[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2016
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
_______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho, Chairman
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
KEN CALVERT, California PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
KAY GRANGER, Texas
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DAVID G. VALADAO, California
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Donna Shahbaz, Angie Giancarlo, Loraine Heckenberg,
Perry Yates, and Matthew Anderson
Staff Assistants
_______
PART 5
Page
U.S. Corps of Engineers..................................... 1
Bureau of Reclamation....................................... 97
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
_______
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
96-875 WASHINGTON : 2015
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey NITA M. LOWEY, New York
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
KAY GRANGER, Texas PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
KEN CALVERT, California SAM FARR, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BARBARA LEE, California
TOM GRAVES, Georgia MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
KEVIN YODER, Kansas BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas STEVE ISRAEL, New York
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska TIM RYAN, Ohio
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
DAVID G. VALADAO, California MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland DEREK KILMER, Washington
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
William E. Smith, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2016
_________
Wednesday, February 11, 2015.
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WITNESSES
JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS, UNITED
STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
GENERAL THOMAS P. BOSTICK, COMMANDING GENERAL AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS,
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Mr. Simpson. The committee will come to order. Before we
start this hearing, I wanted to just take a minute if I could
before my opening statement to recognize we have some empty
chairs with members not here yet but will come. We have a
couple of new members on the Majority side and a couple of new
members on the Minority side.
As I said, on our side, Congresswoman Herrera Beutler and
Congressman Valadao are new to this committee. I suspect they
will be here shortly. Marcy can introduce the new members on
her side.
I did want to take just a second, if I could, to recognize
that we have unfortunately one more empty chair than we had
planned on, as everyone knows, last week with the passing of
Mr. Nunnelee, who was the vice chairman of this committee for
the last couple of years.
It was a great loss both to his state and really to the
country, but particularly to this committee for the work that
he did. He was always a gentleman and one of those southern
gentlemen. When you think of the term ``southern gentleman,''
he exemplified it.
I enjoyed working with him greatly. He made a true
difference because he knew how to work with other people,
people he sometimes disagreed with. He was always a gentleman.
We are going to miss him greatly. It is one of those sad events
that life works mysteriously sometimes.
We do thank God for the brief time we had him here and our
opportunity to work with him and interact with him and for the
great job he did while he was here.
Mr. Rogers, if you have any comments?
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just thinking
how qualified Alan Nunnelee was. He had great experience back
in Mississippi as the head of their appropriations process and
in general.
He came to us well equipped, both in his experience but
more importantly in his demeanor. There was not a mean bone in
his body. He was a perfect southern gentleman in the
traditional thought about that type of person.
He was a rare individual that was driven to serve others,
loyal to his family, loyal to his friends, loyal to his
country. A true gentleman through and through.
On this subcommittee and the other subcommittees of
Appropriations, he was a workhorse, ever willing to dig down
and get the hard work done.
As a friend, no one could ask for a more loyal and decent
man by your side. He is a rare individual that has left a large
hole in our hearts, in this subcommittee's, our Appropriations
Committee, and the Congress.
We will surely miss him. We want to especially express our
deepest sympathies to his wife, Tori, and three children, Reed,
Emily and Nathan. A true, true loss to all of us. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing
us time to express in the official record our deepest
condolences on the passing of Alan Nunnelee, our beloved
colleague, to his wife, to his children. Congressman Rogers has
eloquently talked about them.
Personally, whether it is this group of members or other
members who served with Congressman Nunnelee, when I would look
down the table here, the arc of the table, his face would
always be there. I knew we were officially in session. He had a
way of sitting in his chair and reaching toward the table that
really was unique to him. He was rather tall. I think that may
have contributed to that.
There was just such an ease about him, and it was a real
joy to serve with him. He was a very honorable man, someone who
served his constituents well. I am in exactly the opposite end
of the country that he came from, but he was such a gentleman.
I think he had a very kind nature, very good humor, which
contributed to the well functioning of this committee, and his
sort of effervescent spirit kind of enlivened us all.
I am going to miss that very much. I hope that the angels
lift his being very high and bring comfort to those who mourn
his loss. We surely do that. He did inspire us to carry on, and
I hope we will do that certainly during this session, and do
something especially in his memory so that his living legacy
will continue forward.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us a few moments to
commemorate his life.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Thank you all for being here today.
We begin this year's budget hearing with a look at the request
for the Civil Works Program of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
I would like to welcome our witnesses, Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Civil Works, Jo-Ellen Darcy, the Commanding
General, and Chief of Engineers, Lieutenant General Thomas
Bostick. It is good to see you both again and I look forward to
hearing your testimony. We also have Major General John Peabody
here, and Mark.
Mr. Mazzanti. Mazzanti.
Mr. Simpson. Over the past several years, this
Administration has at times said all the right things about the
economic benefits of navigation and economic and public safety
benefits of flood and storm damage reduction investments.
Unfortunately, year after year, the budget falls far short
of actually making progress in any of these areas. Congress, on
the other hand, has recognized the importance of the Civil
Works Program by providing the Corps with funding above the
budget request, including significant increases for the past
two years.
For fiscal year 2015, we added $922 million above the
budget request, and for fiscal year 2014, we had added $641
million above the budget request.
Even though the President's fiscal year 2016 request for
all energy and water programs is increased by $1.8 billion over
last year's budget, almost every major category in the Corps'
budget is cut. Navigation funding is reduced by 16 percent.
Flood and storm damage reduction activities are down 20
percent. Harbor maintenance activities are cut by 17 percent.
Construction funding for our inland waterway system is reduced
by 17 percent, and that is after industries successfully
lobbied to raise their own taxes to help pay for these capital
improvements.
The overall construction account is slashed by 28 percent
and funding for studies and other planning activities is
decreased by 20 percent.
This is not the budget request of an Administration that
understands the importance of investing in our Nation's water
resources' infrastructure.
My concerns are not limited to only the budget request, the
Administration has also been pushing several policy changes
that could have a chilling effect on economic development
across the Nation.
Their proposed rule to redefine waters of the United States
is a prime example. This joint proposal by the Corps and the
EPA would expand Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act
far beyond what the Supreme Court has said is legal. Using
tenuous at best connections to navigable waters to force an
onerous and expensive permitting process on our agricultural,
industrial, transportation, and other business sectors, as well
as individual property owners, will hurt not help economic
progress.
I would note that I find it interesting that the budget
request includes an additional $5 million specifically to
implement this rulemaking.
This Administration has claimed that this rule would
streamline the permitting process by providing clarity and
certainty for applicants. If that is true, the Corps should
need less money to process permits, not more.
Taken individually and in combination, these budgetary and
policy proposals paint a troubling picture for the future of
our water resources and our Nation's economy.
I look forward to further exploring these issues later in
this hearing. Again, I would like to welcome our witnesses to
the subcommittee.
Secretary Darcy, please ensure that questions for the
record and any supporting information requested by the
subcommittee are delivered in final form to us no later than
four weeks from the time you receive them. Members who have
additional questions for the record will have until the close
of business Friday to provide them to the subcommittee's
office.
With that, I will turn to Ms. Kaptur for her opening
comments.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
chairman of our full committee, Mr. Rogers, for joining us
today, and the former chair of this subcommittee, Mr.
Frelinghuysen.
Assistant Secretary Darcy, General Bostick, General
Peabody, Mr. Mazzanti, we appreciate your appearance before us
today. We are here to help you.
I, for one, look forward to this hearing on an issue of
very keen interest to me, and that is the stewardship of our
Nation's very precious freshwater resources.
Over the last few years, the western part of our country
has endured and been ravaged by drought. It looks as though
those trends are continuing. Meanwhile, the freshwater region
that I represent, the most important in the entire world, has
fallen victim to troubling mismanagement, and the water system
of a major city in this country was shut off for three days. I
have never experienced anything quite like that before.
The Corps of Engineers has an important role to play in
building a water secure future for our country. We are all
eager to hear about your progress in adapting innovative
approaches to make your mission a reality.
As we grow our economy, the Corps also provides a great
opportunity for job creation. Federal support of water resource
projects creates construction jobs and indirect economic
benefits that encourage local businesses and individuals to
make critical investments in their own communities.
Unfortunately, this budget request continues the trend
toward disinvestment. Last year, Congress overwhelmingly
supported nearly a billion dollar increase for the Corps, as
you well know. With the return of sequestered budget caps, I am
worried about the negative effects to our infrastructure absent
another congressional intervention, and I guess that is why we
are all here.
Additionally, the passage last year of a new Water
Resources Development Act has significant implications for the
Corps. I am interested to learn more about plans to implement
these provisions, including new funding mechanisms, invasive
species control, and language relevant to our Great Lakes.
That bill was to also address the Corps' massive backlog,
currently estimated at $60 billion by some, and I understand
that a full accounting of those projects is being developed,
and I hope that you will share some of the emerging details
with our committee today.
Finally, as a Great Lakes' legislator, I would ask you to
address seriously widely held concerns about the invasion of
the Asian Carp, Great Lakes' dredging needs, and a broader
environmental awareness of the largest freshwater system on the
face of the earth. That currently seems to be lacking in some
of the presentations that we have seen, especially in light of
the water crisis I reference in Toledo last August.
There is a need for innovative thinking. We know Great
Lakes' ports are critical to the regional and national
economies supporting our critical manufacturing base, among
others, and we must keep these ports open for business.
However, this need not come at the expense of water
security, the safety and quality of our drinking water, or the
environmental integrity of that precious ecosystem.
We know we will be helped during this session of Congress
by the addition of two very important members to our
subcommittee, and I want to officially welcome them today, both
from the State of California, a state that has its own share of
current challenges, which I know they will enlighten us on.
Congressman Mike Honda, as well as Congresswoman Lucille
Roybal-Allard. She has other subcommittees that she has to
attend to as the new ranking on Homeland Security, and we very
much appreciate her attendance here today, and our very able
colleague, Mr. Honda, as well. Welcome.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. It is now my honor to turn to the
full committee chairman, the Honorable Harold Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding the time.
Secretary Darcy, Generals, Mark, welcome. We appreciate you
being here.
This is the first hearing of this subcommittee. In fact, it
is the first hearing of the entire committee, so you get the
blue ribbon.
Mr. Simpson. We like hearings.
Mr. Rogers. I am hopeful that this subcommittee can
continue its track record of working collaboratively under
regular order, to draft thoughtful and responsible bills to
fund our Federal Government.
The Corps certainly has a diverse set of projects to
manage, from lakes, to rivers, to dams, each with their own
unique challenges. I continue to be impressed with the talented
people at the Corps who engineer these projects that stand the
test of time and weather and other problems.
These projects are critical to the national economy. I have
always appreciated the collaborative nature of our partnership
with the Corps in planning their work and working their plan.
With such significant potential for economic impact, it is
important that we get things right in the budget and set the
right priorities for these projects.
In my district in Kentucky, Southeast Kentucky, the Corps
has protected communities from the threat of constant flooding,
enabled the next generation with reliable hydropower, created
numerous recreational opportunities on rivers, lakes,
campgrounds for residents and visitors, in addition to managing
one of the most complex and expensive water resources'
infrastructure project in the history of Wolf Creek Dam on the
Cumberland River.
The Corps has supported numerous communities in a smaller
scale flood mitigation series of efforts. Recently, you have
turned your attention to the town of Martin, Kentucky, again,
which was subjected to years and years of almost perineal
catastrophic floods, and has suffered tremendous loss of
livelihood and property as a result.
We look forward to working with you more as you move
critical town structures to higher and drier ground.
I appreciate your partnership with the towns as they
struggle with survival. This is an existing problem with them.
