I want to focus on three projects in south Florida,
just by example. The first is Port of Palm Beach in Palm Beach
County. The second is Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale. And
then we have the Central Everglades Planning Project in
Florida.
Disappointed would be the minimal word I could use to
express the fact that the Chief's Reports for Port Everglades
and for CEPP will not be completed in time for this next
authorization. We have waited 18 years for a Chief's Report in
Port Everglades. And I am going to--I will defer to Mr.
Webster, and he will tell you the history of CEPP, because he
worked on it when he was speaker of the house in Florida.
And what I want to say is not only are these projects very,
very important for the economy of Florida--and, of course, CEPP
is very important not only for the economy, but for our
environment and our water resources--but both these projects
have overwhelming popular support in the community, and
commitments for funding from the community.
Port of Palm Beach, which I have--it is a split in our
community, in terms of support. There are some who are very
much in support of it, the dredging, an expansion. There is
some very vocal opposition. And there is, from what I know, no
commitment for any matching funds from the community. And yet,
of these three projects, the only project that we have a
Chief's Report for is the one at Port of Palm Beach, which
there is no commitment for funding from the community.
So, my question really is, do you take into account the--
either the community support of a project? Do you take into
account the ability of a community to come forward and pay its
share? And how--does it matter to you at all what Members of
Congress communicate in regards to their--what their
stakeholders are thinking?
General Peabody. Ma'am, thank you for those questions. I am
familiar with all of these projects. I am more familiar with
CEPP and Port Everglades than Palm Beach.
Let me take your last question first, Congresswoman.
Absolutely. We take very seriously the concerns of Congress.
You are the elected constituents' representatives. You are more
closely tied to them than we are. And so we do listen very
closely.
I think there are some misunderstandings associated with
some of the concerns that have been expressed. Let me work my
way through the two that I am most familiar with. I am not as
familiar with Palm Beach.
But to answer your other question about community support,
there are two things that are required before I go to the
specifics. The first is, before we can proceed with a
feasibility study, we need a letter of support and identified
viable, non-Federal sponsor. Sometimes that non-Federal
sponsor's ability to support a project changes over the course
of a study. But for the most times, that does not happen.
The second thing we need to proceed forward at later stages
in the study, is a Federal cost-sharing agreement with the
sponsor. And we would not get to a Civil Works Review Board if
we didn't go through that process.
With regard to the Central Everglades, we are very close. I
committed at the Civil Works Review Board that was held last
week that we would have a continuation of our Civil Works
Review Board not later than the end of June. So we are less
than 2 months away from continuing the Civil Works Review
Board. Once we continue the Civil Works Review Board, we will
then move forward to State and agency review. Within about 3
months we can expect a Chief's Report.
So, the project briefing done by the district was
phenomenal, explained very clearly an extremely complicated
project, one of the most complicated projects that we have
seen. But the truth is that there were some documentation
issues that had to be addressed. And we really held the Civil
Works Review Board before our review team had been able to
complete their review.
With regard to Port Everglades, one of the frustrations
that people sense, as was discussed earlier, is the sense that
we were moving goal posts. What generally happens when that
perception is out there is the assumptions we were planning on
turn out not to be valid. And so, when those assumptions change
and are no longer valid, we have to go back and address the new
reality that confronts us. That does result in additional time,
often results in additional costs, often results in changed
requirements in order to get the study forward. And,
essentially, that is what happened with the Port Everglades
project.
Ms. Frankel. Well, I thank you for your answer, not that I
am happy with it. But, Mr. Chair, I will yield my time. I hope
Mr. Webster will follow up on some of that.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. Thank you, General Peabody, for that long
explanation.
I would like to recognize the chairman emeritus, Mr. Young
from Alaska.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, I am--really
want to ask a couple of short questions on the Brownsville
Harbor. You just told the gentleman, Mr. Farenthold, that you
didn't really know anything about it, and that disturbs me,
because this is a project that came under my chairmanship. And
I believe it has gone through more firsts than anything else.
You changed it from a legacy project to a SMART project to
I don't know how many different projects. You have had
different managers, district managers--three, four of them, I
believe--and this is a legacy project. Now, what is the
problem, and why is it happening, and why are we being delayed,
and why isn't it finished?
General Peabody. Sir, I apologize, Chairman. I expect the
Civil Works Review Board for that will be executed this summer.