Without a doubt, because of your efforts and expertise, these
communities are much safer and more secure.
When I took office in January of 1981, I asked the Corps to
take us on a helicopter the length of the Cumberland River,
which is a mountainous part of my district, to look at the
places where if you had the money, you could stop the perineal
flooding of all those towns, and you did.
We joined you in the effort, and you constructed levees
and/or cut throughs or other tunnels and the like to prevent
flooding of those towns.
I can tell you and remind you, not a single one of those
cities that you did that work on has flooded since then, some
30 plus years. You have saved lives and you have saved churches
and homes and Bibles and keepsakes and whatever by the work
that you do.
While the Corps is getting a lot right, there are some
concerns with regard to the execution of your mission and its
adherence to the direction of Congress. One primary issue is
the Corps' commitment to its recreation mandate.
Lake Cumberland in my district is a perfect example. The
Corps has been reticent to embrace opportunities for recreation
on that lake, despite clear direction in the most recent bill
passed by Congress, and I will be working with you and talking
to you about that as we go along.
Even greater concern is the manner in which the Corps is
choosing to execute its regulatory authority. The regulations
promulgated and enforced through the Corps have a tremendous
impact on jobs and the economy, and we are feeling this in my
district.
We have been witnessing the Administration's relentless
attack on coal jobs for years. Each new regulation imposed on
this industry is making life more difficult and uncertain for
the people in my region.
So far, we have had 9,000 coal miners laid off in the last
few years, a lot of it due to reaching beyond the authority
given to the executive agencies. Those who depend on the coal
industry for work and for reliable energy are seeing jobs
disappear, their energy bills continuing to rise, and with each
new instance of bureaucratic overreach in this war on coal, we
see businesses close, and more Americans struggling to find
work.
I talk to families every day. A man in his 30s or 40s, able
bodied, has a family with small kids, laid off, trying to find
a job at McDonald's or what have you, most of the time,
unsuccessfully. So, they have no choice but to leave and take
their family with them. There goes more of the economy as more
and more businesses close.
It is time for bureaucrats to lay aside their personal
animus toward the coal industry and allow for a true all of the
above energy strategy for the country.
In the same vein, I continue to be dismayed at the efforts
of the Corps and EPA to write new rules defining ``waters of
the United States.'' If that goes into effect, these new rules
will place stringent standards on thousands of miles of streams
across the country, some of which only flow seasonally after
heavy rains. They just are not navigable streams, unless you
are writing cartoons for Disney.
Every hollow and valley in Kentucky has a stream running
through it. Some of them are dry streams. Over regulating each
of them will only further distress economic activity in the
region. That means road construction, coal mining, any other
activity that takes place near these newly defined navigable
waters will only take place with the say so of a Federal
bureaucrat after a hearing in Washington, D.C.
These new regulations will strangle economic development in
Appalachia and any other part of the country, and place yet
another layer of red tape on job creating projects and
businesses across the country.
Just the threat of this regulation is causing many people
who are thinking of developing a shopping center or a farmer
wanting to build a culvert to get to a field or what have you,
or a standing body of water that has no connection to any
stream anywhere. It is already causing a lot of activity never
to take place.
That is not the way for the Federal Government to operate.
That is not the way we were invented. That is not the way we
were designed. It is not the way we are motivated. Yet, we see
this absolute profound reach to control everything from
Washington, and we are here to tell you it ain't going to work.
These issues are vital for the people of my district, for
other coal producing regions across the country, and for our
national economy. I hope that you will touch on these and other
important issues in your remarks so we can better understand
how the Corps plans to address these challenges to better our
country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Ms. Darcy.
Ms. Darcy. Thank you, Chairman Simpson and distinguished
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity
today to present the President's budget for the Civil Works
Program of the Army Corps of Engineers for 2016.
This year's Civil Works budget reflects the
Administration's priorities through targeted investments in the
Nation's water resources infrastructure, including dams and
levees, navigation, and the restoration of ecosystems.
It supports the Civil Works Program that relies on a
foundation of strong relationships between the Corps and our
local communities, which allows us to work together to meet
their water resources' needs.
The budget also helps us in our efforts to promote the
resilience of our communities to respond to the impacts of
climate change. We are investing in research and planning, in
vulnerability assessments and pilot projects, and evaluations
of the value and performance of non-structural and natural
based features to help us maintain, as well as improve, our
efforts on sustainability.
For example, we are reducing the Corps' carbon footprint by
increasing renewable electricity consumption, by reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, and by reducing our non-tactical
vehicle petroleum consumption.
We are also advancing our sustainability efforts by using
innovative financing techniques, such as the energy savings
performance contracts. We are making important investments to
promote the sustainable management of the lands around our
Corps facilities by providing funds to update the plans that
govern how we manage our facilities and to help combat invasive
species.
The budget also focuses on maintaining the water resources
infrastructure that the Corps owns and manages and in finding
innovative ways to rehabilitate it, hand it over to others, or
retire it.
Here are some funding highlights. The 2016 Civil Works'
budget provides $4.7 billion in gross discretionary
appropriations for the Army Civil Works Program, focusing on
investments that will help provide economic and environmental
returns or address a significant risk to public safety.
The budget focuses funding on our three major mission
areas, allocating 41 percent to commercial navigation, 27
percent to flood and storm damage reduction projects, and nine
percent to aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Other effective and sound investments include allocating
five percent of the budget to hydropower, two percent to the
clean up of the sites contaminated during the early years of
the Nation's Nuclear Weapons Program, and four percent to
regulatory activities.
Overall, the budget funds 57 construction projects, nine of
them to completion. It also funds 54 feasibility studies, 13 of
those to completion. The budget also includes four new
construction starts, two of which the Corps will complete in
one year.
The budget funds inland waterways' capital investments at
$974 million, of which $53 million will be derived from the
Inland Waterway Trust Fund.
The budget provides $915 million from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund to maintain coastal channels and related
work, matching the highest amount ever budgeted.
Forty-four million is provided for a comprehensive levee
safety initiative that will help ensure that all Federal levees
are safe and in line with the Federal Emergency Management
Administration's standards. This initiative will provide non-
Federal entities with access to levee data that will help
inform them of the safety issues.
The budget supports a Corps program that has a diverse set
of tools and approaches to working with local communities,
whether this means funding projects with our cost sharing
partners or providing technical assistance and planning
assistance expertise to help communities make better informed
decisions.
This year, the President's Civil Works budget provides $31
million for the Corps to provide local communities with
technical and planning assistance to help them develop and
implement non-structural approaches to improve their resilience
to the impacts of climate change.
The Corps continues to contribute to the Nation's
environmental restoration and the budget provides funding to
restore several large ecosystems that have been a focus of
interagency collaboration, including the California Bay Delta,
Chesapeake Bay, the Everglades, the Great Lakes, and the Gulf
Coast.
Other funded Corps efforts include the Columbia River, some
portions of Puget Sound, and priority work in the Upper
Mississippi and Missouri Rivers.
Finally, the budget provides $6 million for the Corps'
Veterans Curation Program, which was started in 2009 with
support from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This
program offers veterans the opportunity to learn tangible work
skills and gain experience by rehabilitating and preserving
federally owned or administered archaeological collections
found at Corps of Engineers' projects.
I thank you all for your attention, and I look forward to
working with the committee as we move this budget forward.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. General Bostick.
General Bostick. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of
the subcommittee. I am honored to testify before your committee
today along with the Honorable Jo-Ellen Darcy on the
President's fiscal year 2016 Civil Works Program of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers.
This is my third time to testify before this subcommittee
on the Civil Works' budget. Thank you for your support in the
past, and I look forward to continuing our work together in the
future.
I have been in command for nearly three years, and I would
like to provide a brief update on our four campaign goals.
First, support to national security. The Corps supports the
national security of the United States.
We continue to work in more than 110 countries using our
Civil Works, military missions, water resources, and research
and development expertise to support our Nation's combatant
commanders.
Army Corps employees, both civilian and military, from all
across the Nation have volunteered, and continue to volunteer,
to provide critical support to our military and the
humanitarian missions abroad.
Second, transform Civil Works. Civil Works transformation
focuses on four key areas. First, modernizing the project
planning process. Second, enhancing the budget development
process through a systems oriented approach that includes
collaboration.
Third, developing an infrastructure strategy to evaluate
the current inventory of projects to help us identify
priorities and develop better solutions to water resources
challenges. Fourth, improving methods of delivery, to produce
and deliver sound decisions, products and services that will
improve the ways in which we manage and use our water
resources.
Since the inception of Civil Works transformation in 2008,
42 Chief's reports have been completed. During this seven-year
period, 13 Chief's reports were completed in the first four
years, and 29 Chief's reports were completed in the last
three--clear evidence that we are learning and becoming a much
more efficient organization in our processes.
In our third campaign plan goal, we must continue to be
proactive and develop improved strategies to reduce disaster
risk, as well as respond to natural disasters when they do
occur. I continue to be very impressed at the work of the Army
Corps of Engineers in this particular area.
One great example of this proficiency is the Hurricane
Sandy recovery work. The flood control and coastal emergency
program is over 95 percent complete. The Sandy operations and
maintenance program is over 70 percent complete and on schedule
to be 100 percent by the end of 2016. And I am pleased to
highlight that the Army submitted the North Atlantic Coast
Comprehensive Study on schedule to Congress and the American
public on 28 January 2015.
Our fourth campaign goal is to prepare for tomorrow--this
is all about our people--to ensure that we have a pipeline of
talented military and civilian teammates as well as a strong
workforce development program and a talent management program.
Equally important is helping our nation's wounded warriors and
soldiers as they transition out of active duty to find
fulfilling careers. Last year we set a goal of assisting 125
soldiers transitioning out of the military; all of these were
wounded warriors. We exceeded that goal by more than 50
percent. Nearly 200 wounded warriors found permanent positions
within the Corps or other organizations across America.
We are also focused on research and development efforts
that will help solve some of the nation's toughest challenges.
Chairman, I ask you and other members to refer to my complete
written testimony submitted to the Committee for the fiscal
year 2016 budget specifics. I thank you for this opportunity
and look forward to your questions.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, both of you, for your testimony and
thank you for being here today. I want you to know first of all
that I think everyone on this Committee and everyone that I am
aware of both respects and admires the work that you do for
this country. The Army Corps does some vital work to the
infrastructure, particularly the water infrastructure, of this
country that is important. But as you could tell from the
opening comments of Chairman Rogers and myself and Ranking
Member Kaptur, we have some questions and sometimes we have
some disagreements about various provisions. Let me get into a
couple of those.
First of all, let me ask about the fiscal year 2015 work
plan, the unallocated funds. In fiscal year 2015, the work plan
sent up last week did not include allocation of all additional
funding provided in the 2015 act. In fact, 42 percent of the
additional investigations funding and 23 percent of the
additional construction funding was left unallocated. We hear
from local sponsors and other stakeholders all the time that
these investments are necessary, so why were any funds, but
particularly such large amounts, left unallocated and what is
the plan and schedule for allocating the remaining funding?
Ms. Darcy. Thank you, Congressman Simpson. I think it is
$141 million that was unallocated in the 2015 work plan. We are
in the process of continuing to find places to allocate those
funds. We are trying to do it as quickly as possible. We did
submit the work plan with the budget so that folks could
compare the two, and the work plan was actually due up here
next Monday. We are continuing to look at those unobligated
balances and hope that we will be able to get those allocated
as soon as possible. We have some outstanding projects that
came in late, so we are looking at those and hopefully we can
get that done as soon as possible.
Mr. Simpson. Does that mean that if, say, this year we were
to appropriate money beyond what the President's budget
requested that you are so caught up that you would not have any
way to spend those funds or it would be difficult to find a
place to spend those funds?
Ms. Darcy. I would say no, sir, but with the additional
unallocated funds that we did not plan for in the President's
budget, it is a challenge, but it is a welcome challenge. If
there is a work plan next year, then we will have two years
under our belt for having provided this.
Mr. Simpson. Well, I appreciate that and it has to be
fairly obvious to the administration that Congress places a
different priority on the work of the Army Corps than what he
does in his budget requests when we have added--I guess if you
add over the last couple of years, $1.5 billion more than was
requested. In fact, last year when they cut $900 million out of
the Army Corps from the year before, we added it back plus
about $25 million and that still was not enough on the floor.
There were amendments adopted that added more into the Corps to
address some of these problems. I guess every member of
Congress has an Army Corps project in their district that is
important to them and important to the country, frankly. So I
understand how this works, having laws to work both at the
state level and here at the federal level, is that oftentimes
it is easy for an administration, Republican or Democrat, when
they are preparing a budget, to cut back on those areas that
they know Congress is going to fill in; that it is important to
members of Congress so that they have more money to actually
spend on priorities that they would like to spend money on and
then we end up having to backfill it, the allocation. When you
look at the budget this year, the President has requested $1.8
billion above last year's and yet the Army Corps is down. Now,
chances are our allocation is going to be substantially less
than what the President's budget requested. So we have that
$1.8 billion, plus we have $750 million we are going to have to
fill back in with the Army Corps of Engineers. It is going to
be substantially hard to do this and keep backfilling the
budget that the President requests.
The budget request cuts funding for harbor maintenance
activities by $192 million. While you said it was the largest
budget request that an administration had made, it is not the
largest appropriation that has been made. We have substantially
increased appropriations above what the President requested in
that arena. But it cuts harbor maintenance activities $192
million for the current year. The request is $385 million below
the target set by last year's Water Resources Development Act
or WRRDA.
Secretary Darcy, does the administration believe that our
coastal and inland harbors are important to the American
economy and, if so, why is that importance not reflected in the
budget request? Do you anticipate the administration making any
attempt to meet the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund targets in
WRRDA, the water bill, in the future?
Ms. Darcy. Congressman, harbors are very important to this
Administration and as I said, the $950 million in the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund that the President is requesting this
year is the highest that the Administration has ever requested.
We do believe that we are hopefully on track and looking
forward to complying with the provisions in WRRDA. But that
said, there are competing requirements for us within the budget
process not only within the Corps of Engineers but the
President's budget overall.
Mr. Simpson. It must be unique to come up here and testify
before Congress and have a Committee saying you are not
spending enough money. Other agencies that come up here have
kind of the opposite reaction from members of Congress, but
this is an area that we are obviously going to look at very
seriously. Actually at the level that the Army Corps has
requested funding and that the administration requests the
funding for the Army Corps, I do not think we could pass a bill
on the floor at that level because there are too many members
that have an interest in the important work that you do. But
thank you for being here today. Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Secretary
Darcy, the January Jobs Report was the eleventh consecutive
month of job growth above 200,000 in our country, the first
time that that has happened since the mid-1990s. Yet even with
this growth, the unemployment rate in the construction field
has been hovering around 10 percent, according to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics. The Council of Economic Advisers estimates
that for every billion dollars of federal funding in transit
investment in the highway funds, we create about 13,000 jobs
for a year.
So I am going to ask you kind of a hard question and that
is in terms of the Corps and the construction projects that you
do, do you have an estimate of the job impact of Corps of
Engineers' funding and how that ripples through our economy in
terms of job creation?
Ms. Darcy. We have done some modeling on trying to make
that calculation, similar to the number that you hear in the
transportation industry, one that is relevant to water
projects. What our modeling shows is that about 20,000 jobs are
created for every billion dollars' worth of expenditure.
General Bostick. That is 10,000 full-time direct jobs and
20,000 when you look overall. So it is 20,000.
Ms. Kaptur. The jobs connected to the primary jobs, you are
saying, 10,000?
General Bostick. Direct jobs are about 10,000.
Ms. Kaptur. For each billion?
General Bostick. For each billion, overall 20,000 when you
consider the indirect jobs.
Ms. Kaptur. Okay, those are very important numbers.
Congress includes jobs as a criterion for the allocation of
additional funds that have been provided to the Corps over the
last several years. What else could the Corps or the Congress
be doing to maximize the job impact of our energy- and water-
related investments over which you have jurisdiction?
General Bostick. Ma'am, I would say there are a number of
things that we do. Some of them are intermittent jobs for
construction, for example, and each time we have a major
construction program that may come with a lot of jobs. So if it
is a long-term effort like Olmsted, then you are going to see
full-time jobs for a longer period of time.
If you look along the Mississippi, for example, there are a
lot of jobs that are dependent--and a lot of businesses that
are dependent--on the efficient dredging of the Mississippi so
that barge traffic can go up and down the Mississippi, and the
businesses that rely on it can use it. And the greater that
capacity, I think the more population and more businesses would
develop and benefit from it. There are some estimates that say
around 800,000 people along the Mississippi River benefit from
the work that we do and they depend, and their livelihood
depends, on the efficient flow of the river.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, General.
Secretary Darcy, we often hear that the Corps of Engineers'
construction backlog is somewhere in the neighborhood of $60
billion. For a program that the administration only requests
slightly higher than $1 billion and for which the Congress
appropriates somewhere around $2 billion, the $60 billion
figure seems daunting, if not somewhat surreal. Our staff's own
work shows that if you just count the ongoing projects, there
is something like $31 billion remaining on the authorization
level.
What are you doing as Corps to get a handle on the
authorized projects that are still relevant and is there a way
of you mapping by district or region, Congressional district or
region, the funding levels associated with the projects yet to
be completed?
Ms. Darcy. Congresswoman Kaptur, there was a provision put
in WRRDA 2014 that passed last June that requires the Corps to
look at just that, and in doing so requires us to identify $18
billion worth of projects that we would think to be
deauthorized.
As part of that deauthorization exercise to meet that
requirement, we are looking at what exactly is out there and
how big is that backlog. We are not sure if $60 billion is the
right number. It could be more than that. And in recognizing
that, then we need to look at what projects are those that
would qualify for or be recommended for deauthorization.
Looking back through the entire portfolio probably takes
overtime.
Ms. Kaptur. Do you have any idea at what point you might be
able to produce that report?
Ms. Darcy. It is required to be delivered in September of
this year.
Ms. Kaptur. Okay. Let me ask a question about dredging,
following on the Chairman's question. Can you give us an idea
of the backlog for authorized Corps projects, specifically for
the Great Lakes? Will that be in the September report?
Ms. Darcy. For all projects or for just dredging, ma'am?
Ms. Kaptur. For all projects, but then dredging as a subset
of that.
Ms. Darcy. I think we can produce it for the dredging
projects.
Ms. Kaptur. For the dredging projects, okay. As you know,
the open lake disposal issue is a very hot issue, certainly in
the Lake Erie area. My question is, can you provide for the
record for the Cleveland Harbor the difference in cost between
open lake disposal and alternative disposal that would be for
beneficial reuse or a confined alternative? Are you able to do
that?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, we can.
Ms. Kaptur. Do you have any idea at this point what that
might be?
Ms. Darcy. I do not have the number off the top of my head.
I do not know if you do, General?
General Peabody. It is below $5 million, ma'am. I cannot
give you a precise figure. It is probably considerably below
that, but we would have to follow up.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. I thank you, General, for that
clarification. Mr. Chairman, I am just going to ask for consent
to put in the record a report that talks about the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund and the fact that there is a rolling
balance in that fund of--and it is going up--$8.3 billion in
2014, $8.9 billion in 2015. It is estimated in 2016 to be $9.9
billion, and you look at commerce in a region such as I
represent and we are questioning why we cannot get this done.
So I will be very, very interested in your recommendations
for alternatives to deal with that dredge material,
specifically in the harbors on Lake Erie, and I will have more
questions in the follow-on period. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, witnesses.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. This year's budget request reduces construction
funding by almost a $.5 billion from the fiscal year 2015
enacted level. That is 28 percent of the entire account. How
many projects could use funding in fiscal year 2016, but are
not included in that budget request?
Ms. Darcy. How many could use funding, sir?
Mr. Simpson. Could you pull the microphone a little bit
closer? Yes, perfect.
Mr. Rogers. How many projects could use funding in fiscal
year 2016, but are not included in the budget request?
Ms. Darcy. I do not have that number, but maybe we can get
it for you.
Mr. Mazzanti. Mr. Chairman, there are 41 projects that were
included in the work plan that are not in the 2016 budget.
Mr. Rogers. And how many are included?
Mr. Mazzanti. As far as construction projects?
Mr. Rogers. Yes.
Mr. Mazzanti. There are 57 total projects included in the
2016 budget. The challenge for us is there are a number of
factors that affect the requirements of projects as far as
which projects could use funding, including sponsor financing,
necessary acquisition of rights of way, the availability of
funding for priority. And so to come up with a specific number
is very challenging for us to relay.
Mr. Rogers. How many of these projects will be shut down or
have progress slowed unnecessarily due to lack of continued
funding?
Mr. Mazzanti. Again, Mr. Chairman, it is very challenging
for us to try and look at the reason for any slowdown or
shutdown due to the level of construction funding. But for this
particular budget, we are not aware of any projects that will
be shut down.
Mr. Rogers. Will any of these projects incur contractor
demobilization costs or other costs associated with being
halted?
Mr. Mazzanti. I will have to follow up with you, sir. I am
not aware of any.
Mr. Rogers. We were told previously that deferred
maintenance on existing federal projects had increased from
$884 million in 2003 to nearly $3.0 billion in fiscal year
2012. That increase occurred even as the operation and
maintenance budget was increasing each year and after taking
into account the $4.6 billion provided in the Recovery Act in
2009. What is the updated estimate of deferred maintenance?
General Bostick. It is still about $3 billion, but I would
say we still have a lot of work to do to gain fidelity on those
numbers. Our infrastructure strategy seeks to really get a
handle on all of the projects that are out there, their current
status, including the deferred maintenance.
I think the point you raise, Mr. Chairman, leads to a
bigger point of the aging infrastructure in this country.
Despite continued funding to try to support that aging
infrastructure, much of it is beyond its economic design life
of 50 years. I am sure you saw the American Society of Civil
Engineers rating of the infrastructure at a D+. So we are in a
constant battle to maintain and operate the infrastructure that
we have.
General Peabody. Mr. Chairman, related to the Chief's point
about our infrastructure strategy, one of the reasons why using
that current number may not adequately convey the reality is
because we believe that we can be more efficient in the use of
the funds that you appropriate to us.
We have a detailed study ongoing right now in six of our
districts in the Upper Mississippi and the Ohio Valley to look
at our flood risk management and navigation programs and get an
initial assessment of some changes we might make in the way we
operate and how we organize so that we can optimize the
efficient execution of those funds.
So while I would say that the current estimate of $3
billion is our best estimate to date, I am not confident that
we could not better use the money. We have a lot more analysis
to do to give ourselves and this committee a better
understanding of the deferred maintenance impact.
Mr. Rogers. What would be the impact on the maintenance
backlog if we do the 2016 budget request that you have asked
for? How would that impact the backlog?
General Bostick. It is difficult to say at this point. We
are going to have a better handle on the assets that we have,
and the backlog amount later this year when we finish this
comprehensive report. But at this point, trying to correlate
the budget to increase deferred maintenance is difficult.