I am very familiar with the project. What I was not familiar
with, to clarify, was the specific issue related to an
endangered species. The first time I heard that was this
morning. So I just need time to follow up on it with the
local----
Mr. Young. OK. I am going to make a suggestion. First, you
know, I am very--a big supporter of the Corps. And I am a
little frustrated--and, frankly, a little pissed off--and I
will say that out loud again, pissed off--because now you are
being dictated by the Fish and Wildlife, Endangered Species, et
cetera, et cetera, and nothing gets done. And those--I have
seen these projects all across the United States, and it is
inappropriate.
I want you to take a firm stand against an agency. And I
just had it happen up in Alaska. The EPA was going to veto a
project prior to you applying for a permit. There has to be a
little bit of more--say, ``This is our job.'' And you show me
where the law is wrong, and we will try to change the law. But
this project started when I was chairman. Brownsville. It is a
depressed area. It is a good project. We need that when the
Panamax is coming in. And now we find out there is now a new
system. And why that has occurred, I don't know. Where did it
come from? Who instigated it? Why was it a legacy project? And
now we have to go through, you know, numerous other firsts.
Don't do that.
So, you are going to get back to me and this committee, and
we are going to find out why we can't expedite that process,
get this done this summer. I don't want to come back here next
year and chew on you again if you are still in that position,
because it is inappropriate.
General Peabody. Yes, sir.
Mr. Young. You have a responsibility.
General Peabody. Yes, sir.
Mr. Young. Would you like to respond, please?
General Peabody. Sir, as I said earlier, I am absolutely
committed to looking into this as quickly as possible, and
getting back to you and the committee as quickly as possible on
what is going on. And I still expect that we will be able to
move forward with a Civil Works Review Board later this summer.
Mr. Young. OK. And don't--like I say, keep us informed.
Keep this committee informed about where the process--if there
is a stalemate, if someone else is getting their finger in the
pie, because I want this project done.
General Peabody. I will keep you up to speed.
Mr. Shuster. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Young. Be glad to yield.
Mr. Shuster. While we are talking about Brownsville again,
I have been to Brownsville, I know what is going on down there.
There is billions of dollars' worth of investment that this
thing needs to move forward. Again, everybody in this room
wants to make sure the environment is sound. But to slow it up
again is the wrong thing to do.
So, I echo Chairman Young's comments. We want to find out
what is going on. Keep us informed. But this project really
needs to move, because it is billions of private dollars that
is going to go into that port, and it is going to help an area
of the country that has seen some tough economic times. So,
again, we are going to be on this one. So I appreciate that.
And the other thing is--the gentlelady from Florida, if she
asked, I missed it. The Port of Everglades, which I have said
to her, you know, we are going to go through this process,
and--when do you expect the Port of Everglades to have a
Chief's Report, roughly?
General Peabody. Go ahead. Yes, Tab, go ahead.
Mr. Brown. Sir, the bottom line is right now we are pretty
close in terms of finalizing the issue with the biological
opinion. After that we believe we can finalize the recommended
plan and then move forward and finalize the report.
Mr. Shuster. So we are looking at months, not years?
Mr. Brown. We are talking about months. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shuster. Yes, OK. Because, again, as I have committed
to the gentlelady from Florida, when we get done with this bill
we are going to start working on another bill, because I know
how important it is to Florida. And I can assure you Don Young
will be looking over your shoulder and Brownsville should be
looking over your shoulder, and the Port of Everglades--or
should be looking over mine, too, so I want to make sure we
move that, keep that moving forward.
So, again, thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Mrs. Kirkpatrick?
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Mr. Chairman, General Peabody, there is a
project in my district that is unlike any other in the country
because it seeks to protect a community of people whom, not so
long ago, Congress moved into a 100-year flood plain. The
Federal Government has relocated over 100 Navajo and Hopi
families from tribal lands to Winslow, Arizona, pursuant to
laws Congress passed in 1974 and 1980. Not only do we have a
statutory responsibility for these families, but Congress and
the Army Corps of Engineers share a trust obligation for the
safety of American Indians.
The Little Colorado River at Winslow Levee feasibility
study will have its Chief's Report by next August. And I just
want to thank you, General, for committing to do that. And I
thank the chairman for his commitment to begin writing the next
WRDA bill as soon as we finish passing this one. And I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Webster?
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to follow
up with the Central Everglades Planning Project. When we first
started, which was--Ms. Frankel and I were both in the Florida
legislature, that was--we passed a Everglades Restoration Act
many years ago. And we were used to having a 50-50 commitment
with the Federal Government, but us funding most of it. And we
didn't see money for many years after that. We spent hundreds
of millions of dollars. But in every case we needed approval.