The other part of what you have helped us with is the
ability to divest of $18 billion worth of projects. Part of our
strategy is also to look at what we have, and what is it that
continues to serve the authorized purpose. What is it that has
a purpose that no longer meets the authorized purpose, and we
have to divest of, and what has to be repurposed in a way that
we continue--or the states continue--to maintain it. That would
help with the deferred maintenance as well.
Mr. Rogers. Last year the Corps and EPA proposed that joint
rule defining waters of the U.S. that I talked about earlier,
which governs federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
Where are we on that proposal?
Ms. Darcy. We are currently reviewing all of the public
comments. We had a public comment period that ended in
November. We received almost a million comments on the proposed
rule, and we are going through those comments to determine the
impact on how we will do a final rule. We are hoping to propose
a final rule as soon as we can. We are looking at trying to
have it done by the summer.
Mr. Rogers. By when?
Ms. Darcy. By the summer.
Mr. Rogers. 800,000 to a million responses?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. And what was the general consensus of the
response?
Ms. Darcy. Of the comments about 37 percent were in favor
of the rule, about 58 percent were not, and there are another 8
percent that were neutral. I think we could characterize it
that way.
Mr. Rogers. Well, majority rules in this country, right?
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Well, thank you very much and appreciate being
one of the newer members of this committee, and look forward to
a lot of good work here.
Madame Secretary, I would like to start with the Lower
Berryessa Creek project in my district. The Santa Clara Valley
water district is undertaking the design and construction of
the Lower Berryessa Creek project using dedicated, local
funding. And this project is located immediately downstream
from the Upper Berryessa Creek project which is currently under
design by the Corps, and for which the President's budget
request recommends $12.7 million.
Both projects need to be completed to provide the 100 year
flood protection to the new Milpitas Bay Area rapid transit
station which is currently planned to be operational by the end
of 2017.
Building the BART extension to Silicon Valley has been one
of my biggest priorities since I got to Congress. Both
Berryessa Creek projects are on track except for the fact that
the water district has not yet received a Section 404 permit
from the Corps. They have completed construction documents for
phase 1 of the Lower Berryessa Creek project, and obtained all
the other regulatory permits. They are planning to advertise
for construction in March pending a receipt of the 404 permit.
They submitted permit applications in early 2012, and were
told that they would be forthcoming in October of 2014. I know
there are staffing changes, but from the Water District's
perspective several months have gone by with no progress on
what is listed as their number one priority.
Not receiving the 404 permit in time to advertise for
construction this spring will have significant impacts on the
project. Cost increases that the local agency cannot afford,
and missing the 2015 construction season, which would delay the
completion of this work by a year.
Now, this has an impact on the construction of the BART
station. If the project is delayed the Valley Transportation
Authority will have to include mitigation measures they
otherwise would not need, and waste hundreds of thousands of
dollars of scarce tax payer funds. Since these measures will
not be needed once the Lower Berryessa project is finally
built, so can you tell me about the expected timing for the
issuance of the permit for this project?
Ms. Darcy. Congressman, I believe we are anticipating a
decision by April of this year.
Mr. Honda. Okay. So I think the timing then going beyond
April would be pretty devastating to our timeline, so are there
any communications that will be forthcoming that will give some
relief for our folks in my district that the check is in the
mail?
Ms. Darcy. This is a permit application, I believe, so I
think we are on track to make the decision by April of this
year for the permit you are referring to----
Mr. Honda. Okay.
Ms. Darcy [continuing]. For Lower Berryessa.
Mr. Honda. So when you are saying that are you saying that
it is a positive decision? That it will be forthcoming?
Ms. Darcy. I would have to defer to the district. I do not
know the details.
General Bostick. We can ensure that the district
communicates with the local leaders and gives the latest
update, but the update that we are currently tracking is April
of 2015.
Mr. Honda. Okay. I thought that this might be just a
procedural kind of thing waiting for the permit. I am sensing
that there may be a situation where it may not be granted? Is
that what I am feeling? If they met all specifications?
General Bostick. At this point we really cannot say whether
it is going to be approved or disapproved, so we are not trying
to give an indication that it would not be approved.
Mr. Honda. Okay.
General Bostick. Just that----
Mr. Honda. So----
General Bostick [continuing]. It is in the process of
making the decision.
Mr. Honda. So we will keep in close contact, look at April?
General Bostick. Yes.
Mr. Honda. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple questions on the
South Bay Salt Pond restoration, if I may? I would like to ask
about the timing of the South Bay Salt Pond restoration
project. The Corps estimated that it needed $1 million to stay
on schedule in the fiscal year 2015.
But local sponsors have contributed to contributing half of
that, $500,000 to make up the lower partner contribution, but
the Corps estimates that with the current local funding only
they will run out of funding this spring. Hopefully, making the
agency decision milestone on April 21, another April deadline
here.
This delay was mostly caused by an eight month delay to
address the Corps Head Quarter's concern on sea level rise, and
all integration of smart planning milestones. Response to those
concerns, delayed project, and spending most of the remaining
fund Corps had received. Without additional funding it seems
like the Corps will not make the chief's report deadline of
December 15. How are you going to keep up the schedule for this
project from slipping even further? Do you have any idea?
Ms. Darcy. Congressman, we are looking at the possibility
of using some unallocated FY15 work plan money to meet the need
for this project, and to meet the deadline that we have
committed to.
Mr. Honda. That's reassuring, thank you. It is a little bit
better than the last one. One other question pertaining to
South Bay Salt Pond restoration. It is brought to my attention
that there is some disagreement between local interests and the
Corp about the proposed alignment in the draft environment
impact statement, revealed the South Bay Shoreline study.
The alignment of the levee in question could limit options
that would otherwise be available to the City of San Jose as it
works in its master plan for its regional water treatment
facility. It is my understanding that there are options for
levy alignment that could provide substantial fluvial flood
control and habitat expansion benefits, but the Corp's plan
could cut those options off, which the City of San Jose
officials are concerned about. Are you working with the City of
San Jose's officials on the development of the preferred
alternative right now?
General Bostick. Yes. We are working very closely with the
local officials. In fact, John Peabody is going to be out there
next week looking at a number of these types of issues, but
this project in particular.
Mr. Honda. Okay. Great. Then hopefully at that time can be
discussing modifications that would not obstruct San Jose's
options, so I will look forward to that meeting. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mr. Honda. I will wait for the next round.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was thinking
to myself and whispering to Mr. Calvert this is the quietest
most subdued hearing we have ever had. So I either give you my
compliments or wonder why it is so quiet, and perhaps I will
liven it up a little bit. Madame Secretary, it is good to have
you here. General Bostick and Peabody, Mr. Mazzanti thank you
for being here.
Let me, first of all, thank you, Madame Secretary, for your
service. With those in uniforms for their service, and as was
noted, General Bostick, in your comments, the work of the Army
Corp is not just here at home. It is abroad, and you do some
remarkable things. May I evoke a little bit of history. The
things you do in the aftermath of September 11th, 2001 in the
New York/New Jersey region to help us recover we do not forget
those sacrifices. Let me acknowledge, too, the things you do to
hire veterans. Everybody ought to be stepping up the plate. Our
defense industrial base, but particularly, obviously, the Army
Corp, and all of our departments.
Let me also throw out a kudos to Mr. Simpson. It was an
Idaho moment in the New York/New Jersey harbor when he came up
to endorse the work that has been going on there for over 20
years. I mean, talking about national security we need to keep
our harbors open for business, and certainly our part of the
country like the West Coast, the Mississippi and Ohio are
important rivers, and you do some remarkable things.
I would like to focus a little bit, and it was not without
controversy that passed it, on the utilizations of the $5
billion we gave you toward the Sandy recovery. I know you took
some bows, and rightfully so, about the way the money is spent,
but there are some things that still need your attention. Can
you put a little more detail on the table for us?
General Bostick. First, thanks for those kind remarks.
Really, the credit goes to our people, both our soldiers and
our civilians, and the sacrifices that their families make to
ensure that we are providing the best support. Not only here in
the United States, but abroad to meet the requirements of our
national security.
I think we have done a tremendous job in a number of these
areas. I talked about the flood control and coastal
emergencies, and how we are about 95 percent complete there.
With the operations and maintenance funding, the South Atlantic
Division had to do some work in their area, but they are
completely finished. In the North Atlantic division, and in our
Lakes and Rivers Division, they are about 70 percent complete.
In December of 2016 they will be 100 percent complete.
I talked about the study that we were able to release, the
North Atlantic Coastal Comprehensive study.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I would like you to talk about that in a
minute. I think you have completed 66 of 152 projects that are
directly related to Sandy, and I was just wondering what the
road forward, like, is? I am aware of the comprehensive study
which, obviously, a lot of what we do here is balancing risk. I
think that is the focus, primarily, of that study.
We don't, obviously, want to if we can do it. We want to
minimize the potential for future disasters. But I was just
wondering if you could tell me how we are going to progress on
some of these other projects that were on the project list?
General Bostick. Right. The authorized but unconstructed
projects, I think, those are some that you are talking about.
We have expedited the reevaluations on----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Maybe you could just move the mic a
little closer to your mouth.
General Bostick. We have expedited the reevaluations on 19
of those project areas, and we are currently underway with that
work. We have completed 11 of those expedited evaluations. We
have obligated about $400 million under those construction
contracts already.
On ongoing studies, the first completed Chief's Report was
the Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey and that was
signed on the 23rd of January. Studies are underway for the
remaining 16 areas.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, I am glad you are making progress.
Let me take my hat off to General Savre. He has been keeping me
posted in most positive ways, so thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Miss Roybal-Allard.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is
a pleasure to be back on the committed. As you know, water is a
very important issue to California.
First of all, although it is an ongoing process I do want
to say thank you for the efforts you are making to work on the
Los Angeles River. It is a very exciting project, as you know.
Lieutenant General Bostick, it is my understanding that the
Corps of Engineers recently forwarded to Congress the annual
report to Congress required by Section 7001. One of the things
that disturbed me was to learn that despite the draught we are
facing in the western states, water supply projects that
otherwise met the criteria of Section 7001 were not certified
as meeting the criteria. Because according to the Corp, they
are not related to the missions and authorities of the Corp
Why is the Section 219 program, which was authorized by
Congress in the 1992 Water bill not considered to be an
authority of the Corp of Engineers?
Ms. Darcy. Congresswoman, regarding the report that you are
referring to, which was required by WRRDA 2014, we just sent a
copy up to the Hill on February 1st. When we did the
solicitation that was required by the legislation, to publish
in the Federal Register to solicit the input from stakeholders,
we did just focus on the three major Corps mission areas:
navigation, flood risk reduction, and aquatic ecosystem
restoration.
So the water supply related projects that came in from
others were not considered--however, I think that we have
learned from this first round that there is a great deal of
interest in those other kinds of projects. I think that in the
future we probably need to look more broadly because we just
focused on those three mission areas.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay.
Ms. Darcy. And as you say there are other mission areas
within the Corps like recreation, water supply, hydro power. We
focused on the three main mission areas.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Well, the recreation aside, I mean,
California is in a crisis situation, and I am not sure that,
you know, we have the luxury of waiting around for, you know, a
year or two to address that. So I really would like to discuss
with you some possibilities here.
Like I said, we don't have the luxury of time when it comes
to the crisis that we are facing right now in California with
water shortage.
Ms. Darcy. We will work with you on that.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. The FY-16 budget summary mentions
increasing investment in on the ground programs that help local
communities better prepare for risks associated with climate
change. One could argue that the very real risk of running out
of safe water supply for our communities, is the issue we
should be addressing. So how does the Army Corp plan to address
the nation's dwindling water supply?
Ms. Darcy. We have ongoing programs where we work with
local communities to provide technical assistance through many
of our programs, including technical assistance to states. We
also are providing tools such as the tool that was developed as
a result of the super storm Sandy to help people with the
predictions of what the impacts of climate change will be on
things like sea level rise and sea level change.
Those tools are available, and we are developing others. We
are doing vulnerability assessments in our coastal communities
about what the future impacts of climate change will look like
in 50 years or 100 years from now.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. It is probably Spedus that we need to
talk about as well.
General Bostick. Ma'am, I was just going to say that the
water control manuals dictate what the authorized purposes are
for our reservoirs. Last year, as you know, we worked very
closely with California to have some diversions that would
allow for us to retain more water in Whittier Narrows, in Prado
Dam, in order for water supply purposes. But we worked closely
within those authorized purposes, and try to work with the
local community to try to do the best we can to meet the
multiple purposes that each demands.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. In the recently enacted water Section
1014, it establishes an authorization program for locally
sponsored water infrastructure projects. Will the environment
infrastructure projects such as water recycling and water
storage projects be eligible to apply through Section 104, and
if not why not?
Ms. Darcy. I believe they are. I believe those kinds of
projects are eligible to complete in that section, but I defer
to the Corps.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Could you let me know for sure?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay, thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to
thank you, sir. Again it is a privilege to serve on this
Subcommittee. This is the second term, my third year, and I
appreciate the full committee and the privilege to serve on
this. Thank you very much.
Secretary Darcy, General Bostick and General Peabody, Mr.
Mazzanti, it is good to see you all today. This is the third
opportunity I have had to discuss issues with you all. I
represent the people of the Third District of Tennessee; I was
elected in 2010. And I want to let you know that I listen. We
ask questions, but I listen and we try to act on what we hear
and I have been listening to you all the last two years and it
is in that regard and in that spirit that I have got some
questions and some comments.
Madam Secretary, in 2014 the House and the Senate passed
two key bills that made significant reforms to the way that we
finance lock construction in this country. By overwhelming
bipartisan margins we passed legislation that both reformed the
Inland Waterway Trust Fund--as a matter of fact I was
privileged to preside over that vote in the House--and also we
got an increase in revenue. The industry supported user fee
from $0.20 to $0.29. So we listened when we heard that the
Trust Fund was broken and needed to be fixed. We listened when
you all said that you needed additional revenue. And
republicans, democrats, the House, the Senate, and the
administration all I thought agreed that we were on the right
course. Having said that based on my conversations that my
staff has had with the Army Corps it is my understanding that
in fiscal 2016 the Army Corps projects that the Inland Water
Way Trust Fund will have revenues of about $107 million. Is
that figure accurate?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fleischmann. Okay. So we have got the 107. Can you
please tell me, Madam Secretary, how you took the $0.09 per
gallon diesel fuel increase into account when making this
determination and how much revenue does this fee increase add?
Ms. Darcy. I think it is projected that the increase in the
diesel tax will generate between $30-35 million a year.
Mr. Fleischmann. Okay. Of that $107 million the fiscal '16
budget request allocates $53 million from the Inland Waterway
Trust Fund between the Olmsted Lock, which is first in line,
and Lower Monongahela Lock which is second in line. What does
the Corps plan, and this is probably my most important question
I am going to ask you today, what does the Corps plan to do
with the additional Inland Waterway Trust Fund revenues that
they have not allocated for fiscal '16? Because that is $53
million that is unaccounted for.
Ms. Darcy. We are looking at other possibilities. One thing
that I know that you are interested in is Chickamauga Lock.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Darcy. We are currently looking at evaluating the
priorities within that list of who is next, because right now
Olmsted is the first priority, Monongahela--two, three, and
four, is the second priority--Kentucky Lock is third, and Chick
Lock is fourth. The Corps is currently looking at those
evaluations so that we can make a determination of whether we
need to re-look at that priority. We hope to have that
completed this summer.
Mr. Fleischmann. Okay. So it would be fair to say that you
do intend then to take that $53 million and invest that in our
waterway infrastructure?
Ms. Darcy. We will be looking at those balances as to
whether we are going to be able to invest the entire amount
within our entire budget which is $4.7 billion.
Mr. Fleischmann. In reality we may actually end up having
in excess of $53 million because that is a rather conservative
estimate at the 53.
Ms. Darcy. I think so.
Mr. Fleischmann. Okay. Thank you. I wanted to ask you a
further question, Madam Secretary. This year's budget request
for the Army Corps is virtually flat compared to last year. It
is considerably lower than last year's appropriation from
Congress. Within the Inland Waterways construction the budget
is 17 percent below last year's Congressionally enacted level.
When everyone from the President to both parties in Congress
agree on the importance of inland waterways, can you please
explain to us why funding has been cut?
Ms. Darcy. The level that we are funding our inland
waterways within the President's budget, within our Corps of
Engineer's budget is what we believe is affordable at this time
given all the pre-existing priorities across the government.
Mr. Fleischmann. Okay. Then let me ask you a point blank
question, is waterway infrastructure a priority for this
administration? Because it is a priority for us, for me in
particular. Is it a priority for this administration?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, it is.
Mr. Fleischmann. Okay. Thank you. General Bostick, sir,
what additional work on the Inland system could be done if
funding stayed at the fiscal '15 levels Congressionally
enacted? And as a follow up to that, sir, what kind of economic
benefits would be derived from that extra investment?
General Bostick. I just want to make sure I have the
question clear. What kind of work could we do with additional
funding on the Inland Waterways?
Mr. Fleischmann. If we spent at the fiscal '15 level that
Congress enacted.
General Bostick. I am not clear.
Mr. Fleischmann. Spent all the money you had to spend in
'15.
General Bostick. If we spent all the money that we had in
'15 what kind of work could we accomplish?
Mr. Fleischmann. What additional work?
General Bostick. You know, there is a variety of types of
work that we could do on the Inland Waterways, everything from
the dredging work that we accomplish to the work that we do on
our locks and dams. There are a number of things that are in
our day-to-day operations and maintenance work that could
happen as well as construction.
Mr. Fleischmann. Okay, sir. General, could you please give
me an update on the status of Olmsted along with an anticipated
completion date?
General Bostick. I would say that Olmsted is going very
well and I recall the date is around 2019 when we are going to
be complete with the major work.
Mr. Fleischmann. And one final question, sir. Can you
please give me an update on the current condition of existing
Chickamauga Lock and what maintenance needs to be performed in
fiscal 2016?
General Bostick. Right. We do a study from time to time on
the Chick Lock; the last structural study was a finite element
study that said there is no immediate danger of structural
failure. What we are continuing to do with our meters is to
monitor significant movement. We have seismic monitors that are
on there as well, so we are going to continue to monitor to
ensure that if there is a potential structural failure that we
take whatever necessary actions we can. But right now we do not
see that as an issue.
Mr. Fleischmann. Okay. And do you know of any specific
projected maintenance for the Lock, through watering or
anything that is set for the existing Chickamauga Lock? Do you
have----
General Peabody. No, sir; I believe it is just the routine
monitoring and the routine maintenance this year.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yeah.
General Bostick. We believe it is the routine monitoring
and maintenance that we are doing.
General Peabody. Sir, what I would say is we have
undertaken a very deliberate and thorough approach to proactive
maintenance on our locks and dams, especially in the upper
Mississippi and Ohio region which includes the Cumberland River
and the Tennessee River. That means we have a very deliberate
periodic maintenance program that includes analysis that is
being applied at Chick Lock. General Bostick mentioned the
finite element analysis which is done for structures that we
know have technical issues like Chickamauga Lock does. I
believe we are going to do an update on that this year. But for
this year I don't believe that the District has a specific non
routine maintenance plan, but we will get back to you with a
specific answer.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, General.
General Bostick. Since 1998 we have spent about $29 million
in maintenance efforts related to this growth, and this year we
have $1.63 million that is included in the budget for
dewatering, inspections, and minor repairs for FY '16.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. All of which would enhance the
need with the antiquated lock to get construction started on a
new Chick, which is about a third complete.
With that I thank you and, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Visclosky.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the panel I
would like to thank all of you for your service. I would like
to associate myself strongly with the Chairman and ranking
member, and other members who have commented about the budget.
I have now been on this Subcommittee for the better part of two
decades. I appreciate that you fought for appropriate funding
and did not get it. And just appalled at the failure of
administrations of both parties not to invest in this country's
infrastructure, to protect people's lives, and to build our
economy. Other than that I do not have a strong opinion about
the matter.
There are a number of questions. For the record, I am not
going to ask them about the issue of invasive species in the
Great Lakes and carp; it is not out of lack of strong interest
and support for that program. But the question I would ask
relates to small, remote, and subsistence navigation harbors
and facilities. There has been a lot of discussion about
backlog during the hearing today. I do not know if the Corps
has a backlog figure for those particular types of structures.
If they do I would appreciate knowing, or if there is an answer
for the record I would appreciate that. And I don't know. If
you do have a figure that would be terrific.
Ms. Darcy. Low use subsistence harbors?
Mr. Visclosky. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Darcy. We will give you a specific number for that
particular category of harbors.
Mr. Visclosky. If you could. And echoing the full Committee
Chairman's question earlier on deferred maintenance with the
monies that are in the budget request for '16, would the
backlog whatever it may be stay the same, decline, or increase
during fiscal year '16? If you could answer that for the record
as well.
Ms. Darcy. Will do.
Mr. Visclosky. Good. Thank you. And thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Ms. Herrera Beutler.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure
to be on the Subcommittee. I feel like I am following you
around Subcommittees.
I specifically asked to be on this Subcommittee in large
part because of the important role you all play in the Pacific
Northwest. My district is about from Mount St. Helens down to
the Columbia River, out through the mouth, and then as you can
ascertain I am on the Wet side of Washington State. So you all
play an incredibly important role in the protection, growth,
development, and sustainability of my district. And in that
vein I have a couple of questions.
The first is the water bill that we passed last year
directs 10 percent of the total funding for harbor maintenance
activities to be used at emerging harbors. I have 15 public
ports. I have a lot of small ports. That term is defined
similarly to what this Committee calls small, remote, or
subsistence navigation. Since the total Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund request is $915 million, basic math, which is about
where I roll, 10 percent would be about 91.5. Does this budget
include that $91.5 million for emerging harbors and small
ports?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, it does.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Wonderful. The other, kind of
switching gears, in Washington State, so the Cowlitz River
which picks up a lot of the silt from Mount St. Helens, very
often is it in danger of flooding many communities in my
district up and down that river. And one of the things I wanted
to ask about is both the work plan and the FY '16 request zero
out existing efforts to monitor and assess flood risk in that
region. Can you speak to that for a moment, because I assume if
we have heavy flooding it is going to be more expensive for you
all to go in there. I just wanted some background or some
thoughts on why.
General Bostick. On why it would be more expensive?
Ms. Herrera Beutler. No, on why it was zeroed out.
General Bostick. Representative, I would say that this
project is considered with all other projects and we do a
performance based budgeting by policy. While this is very
important, it competes with a lot of other projects that we
have to work on. What we are hoping to do is a Limited
Reevaluation Report on this which would be a follow up to the
Chief's Report which done in the '80s, and that report would
require about $140,000 in order to complete it.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. I am so sorry to interrupt. I just
want to make sure I am following. So the evaluation that helped
you make the decision to zero was the one done in the '80s? No?
General Bostick. No.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. I am not following that.
General Bostick. No. Normally in order to have a project
you have to have a Chief's report.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Yes.