Even though the Federal dollars weren't coming, we still needed
to have approval.
Is there a specific date that the board will--the Civil
Works Review Board will reconvene? I mean does--so they can
move forward with this?
General Peabody. Congressman, we have not scheduled a
specific date. I will receive an in-progress review report from
our policy reviewers this Friday. And within the next 10 days
to 2 weeks after that, I expect to have a clear understanding
if any issues remain to be resolved. If there are no issues
remaining to be resolved, then I expect we can continue the
Civil Works Review Board at that time.
So, the best case scenario, I think, is the end of next
month, the end of May. The worst case scenario is the end of
June. And so I am absolutely committed that not later than the
end of June we will continue the Civil Works Review Board. When
we convene that, I will only do it because I am confident that
we will be able to get to a positive vote, and then submit the
report for State and agency review.
Mr. Webster. May sounds really, really good. A lot better
than June.
Also, can I ask a question about the Jacksonville Harbor?
The Chief's Report was signed earlier this month, and now it
has been submitted to the Secretary of the Army. Is there a
project sort of update on what is going to happen with that
Chief's Report and a timeline?
General Peabody. Sir, the Chief's Report, once it is
signed, goes two place. First, it comes to the Congress. But
then it goes to Secretary Darcy's office for administration
review between her office and the Office of Management and
Budget. And, you know, they do their review, and once it gets
through administration review, then the administration would
submit it back to Congress with any independent recommendations
that the administration may have, separate from the Chief. By
statute, the Chief is required to give his recommendation, and
then the Secretary has an equal obligation to make her own
independent judgment.
Mr. Webster. Is there any kind of timeline for that?
General Peabody. Sir, I am not familiar with where that
particular project is in administration review right now.
Mr. Webster. OK. Yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Rice?
Mr. Rice. General, I have heard reports--I obviously wasn't
here when we started working on the Port Everglades project,
but it started in the 1990s. Is that correct?
General Peabody. Tab, do you have the timeline?
Mr. Rice. The Florida port system told me they have been
working on trying to get this port dredged since 1998. Is that
right?
Mr. Brown. It has been about 17 years, sir.
Mr. Rice. You work for the Army, and you do a great job,
and I appreciate your service. But--and it is very appropriate,
because I think we are in a war. Not that this is the Armed
Services Committee; we are in a economic war with the rest of
the world. And who we are fighting for is that young lady right
over there, that Girl Scout. And we are fighting for--you got
kids?
General Peabody. I have a 4-year-old. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rice. Yes. We are fighting for them. We are fighting
for American competitiveness, economic competitiveness. And I
think, on a fair playing field, nobody can beat us. But I think
we are defeating ourselves. We are strangling ourselves with
all this regulation and delay. The fact that it would--we could
ever dream of taking 16 years to approve dredging a port--had
that port been dredged before?
General Peabody. Oh, yes, sir.
Mr. Rice. Yes. That it would take that long to make
decisions about feasibility and environmental conditions on a
port that has been dredged before that is not going to require
any Federal money, I mean, the system is so very, very clearly
broken.
And, I mean, we can sit here and name a whole lot of
reasons why this has happened, and--but it should never happen
again. How long have we been working on Brownsville?
General Peabody. I don't have the timeline on that, sir.
But, sir, I would like to say that your point is exactly
right. I mean this is exactly why we instituted planning
modernization, so we could come to clear decisions on
relatively predictable timelines, so that all the benefits that
can accrue from these water resource projects can start.
Because we can't get to construction until we do our----
Mr. Rice. I hear you, and I appreciate the concept of
3x3x3. I think 3x3x3 is too long, if we are going to compete.
There are groups of people around the world in every country,
every organized country except for us, that sit around and try
to figure out how they can make their countries more
competitive, how they can cut regulation, streamline costs,
and--or reduce cost and make things more efficient.
And we have got to change our attitude. We have got to
recognize that we are in an economic battle here, or we are
going to continue to see jobs--and when that young lady right
there graduates from college does, and my sons just did, there
is not going to be anything for them. There is going to have to
be a dramatic change in our attitude if we are going to compete
in the world.
General Peabody. Sir, I strongly concur with your concerns
about the economic competitiveness of this Nation. I am doing
everything I can to move things forward in the Corps of
Engineers Civil Works Program to get to decisions so that we
can remain competitive.