General Bostick. So we did that back in the '80s. We then
had to reevaluate based on trying to do new work there and it
was not included in the budget. But it could still compete
later in the work plan with the additional money that has not
been allocated. We are going to do that work by the end of
February, reassess other projects and this may or may not be
one that we can fund.
Ms. Darcy. I was going to concur with the Chief that yes,
we are looking at that unexpended balances in the work plan and
this is one of the projects that is being considered.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Great. We very much appreciate that
second consideration. I know our Governor is working with the
local stakeholders and the State is doing its part, but
obviously the Corps plays a pretty big role here. So I
appreciate that and would like to be kept up to date as you
move forward.
The last little section I wanted to cover was we seem to
have a permitting problem in Washington State. Being where I am
located we have the privilege of working both with the
Washington and the Portland Corps, and the difference between
the two--and I am not talking about the people, I am just
talking about the actual product in terms of days waiting for a
yes or a no, is night and day. And it is not that there are
more sensitive environmental or tribal issues more so to
Portland or Southwest Washington, it is the same region, but we
are talking of hundreds of days' difference in terms of NPDES
or nationwide permits. So we feel like we have a pretty good
thing to compare in terms of reasonable similarity. And we have
been very grateful for the Section 214 flexibility, we are
working on maybe expanding on that, but is there a way that you
can help us figure out why there is such a difference? I have
my own ideas, but I would really like your help in bringing
into line the amount of time it takes to get those permits,
with reasonableness in regards to other regional offices. It
should not be this different.
General Bostick. You know we hear this from time to time in
a number of different areas, but we are happy to take a look at
it. Usually there is some reason that is not clear to
everybody, but we are happy to look at it.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Well, I mean I see it across, whether
it is municipalities, whether it is developers, whether it is
people just trying to rebuild after a flood. It is amazing the
difference. And I know that the Corps has put in Vancouver,
just across the river from Portland but down from Seattle, an
office to help. We thought maybe it is just paperwork, maybe it
is just getting stuff where it needs to go. But what we have
found is the Vancouver office has not had the same ability to
make decisions and so things get sent there bundled and then
sent up to Seattle and they are actually put behind--it is
further down the wait list. And I know in Eugene you put a
section chief there so that people did not have to come all the
way up to Portland. Maybe giving a little bit more authority to
Vancouver, perhaps making a section chief would help. So I
would ask that you look at that as we move forward.
General Bostick. We will take a look at it and provide you
some feedback.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. That would be great. And with that I
yield back. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to add
on. Ms. Roybal-Allard mentioned the significant drop we are
having in the West, not just in California, but I would add
that the City of Los Angeles and much of Southern California
probably will be going into mandatory rationing this summer
unless a miracle occurs here in the next few weeks and resolves
that issue. But I do not have high expectations. And so it is
correct that we have been studying these, you and your brothers
and sisters in reclamation, storage projects from expanding
Shasta to the San Luis Reservoir, to the Upper San Joaquin, the
offsite reservoir sites, and the rest. And we need to get
moving on these things, the sooner the better. Obviously this
summer is going to be a very difficult one and my friend Mr.
Valadao is feeling the brunt of this already and we are going
to be feeling the brunt of it also in Southern California.
But with that, we had mentioned this work plan, money, that
$79-80 million that has yet to be allocated. And I think I have
discussed with several of you about the project in Murrieta,
California. We have been working on a very aggressive schedule
to bring flood control to the community. It was made possible
through both the combination of federal funds secured in the
project and we accelerated the non-federal cost share from the
County of Riverside, from the county flood control.
This project obviously is critical. The community is
vulnerable to flooding, to long delays in implementing the La
Mirida Creek Project, and I think the Corps, Riverside, and I
made commitments to the community to move this project forward.
In addition to adding your flood protection community, the
project will create over 160 acres of wildlife habitat, wetland
reparation, and seven miles of earth channelization and
development of continuous habitat and so forth. But the
question is I understand we are waiting for the completion of a
limited reevaluation report. This report will likely result in
a project that is economically justified under the Corps policy
so it can be complete for additional funds in the future.
What is your timeline for this report?
General Bostick. We are looking at the third quarter of
2015.
Mr. Calvert. Third quarter of 2015?
General Bostick. Yes, sir.
Mr. Calvert. Okay. Because we need to get this done in this
area. We have had a 10-year lull between when this project
first started, as you know, in phase one; now in development of
phase two. So we would like to get this completed.
As a comment, Ms. Roybal-Allard brought up the L.A. River,
and I am just going to make a comment about it. As you know, no
funds were included in Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request. No
funds were included in Fiscal Year 2016 Work Plan. Funds
allocated in a study in Fiscal Year 2014 are expected to be
sufficient to complete the study phase as I understand it, and
a chief report is expected sometime later this year. The
project would then need to be authorized before construction
funding could be considered. There is a phase of work between
the Chief's Report and construction, as you know, called the
PED, or the preconstruction engineering design. So if the Corps
has funds above the budget request in Fiscal Year 2016, is it
possible PED funding would be provided if the construction has
not been authorized by then? Is that possible?
Ms. Darcy. Sir, we are looking at funding PED for projects
that have a completed Chief's Report. So if there is some----
Mr. Calvert. Even if it is not authorized?
Ms. Darcy. We usually do not allocate PED funding on
projects that are not authorized.
Mr. Calvert. Usually?
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
Mr. Calvert. What does that mean?
Ms. Darcy. It means most of the time.
Mr. Calvert. Does that mean that you are going to make an
exception here?
Ms. Darcy. What we are trying to do with PED funding is not
allocate PED money to projects that are not going to be
authorized. We are trying to find a place in the process that
makes the most sense to be the cutoff point for when we would
proceed to PED. That is usually an authorized project. However,
there can be considerations made if the Chief's Report is on
its way. There can be considerations made.
Mr. Calvert. How often does that happen?
Ms. Darcy. Not very often.
Mr. Calvert. Let us say in the last 10 years, how often has
that happened?
Ms. Darcy. I do not know but I could find out for you.
Mr. Calvert. Not often, has it?
Ms. Darcy. Pardon me?
Mr. Calvert. If any?
Ms. Darcy. Not very.
Mr. Calvert. Yeah.
Ms. Darcy. I will look though for you so that I can better
answer the question.
Mr. Calvert. I just think a number of us have had projects
that we have been working on for a number of years, so I just
bring that up. And so, and I have a couple of other questions
regarding that that I will enter into the record. For the
interest of time, I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Calvert.
I would note before I call on the last member that for your
sake, if you have not noted it already, that three of the four
new members are from California. And the only four members of
the Committee that are not either the ranking member or myself
that are still here at this hearing are from California.
California plays an important part both in this country and on
this Committee. I just say that for your benefit if nobody had
noticed yet.
Now I call on the other new member to the Committee from
California, Mr. Valadao.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Chairman.
I would like to back up some of the comments or reinforce
some of the comments made by my colleagues from California.
Water is obviously something that is very important to all of
us. Ms. Roybal-Allard and Mr. Calvert--I am used to calling him
Ken and I have got to break that habit in front of people. But
those are what we are facing right now in the Central Valley
especially. We have started to kind of feel the brunt of it
faster and quicker than anywhere else because my area does not
have as many votes as some of the larger cities. And so we, for
some reason, get beat up the worst.
But I would like to also talk a little bit about the Clean
Water Act, which Mr. Rogers, the chairman, brought up earlier.
The Fiscal Year 2015 Act included a prohibition on regulating
certain agriculture activities under the Clean Water Act. Can
you please explain any actions taken to date to ensure
compliance with this provision? Has any guidance or direction
been provided to district offices? And if so, please submit a
copy to the Committee. If no actions have been taken to date,
when do you anticipate implementing these provisions?
Ms. Darcy. Congressman, we have submitted guidance to the
field on the provision that you are referring to regarding
exemptions under the Clean Water Section 404(F)(1)(a)(c). And
that guidance has gone to the field. We also have withdrawn,
which was also required in the Appropriations Bill, the
interpretive rule that we had published with EPA.
Mr. Valadao. Then on to a different topic. In 2014,
Congress approved the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act or WRRDA, and specifically, Section 1006. Section 1006
allows public utility companies and natural gas companies to
participate in an already established program within the Army
Corps of Engineers to expedite the processing of permits. Or my
constituents, this means a more transparent, timely, and
predictable evaluation of permits, which will facilitate
infrastructure investment that ultimately supports economic
growth and job creation in my district and around California. I
understand the Army Corps of Engineers held a public listening
in September 2014 to receive public input on the development
and implementation guidance for Section 1006 and other
provisions under WRRDA 2014.
I appreciate you taking such action; however, to date,
guidance for Section 1006 has not been issued. Can you please
provide me with an update on the status of the guidance
document for this section, and specifically, when you expect it
to be finalized and implemented?
Ms. Darcy. I do not have that but I can get it for you. I
know that it amends Section 214, which is the provision that
the Congresswoman was referring to by adding oil and natural
gas to that. It is under development but I will get you an
answer as to when we expect it to be finalized.
Mr. Valadao. All right. And then the Panoche Valley Solar
Project in both my district and Sam Farr's district, my
bordering district, would bring jobs to our communities and
help increase California's energy portfolio. This project would
finance the permanent conservation of over 24,000 acres of the
Diablo Range habitat. This project is currently awaiting its
environmental review, and I understand the project development
team has proposed several logical adaptations to the draft
project review schedule. Given the extended time the project
team has been working with the Army Corps staff, I see no
reason why the necessary draft Federal Environmental Impact
Statement publication and circulation cannot be completed by
February 2015. Can you give me an update on this project's
environmental review?
General Bostick. The draft EIS is supposed to be complete
in September of 2015, and we expect a permit decision by the
summer of 2016.
Mr. Valadao. So still a ways away?
General Bostick. I know we have worked this diligently and
we are going to go back and review our own processes and
determine what happened here. If there are some systemic
issues, we will certainly work those throughout the Corps. We
have our folks focused on it. They are working it hard in the
district, and we are monitoring it from our level. I am a
resident of California.
Mr. Valadao. Lucky.
General Bostick. Representative Farr is my Congressman, so
we are very close by, and a lot of the issues that you relate
and others have related on the water challenges out there, my
own family and friends are feeling that. So I am not biased in
my decisions but I did want to mention my personal interest and
understanding of the issues.
Mr. Valadao. Well, I appreciate that, and I look forward to
getting some answers on those two. Perfect. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. I am
in between two hearings and doing the best I can, so I am sorry
if some of this may be redundant.
Secretary Darcy, thank you again for your hard work and I
believe proper assessment of the Western Sarpy County Clear
Creek Project. That is completed successfully now. A few years
ago you were able to come out and observe the importance of
this project from both an environmental, as well as flood
control status, and I was grateful for your willingness to do
that. So thank you very much. I hope it was enjoyable for you.
Ms. Darcy. I think it was one of my only trips to your
state.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, you are welcome any time, and if you
do not want to ride the airboat again, we can also arrange
that.
But I want to talk about two issues. Let me be specific in
regards to the 500 Year Flood that happened on the Missouri
River. Apparently, Corps-designed standards for the levees now
are imposing upon the community of Bellevue, which is home to
Offutt Air Force Base and Strategic Command. New levee designs
that will cost, it has been proposed, about $35 million. That
levee held during the flood. There was some sandbagging and a
robust community response that did take place, but it did hold.
So now we have some new design standard that is coming along
and apparently a confusion or discussion or a lack of clarity
on how this is going to get paid for. So I would like you to
address that issue. First of all, the necessity of such a
standard given that that levee held with some support
mechanisms, and then secondly, payment.
The third point I would like to make with you is going back
to the Waters of the U.S. proposed rule. If you have not heard
yet, this has upset a lot of people. I think you are getting a
lot of commentary in that regard. I understand there has been
some discussion internally of perhaps an agricultural
exemption. If that is the case, I would like to hear your
perspective.
Ms. Darcy. On the Waters of the U.S. rule, Congressman, the
rule as proposed keeps in place all of the existing
agricultural exemptions under the Clean Water Act for farming,
ranching, and silviculture. What the proposed rule does, in
addition, is exclude upland ditches for the first time. There
are other exceptions as well in there, but that one is the
most, I think, particular to agriculture. But the rule, as I
say, keeps the agriculture exemptions as they are, as well as
includes additional exemptions.
Mr. Fortenberry. Define upland ditch for me.
Ms. Darcy. An upland ditch is when you make a ditch from a
dry place, through a dry place. So it is not connected to a
water body. It is upland of water. I always think of it as dry
to dry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Independent of some tributary then?
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
Mr. Fortenberry. I see. Okay.
General Bostick. As far as the levees, I cannot speak to
the specific issue at Bellevue and Offutt Air Force Base, but
we will follow up on that. But I would say in general, when we
look at our levees and develop a standard, that standard is the
standard that we use throughout. And it has been developed over
many years. The whole intent is public safety. And because a
levee might have served and survived a storm, there is no clear
indication that it would survive the next one. I do not know
the facts behind this, and we will go dig into the facts, but I
feel our levee safety program and the design of our levees, in
addition to what we have learned from Hurricane Katrina and
Sandy and the flood on the Mississippi, has given us a wealth
of expertise in how we design these. In terms of the cost, I
will have to look deeper.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, this was the Missouri, just to be
clear.
General Bostick. Right. I understand.
Mr. Fortenberry. You said Mississippi. I just need to----
General Bostick. I meant there was a Mississippi flood.
Mr. Fortenberry. I get that, too. But the one next to me
was----
General Bostick. Right. And we have learned a lot from
Missouri. That was my error.
Mr. Fortenberry. Just add that to what you have learned
from, I guess.
General Bostick. We have learned a whole lot from the
Missouri.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, would you unpack though the
problematic question of, again, an imposition by the Federal
government of a new standard design and then cost-sharing
arrangements.
General Bostick. Again, I would have to take a look at it.
I am not aware of a new standard design. The design standard is
the design standard.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, maybe I am stating that incorrectly.
There is some need to enhance the current levee structure that,
again, held properly with some reinforcement during what I
think is classified as a 500-year flood. And so now that comes
along as cause of great consternation in the community as to,
again, there is a major federal installation there, a base that
would demand protection, and yet, a significant cost
potentially being imposed upon the local community which may be
beyond its capacity to absorb.
General Bostick. We do annual levee safety inspections, and
it is possible that this originated from a safety inspection
that identified some damage. Or identified that the levee was
actually not built to standard, and that may have originated
the issue. We will find out. Then in terms of cost, there is
generally a cost-share agreement that we work. And I do not
know if that is where the $35 million came from, but again, we
will follow-up, Congressman, and make sure we provide you the
details.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, that would be helpful. Again, we are
at the early stages where the possibility of this is being not
just proposed but imposed upon the community, and that is
causing a great deal of concern as to where the payment is
going to come from and how that is properly allocated,
particularly given the fact that this substantively protects a
major military installation. Obviously, the local community
would benefit from that and would have some role, but again,
the clear issue is the federal nexus here.
General Bostick. Okay.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Now, let me ask a couple questions. One of them is a little
parochial.
Ririe Reservoir. Ririe Reservoir in Bonneville County is a
Corps of Engineers built and our Bureau of Reclamation owned
and operated reservoir with flood control authority
administered by the Corps.
First, thank you for your work with reclamation regarding
the possibility of additional water being carried over from one
water year to the next. I understand that the water users,
however, are interested in seeing further changes to allow more
water to be carried over and available for use.
General Bostick, can you please discuss the process for any
next steps at Ririe? Which federal agency would take the lead
on any next steps? And do you have the necessary authority? If
you are in charge, do you have the necessary authority or would
a change in law be required in which account and line items
would funding be appropriated and would be appropriate? And
would further action be considered ongoing operations or would
a new start be required? And would there be a cost-share
requirement for local stakeholders? I know that is a series of
questions on the same subject.
General Bostick. This would fall under the lead of the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation, but we would work very closely with
them. They would have to go through a reallocation study. They
would have to find a nonfederal sponsor that would pay the
nonfederal share. My sensing that it would have to be
authorized, but I would leave the details to the Bureau of
Reclamation to answer.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. Section 2102 of the Water Resources
Development WRRDA of 2014 directed the Corps to submit a report
to this Committee and others identifying the costs associated
with maintaining authorized dimensions of harbors and inland
harbors, as well as the funding included in the annual budget
request. This information is to be on a project-by-project
basis. The Committee has not received this report yet, even
though it was directed to be submitted in conjunction with the
Fiscal Year 2016 budget. Is the Corps working on it? And is
there a schedule for submitting it?
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. Yes, you are working, or yes, there is a
schedule?
Ms. Darcy. We have not initiated the development of this
report. As you know, it was one of over 40 reporting
requirements that were in that bill. So we have not initiated,
and I do not know what our timetable is for starting it. Do
you, Mark?
Mr. Mazzanti. No, I do not, but we are looking at those
requirements. Mr. Chairman, we are looking at all of the
requirements in the WRRDA for reporting and trying to determine
where those that we need additional funding are and where those
that we can meet them based on the number of criteria. And we
will have that analysis completed very shortly.
Mr. Simpson. You will let us know if additional funding is
required and where it will come from?
Ms. Darcy. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. Okay, thank you.
Finally, my last question, the ban on congressional
earmarks means that the administration has the sole discretion
to decide what specific new studies and construction projects
are initiated. This Committee though still has a role to play
in setting programmatic parameters for which types of projects
should be considered. Unfortunately, the Committee efforts have
been hindered by the lack of clarity as to how the
administration determines new starts.
Secretary Darcy, can you please discuss how your office
approaches the decision to which projects are considered new
starts and which are not? How do you determine which projects
to propose for new starts in your budget request? And then I
will ask about a specific one.
Ms. Darcy. Okay. We had nine new study starts in the 2014
work plan. I think we also submitted the rating report which
explains how we made the decisions on new starts, both in
studies, construction, and the whole account. But new starts in
the construction account are when we actually turn dirt. That
is when it is considered to be a new start.
Mr. Simpson. Okay.
Ms. Darcy. And in the other accounts, it is when a federal
investment is beginning. So a new start study would be when
that first federal investment is being proposed for that.
Mr. Simpson. In the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request, it
proposes a single new start in investigations that would fund
continuing work on three of the nine focus areas identified in
the North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study. Can you please
explain, one, why this activity was determined to be a new
start rather than ongoing work? And two, why this work was
proposed in a single line under Remaining Items rather than
proposed each focus area as its own line item as with most
feasibility studies? And can we expect to see the remaining six
areas requested in future budgets, and will they be treated as
new starts?
Ms. Darcy. As a result of the Sandy comprehensive study we
looked at nine focus areas in the region and in looking at
those, for the purposes of the '16 budget, we are looking at
three of those nine focus areas in that Remaining Item to be
funded in the '16 budget. All of the other focus areas in that
remaining line item would all be considered the same. The only
ones that we are asking for funding for in the '16 budget are
the three. And those three are ones that we think that we have
local sponsors for.
In the future, we would be looking at the other focus areas
the same way we are looking at these. It is just that the
others are not ready to go yet.
Mr. Simpson. But we have three areas that are one new
start, right?
Ms. Darcy. Well, the line item is one new start but it is
for the nine focus areas within that study. They have already
had some initial study and use of the money from the Sandy
supplemental. We wanted to make sure that the whole item shows
the nine focus areas but just for this '16 budget, the funding
would be requested for those three.
Mr. Simpson. If they have already had some Sandy funding
put toward them how come they are new starts instead of ongoing
work?
Ms. Darcy. We want to make sure that we are being
transparent in showing what we plan to do regarding this study.
The study did something different than we ordinarily do in
looking at these areas quite frankly, but we wanted to make
sure that we are open to what the new start realm is.
Mr. Simpson. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that very much.
Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And we thank
the witnesses this morning for their longevity here. We
appreciate it very much. You can see there is a great deal of
interest and that is good. General Bostick, in the 2015 report
accompanying your appropriations, there was a requirement for
the Corps to report on how existing federal authorities can be
exercised for interagency cooperation to meet the needs of the
largest watershed in the Great Lakes, Lake Erie.
Could you update us on the status of this report? There was
a timeline requirement of 90 days in the legislation.
General Peabody. Yes, Congresswoman. We have initiated
coordination with the specified federal partners, interagency
partners, and that initial report is due next month. We are on
track to provide a strategic framework recommending how we
might get after this issue associated with algal blooms in
Western Lake Erie.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
General Peabody. And we have also been collaborating with
the Western Lake Erie Basin Alliance in that regard as well.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you very much, General, I
appreciate that. I am also going to unanimous consent to place
in the record a follow-up to a question I asked first in the
last round which had to do with the employment, the job
creating potential, of the Corps. I also am going to ask if to
include, Mr. Chairman, a summary I have state by state but I am
going to ask the Corps, congressional district by congressional
district, how many jobs the Corps directly hires.
In other words, if you are total staffing which
congressional districts they are located in? So we have it by
state and we would appreciate that. Thank you so much, Mr.
Chairman.
I wanted to also ask on dredging contracts, the Corps
generally bids contracts based on least-cost bidder. I have
been made aware that at least one project in the State of
Washington resulted in award to a contractor who really seemed
not qualified to do the job. And it may result in a large
portion of that particular harbor not being able to be used for
the majority of this year.
General, there are many areas of the country where these
dredging projects are challenging on the best of days. Is this
a more widespread problem than just one harbor and what can be
done to ensure that this is not an issue going forward?
General Bostick. We talked about this with leaders in our
headquarters and I would say probably 98, 99 percent of the
time we get it right on this dredging. And from time to time,
we run into a contractor that bids on a contract--and these are
sealed bids--that it turns out that the work they run into is
more difficult than the crew that they have or the equipment
that they can handle. And that was the case in this particular
area. But it does not happen often. It is not a systemic
problem. We do very well on these contracts and the work that
we have to do in dredging.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. I have a question on Asian carp.
Congressman Visclosky didn't want to get into it in a great
deal of detail this morning but I have to say, obviously, it
threatens a $7 billion fishery in the Great Lakes. And I am
curious as to how many years it would take to have the
operational barrier completed at the Brandon Road Lock and Dam
and how does this compare to other proposals you have to review
and what can be done to speed up the process if it is going to
languish out there?
Ms. Darcy. Congresswoman, the Brandon Road Lock proposal is
a result of the GLMRIS study that the Corps completed looking
at a number of alternatives for keeping invasive species out of
the Great Lakes from the Mississippi River and tributaries. And
the Brandon Road Lock was one of the alternatives that was part
of several of the alternatives. We are funding it because this
is a one-way pathway for the fish. That is one of the reasons
it was selected, that through the study process we can to
determine whether this could provide an additional barrier.
We are scoping, I think we have our first scoping meeting,
I am looking at General Peabody, underway to determine the
scope of the study because it is going to a complex problem. We
plan to look at an existing structure and how one can, in some
way, retrofit that to take care of the Asian carp or the
invasive species problem. I don't know, General, if you want to
add anything?