Mr. Rice. I mean, very honestly, particularly on a port
that has been dredged, you know multiple times--let's talk
about Charleston for a minute, not that Charleston has taken a
tremendous amount of time, Charleston is one that I am roughly
familiar with. I don't know how many times Charleston has been
dredged, but it has been dredged pretty darn continuously for
decades. Charleston is an incredibly economically important
port. I can't imagine a scenario, just common sense, that you
would run your study on Charleston on what it takes to get it
to the Panamax depth, and that you would conclude that that
port doesn't need to be dredged. I cannot imagine that
scenario. And why it would take years to make that decision is
just--it defies common sense, in my opinion. And it makes us
less competitive.
But we need to create a future for our kids. We need to
figure out a way to get past this. So thank you for--two things
I would like to see from you. One, I want your suggestions,
because I don't know. I want your suggestions on what we can do
to make this dramatically different, particularly for ports
that have been dredged over and over again, and are so clearly
important to our national economic security.
And, two, I want to know how much money we are spending
doing these studies--for example, Port Everglades--versus what
it actually costs to dredge. I want to know what the percentage
is--difference--because I think we are spending an incredibly
inordinate amount of money and time. And I would like to take
for that to take into account opportunity costs that we have
lost.
General Peabody. In terms of the amount of money, let's
talk about Savannah Harbor, which I am more familiar with.
First of all, Charleston Harbor is on track for a Chief's
Report next year, in 2015. And I just got an update on that
last week, and it is where it needs to be, barring any
unforseen circumstances, which sometimes do arise.
But the Savannah Harbor expansion project, for example,
took at least 15 years, over $40 million, to study that
project. I happened to sit on that Civil Works Review Board in
a previous capacity. General Semonite, then the division
commander, had a very graphic visual that showed the 27-inches-
across binders documenting all the issues associated with the
project.
But, sir, we have to comply with all of the statutes,
policies, and regulations that we are obligated to follow. And,
in this particular case, because of the confluence of the
harbor with some sensitive environmental habitat, it really
made the project much more complex to plow through.
Mr. Rice. Well, what I would like to know is how we can
streamline that 27 inches of binder, or the statutes that you
have to comply with. What I want to know is what we have got to
get rid of or simplify to get----
General Peabody. Sir, within our current legal policy and
regulatory constraints, we believe planning modernization does
exactly that. And all the early indicators are that it is
working, and it will deliver what we think it is supposed to.
Mr. Rice. I hear you, and I appreciate that, and I think
you are doing a great job, I really do. And I know you
understand my concern. But I don't want you to start the
sentence, ``Within our current.'' I want to talk about what we
can change within that to redefine those boundaries, and make
this easier.
General Peabody. Sir, that is for people who don't wear a
uniform to----
Mr. Rice. I understand. But we are not--we need your
insight, because you all work with it every day. We need your
insight on what we need to change.
General Peabody. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rice. Thank you.
General Peabody. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Jolly?
Mr. Jolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, I just want to
echo the concerns of my colleagues from Florida on both sides
of the aisle about Central Everglades, express my urgency and
disappointment on that, as well. The President has suggested it
is a priority of his on--through his We Can't Wait Initiative.
So I appreciate that you have demonstrated an understanding as
to the urgency of it.
The only thing I would ask, as a courtesy, you mentioned
you are receiving a progress report this Friday, and you think
within 2 weeks you would be able to schedule a review board.
Could your office commit to updating at least those of us from
Florida on this subcommittee? That puts it around May 15th, I
would estimate, 2 weeks out from this Friday. Could you commit
to updating us by then on a date that you could convene that
board?
General Peabody. Sir, we would absolutely keep you and the
other Members of the delegation updated on the progress of
moving forward.
Mr. Jolly. Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
General Peabody. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gibbs. Ms. Frankel, did you have a followup question
you want----
Ms. Frankel. I am fine.
Mr. Gibbs. You are fine? OK. I just got a couple things.
First of all, General, I want to thank you for all your
work and attentiveness on the Cleveland Harbor dredging project
for this year, getting that done, and your commitment to work
with the EPA to find a solution in a future--starting next
year, really, and how important that is to the economy of
northeastern, northern Ohio, and at least 2,000 jobs in the
Cleveland area at risk. And so it is good to know that the
dredging is going to proceed on schedule this coming May, this
month coming up.
I asked you a question, and I wasn't going to ask you, but
I thought maybe I will ask you publicly, because I think it is
important. We have had hearings on it in the past, you know,
the Missouri River issue. We had--one year we had flooding, and
the next year--I think I got the year right--we had drought.
And can you just kind of give us an update of what the status
is right now, and what the Corps is looking at on that whole
Missouri River Basin issue?
General Peabody. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Just
last week we did our annual spring flood assessment. We do this
every year across the Corps, look at all the basins so that we
can make sure that we understand the status of snowpack, of
ground moisture, of meteorological forecasts, and then
anticipate and pre-position assets, if needed, to address the
potential for flooding.
We did have the flood of record in recorded history of the
Missouri River in 2011, as you indicated, and then we had a
near-record drought just the next year. This year we do have a
fairly significant snowpack in some spot locations. It is a
record, or close to a record, in the upper reaches of the
Missouri River Basin mostly in the Montana area.
So, we are a little bit concerned about the snowpack, but
we don't currently have any meteorological forecast that would
cause us to believe that we would have this almost unique
confluence of very heavy snowpack and record rainfalls like we
had in 2011.
The other thing is the reservoirs are still lower than
normal in the Missouri River Basin. So we have more storage
capacity than we might normally have to deal with additional
runoff from either snow or rain. So while we are certainly not
out of the woods, we won't know that until well into June.
Right now we feel like we are in a good position, and we don't
anticipate major flooding. Although, of course, that could
always change with the weather.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. I appreciate that. So we--because the
reservoirs are down a little bit. If we do get a large rain
event like we did in 2011, we got some capacity there yet to
prevent flooding. And then we also got to--I know the challenge
is balancing that, in case we don't get the rainfall. And we
won't know that, of course, later--like you said, later--late
this spring, early to mid-summer. So I appreciate that.
Mr. Denham made it back in, so we will go--go ahead, Mr.
Denham.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Major General Peabody,
thank you for joining us. This is certainly a good day for a
lot of us who have been waiting for quite some time to get a
number of these Chief's Reports completed. As you may know, you
and your colleagues have worked for quite some time on the
flood risk management project along Orestimba Creek in
Stanislaus County. It is part of the San Joaquin Basin near
Newman. Major General Walsh was before this committee last June
and I appreciated hearing his comment on the Corps' continued
commitment on the project.
I was also very pleased when the Corps submitted, last
September, the final report from the Chief of Engineers,
whereby you recommend authorization of a plan for flood risk
management by constructing a levee there at the city of Newman,
the northeast perimeter there. The city and the county are both
local partners, and this project has been in the works for
nearly two decades. So we are finally excited that this is
actually getting done.
But I did want to ask, given all the reforms, how do you
think the Corps' new 3x3x3 would have affected this project?
And, additionally, if you can get this project funded by
Congress, what is the Corps' estimate on delivery date? And do
you anticipate any issues in completing construction?
General Peabody. Congressman, thank you, sir, for the
question. I am not familiar with that project, so I would have
to look at it to be able to answer your question with any
precision.
I will say that I am very confident that our planning
modernization approach is working. And the 3x3x3 model works
best when we have a fairly localized project that has a very
direct purpose. It doesn't have a lot of complicating variables
and a committed sponsor able to fund their cost share
provision. Basically, it is a well-bounded and well-defined
project.
Now, I will add on one other point that I think is very
important, in the past we did not bound ourselves. We allowed
ourselves to infinitely--almost infinitely--look at all kinds
of alternatives, and get overzealous about studying the full
range of possibilities.
What we have done with 3x3x3 is discipline ourselves early
on to scope down the project to the most likely set of
alternatives and range of approaches that are going to address
the issue, and have a high possibility of success in addressing
the issue. And doing that early, upfront, makes the critical
difference in being able to cut out these years and years and
years of study.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. This is certainly from a local
perspective, but I would even say my colleagues here in DC--
Orestimba Creek, which most people would have never heard of,
have heard a lot about it because it has taken so long. And so
we are looking forward not only to a new and changed process
that will expedite a number of these projects, but certainly
having this included in the Chief's Reports with the rest of
the WRRDA package is something that is going to be very well
received at home. So thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Sanford?
Mr. Sanford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, General.
Nice to see you, sir.
A quick update from my end along the coast of South
Carolina. Of all things, in The Post and Courier, which is the
main paper for--oldest paper in the United States, I believe,
and the main paper there in Charleston and surrounding areas,
had an op-ed--excuse me, an editorial, of all things, today. I
will read just a portion of it, just to bring you up to speed
from our end, and would love your thoughts.
``Six mayors along the Charleston County coast have
launched an effort to get the silted Intracoastal Waterway
fixed. Theirs is a commendable emergency measure to restore
marine traffic, both commercial and recreational, to the key
north-south artery. They hope to convince Charleston County
Council to use accommodations tax and transportation sales
revenues to dredge the most troubled areas--near McClellanville
and the Isle of Palms near Breach Inlet. Then they hope the
State will find a long-term way to keep this vital waterway
open. But it's the State's congressional delegation that needs
to put the most muscle into solving the problem. Keeping the
Intracoastal Waterway operational is the responsibility of the
Federal Government, just as it is the Federal Government's
responsibility to keep the interstate highways operational. Of
the Atlantic States, South Carolina ranks last in Federal
funding for waterway dredging. Indeed, it has not happened at
all in the past years, according to an article from reporter
Prentiss Findlay. Our congressmen have made a concerted effort
to obtain funding to deepen the Charleston Harbor shipping
channel. They should also be working to find funding to dredge
the waterway.''
Meanwhile, County Councilman Dickie Schweers--who is on my
call list for today--has pointed out a number of shrimp boats
are being trapped near McClellanville, they can't get in or
out, and barges that run north and south of the Intracoastal
Waterway can only ply their trade during high tides, in some
cases.
So, I guess my question is a quick update on the
Intracoastal Waterway, and what is scheduled next, and what
might be scheduled next, from a funding standpoint.
General Peabody. Thank you for that question, Congressman.
Sir, I am not familiar with the specific project, but I
will dig into it. There are three points I would like to make.
First of all, it is gratifying to me to hear that there are
local entities who are interested in contributing funds and
ensuring that our waterway system works, which I believe is
absolutely critical to the economic competitiveness of the
Nation.
The second point I would make, and I think is the larger
point, is most people do not understand that this Nation is
blessed with the largest naturally navigable inland waterway
system in the world, thanks to--primarily, but not
exclusively--the Mississippi River system, as well as the
coastal water system that you are talking about. We have more
miles of navigable waterway--12,000 miles--than the entire rest
of the world, combined. And so, the ability to move goods and
people by waterborne transportation, which is the most
environmentally compliant and the most economically
competitive, is the cheapest way to move goods per ton-mile. It
is one of the reasons why we can sustain our competitiveness,
despite our relatively high tax and labor rates.
The last comment I would make is, sir, I think you are
aware that, because of the fiscal pressures that we in the
Corps face as part of the larger Federal Government,
notwithstanding the importance of this larger system that I
talked about, we have to place our limited funds on those
projects that give the highest return.
So, as we go forward, one of the biggest challenges that we
face in the Corps is we are going to need to make tough
decisions about what infrastructure to invest in, and what not
to invest in. We have recon studies in the President's 2015
budget proposal for Kentucky River and Upper Allegheny to
dispose of those. There is a lock and dam on the Kentucky River
that, believe it or not, went into operation during Martin Van
Buren's administration. And there is no traffic that goes
through there.
So, I will get back to you on your issue, sir, but I think
these larger points are important for us to understand and
dialogue about.
Mr. Sanford. I understand the larger points. Appreciate it.
And, again, that is the proverbial food fight each year of the
Congress----
General Peabody. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sanford [continuing]. And how those funds get
distributed. But I would just make the point, from a
competitive standpoint, you know, the port in Charleston has
been rated, indeed, one of the most competitive points in the
entire country. And a feeder system feeding out from that port,
obviously, would be the Intracoastal Waterway running both
north and south. And so, from a competitive standpoint, and
from a utility standpoint, there is something very wrong with
barges only being able to operate at high tide, which is
currently the case, in areas both north and south.
And so, we would very much appreciate you getting back to
me on numbers, in terms of where things stand. And there is
something wrong--if the statistic is true--it is in the
newspaper, therefore it may not be true--but South Carolina
being last in Federal funding for waterway dredging, given the
importance of Charleston.
General Peabody. Sir, I look forward to meeting with you to
discuss those issues----
Mr. Sanford. Yes, sir.
General Peabody [continuing]. And I will get back to you.
Mr. Sanford. Thanks so much.
General Peabody. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gibbs. Well, that concludes our hearing. And, General,
I want to thank you for coming in. And hopefully we are close
to finishing up the WRRDA bill, and look forward--we all look
forward to working with you as we implement the new policies
that will come out of there to help streamline the costs. And I
would love to hear your comment you just made at the end there
about our inland waterway system and the coastal waterway
system, the numbers compare globally. That is interesting.
And you are absolutely right, we have been blessed with a
good system, and we just need to get it updated, so we can just
remain competitive and move those exports out.
So, again, thanks for coming in, and this concludes our
hearing for today.
[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]