General Peabody. The only thing I would add, ma'am, is this
is a good example of why we appreciate the Congress giving us
waivers for the policy that we put in place and that you put
into law because this is likely to exceed that by two or three
times that amount, maybe more. Next month we will be having a
review at the headquarters of the regional proposal to execute
the feasibility study for Brandon Road. And once we have that
reviewed, then we will be able to make a determination as to
what the appropriate funding allocations will be.
But the Administration has put in with carry-over, I think
in GLMRIS we have, close to $2.5 million to get this kick-
started and we will continue to keep Secretary Darcy apprised
of our funding needs as we go forward.
Ms. Kaptur. General, could you give us a sense of what you
know? The last I heard was that a lot of the fish were 30 miles
from the Chicago barrier. For some strange reason, no one
understood why more of them were not coming north. But we know
some are coming north. But what is the latest you know?
General Bostick. I actually put a chart together for you
and we can pass that to you either now or later. But it
provides to answer to the question you had last year, a
graphical means to better see it. If you would like to see that
chart, we can show it to you now or I can talk you through it.
Ms. Kaptur. Well, General, give us the short synopsis.
General Bostick. The dispersal, the electric barrier is
about 37 miles from the Great Lakes. The presence of adult fish
is about 55 miles. Spawning area is at about 62 miles and in
the established population is about 143 miles away from the
Great Lakes. So that gives you a feel for where we are seeing
them.
And I think the point is that leading edge of the Asian
carp has not changed movement since 2006 and we don't know why
they have not moved, but they have not moved from that leading
edge of where the carp are located since 2006.
Ms. Kaptur. General, that is such important information. I
would ask you to summarize it in a way we can provide it to all
interested members, surely those from the Great Lakes. Might
even ask for a special briefing because it is of deep, deep
concern.
Ms. Darcy. We can leave those charts with you, too.
General Peabody. We will provide this to the staff what the
Chief just talked about.
Ms. Kaptur. I thank you very, very much. I wanted to ask a
question about the harbor maintenance tax. And everybody is
getting down in the weeds for their region so I have to do it
for my region, too. If I look at the Cleveland Harbor and I
look at the Toledo Harbor and the dredging challenges we face
and the dredge disposal challenges we face, when you have--what
happens to you inside of the Executive Branch if there is $9
billion projected to be in the Harbor Maintenance Fund not able
to be expended to deal with a few million dollars' worth of
dredge material?
Why can't we solve the problems of the dredge disposal by
using a small amount of additional funds from the harbor
maintenance tax? What goes on inside that denies us that
ability?
Ms. Darcy. Congresswoman, we need to look at the demands on
the budget across the entire government and we did, however, in
this budget have 10 percent of the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund for Great Lakes activities, Great Lakes dredging.
Ms. Kaptur. Yes. Let us hope that that helps us this year.
And we thank you for that very much and I thank the Chairman
for helping us all along. I also wanted to echo what the
Chairman said about the number of members who are here from
California today. But I wanted to step back from the particular
to the general and ask you to inform us in the country, with
the changing nature of the climate and the weather, a region
like I represent has 50 percent more rainfall in the last
decade.
But if we listen to the other members of this committee,
what is happening in California and other places is quite
atypical. Could you give us just your brief sense of what are
the most water-stressed communities in terms of water as you
look at the whole country? I am talking about fresh water for
drinking or for irrigation. And which areas of the country you
see as having large amounts of water? What is the map in your
mind? What comes up? Most water short, most water-stressed,
most water plentiful, atypically plentiful?
Ms. Darcy. I see the arid west.
General Bostick. I think the Southwest is probably the
driest and the Northwest has a lot of the water as well as
parts of the East. But I think the Southwest, from, Texas to
California, Southern California, clearly has huge, significant
drought issues.
Ms. Kaptur. Are you able to define that any more
specifically by community, by congressional district?
General Bostick. We could define it. Last year we were
looking at a period, or year before last, where 67 percent of
the country was in severe drought and that was significant. And
that was the year that, or in 2012, where we had the issues on
the Mississippi where we almost could not move barge traffic.
So the drought affected a large part of the country.
In using that kind of a map, we can show you what
districts, how districts overlay in the drought area.
Ms. Kaptur. I think that would be very interesting. We
could share it with our colleagues.
Ms. Darcy. And we would also probably be looking to the
U.S. Geological Survey because they do hydrologic mapping for
the whole country and they probably have it by district and
state by state as well.
Ms. Kaptur. All right, well, we will work with you to
prepare summary information in that regard. I didn't understand
something in your testimony, Secretary Darcy. You talked about
renewal of energy-sustaining accounts in your testimony? What
was that referencing?
Ms. Darcy. We are funding several efforts to help increase
our sustainability. Is that what you are referencing?
Ms. Kaptur. Yes.
Ms. Darcy. For climate change.
Ms. Kaptur. Could you explain a little more on that?
Ms. Darcy. They are in various accounts and across projects
and business lines. The majority of it is a focus on
communities and helping communities to be more resilient by
providing them with information and planning tools so that when
they make decisions on whether to go forward with a project or
to go forward with building, they can see what kinds of impacts
that they would have. This is important especially in coastal
communities regarding what the impact would be on future
projections of sea-level rise.
Ms. Kaptur. I see.
Ms. Darcy. We have developed that tool along with FEMA and
NOAA.
Ms. Kaptur. All right, thank you. Thank you all very much
for your service and, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I want to thank
the staffs for doing a great job for this first hearing for us.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Ms. Darcy. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Again, thank you for being here. You can
understand the frustration that some members have and when they
see an increase, continual increase, in the amount in the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and it's growing and we can't
spend it. That is not your problem. That is our problem because
of the budget rules that we work under and if we were to
increase the spending out of there and take money out of there
to spend it, it would come out of some other account within the
Energy and Water Appropriation Bill.
The increase in tax, on fuel tax, for the Inland Waterway
Trust Fund is something that has been needed, that the
operators agreed to and to see the funding go down for it when
the taxes are increased is frustrating to them and everyone
else. But again, this is an issue that we have to resolve
somewhere within Congress so that it doesn't affect some of my
priorities in other parts of the budget to do it.
It is the debate we come up with every year on the floor
and it is hard sometimes for some people to understand but it
is, you know, this wasn't imposed by God. He didn't say if you
spend money in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, you have got
to take it out of this. That is something we did.
So it is something we have got to address and try to fix so
that we can actually, if you are going to tax somebody to
address a need and the need still exits, why don't you spend
the money to do what it was originally intended for?
That is, you know, a rhetorical question. It is not for you
to answer. But I appreciate you all being here today and again,
I appreciate the great work that you all do. We thank you all
very much for the work you do not only in-country but around
the world. Thank you.
General Peabody. Thank you.
Ms. Darcy. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, February 12, 2015.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
WITNESS
ESTEVAN R. LOPEZ, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Mr. Simpson. I would like to call the hearing to order this
morning. Good morning, everyone. Our hearing today is on the
fiscal year 2016 budget request from the Bureau of Reclamation.
Our witness is the new commissioner for Reclamation, Mr.
Estevan Lopez. I would like to first congratulate you on your
confirmation and also welcome you to the House Energy & Water
Subcommittee. I look forward to working with you on the very
important issues facing the Bureau of Reclamation. Your
extensive experience with western water issues, or lack of
western water issues, should serve you well as you take on this
new role.
My next comments may sound familiar to those who have been
here in previous years, but since this is Commissioner Lopez's
first time before the subcommittee, I think the message bears
repeating.
The fundamental challenge facing Reclamation is that the
agency continues to be expected to do more and more with less
and less. That challenge holds true for both water and funding.
The population of the western United States continues to grow,
which impacts the amount of water needed for public consumption
and increases in demand for the electricity generated by our
hydropower facilities. Our environmental requirements, or new
interpretations of old requirements, have increased the amount
of water directed towards restoring fish runs and habitat
areas, yet the current drought reminds us that water supplies
are not limitless and that we need to be mindful of how we
prioritize its use.
As for funding, Reclamation's budget has remained
relatively flat for several years now while the increasing
costs of an aging infrastructure, Indian water rights
settlements, and large-scale ecosystem restorations often
associated with the Endangered Species Act compliance, compete
for limited resources.
It would seem we, the Executive Branch and Legislative
Branch together, have some tough decisions to make. We must
reevaluate the number and breadth of actions we promised to
deliver and ensure that the funding provided is directed to the
activities that will bring the greatest benefits to the nation.
I look forward to discussing with the new commissioner how
the federal government might address these many concerns.
Again, I would like to welcome to the subcommittee Commissioner
Lopez.
Please ensure that the hearing record, questions for the
record, and any supporting information requested by the
subcommittee are delivered in its final form to us no later
than four weeks from the time you receive them; members who
have additional questions for the record will have until close
of business Tuesday to provide them to the subcommittee office.
With that I would like to turn to Mr. Visclosky for his
opening statement. Ms. Kaptur, our Ranking Member, is in Ohio
at a funeral today and could not make it.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And Mr.
Lopez, I want to welcome you to your first hearing before the
subcommittee. I join with the Chairman in looking forward to
your testimony and thank you for joining us today.
As the Chairman noted, Ms. Kaptur has to be absent today.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that her entire statement be entered
into the record.
Mr. Simpson. No objection.
Mr. Visclosky. I would simply make a note that
Reclamation's budget request for water and related resources is
a 3 percent reduction from current year funding levels. Given
the hearing we had yesterday on the Army Corps of Engineers and
given my tenure on this subcommittee, I have no doubt where
things were lost in the translation as you made your way to the
subcommittee today. But nevertheless, we are all interested in
finding appropriate places to cut. I have concerns that this
reduced request continues the disinvestment in our nation's
water resource infrastructure. Therefore, it will be especially
important for the subcommittee to understand the specific
methodology used to arrive at the set of projects and
activities that you are now left with. Given your
responsibilities and the drought situation in the west,
particularly in the state of California, the work the Bureau is
responsible for is critically important, and I look forward to
your testimony today. And, again, thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Commissioner Lopez, we look forward
to your testimony.
Mr. Lopez. Thank you, Chairman Simpson, and Ranking Member
Visclosky and members of the subcommittee. It is an honor and a
privilege to appear before this subcommittee today to discuss
the President's Fiscal Year 2016 Budget for the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Central Utah Project Completion Act. I
appreciate the time and the consideration given to reviewing
and understanding our budget, projects, and programs. I look
forward to working collaboratively with you to continue to
address the complex water issues that we face in the west. I
have submitted detailed written testimony for the record.
Reclamation's overall Fiscal Year 2016 Budget is $1.1
billion. It allocates funds based on objective- and
performance-based criteria designed to effectively implement
Reclamation's programs and management responsibilities for its
water and power infrastructure. At this time I would like to
share a few highlights.
The budget supports the Powering Our Future initiative by
including $1.3 million to implement an automated data
collection and archival system to aid in hydropower
benchmarking, performance testing, strategic decision making,
to investigate Reclamation's capability to integrate large
amounts of renewable resources such as wind and solar into the
electric grid, and to assist tribes in developing renewable
energy resources.
Reclamation's budget supports Interior's Strengthening
Tribal Nations initiative through endangered species recovery,
rural water projects, and water rights settlement programs. The
budget includes $112.5 million for the planning and
construction of five recent Indian water rights settlements.
Reclamation's Native American Affairs program is funded at
$10.9 million for activities with tribes, including technical
assistance, Indian water rights settlement negotiations,
implementation of enacted settlements, and outreach to tribes.
The budget includes $36.5 million for rural water projects,
of which $18 million is for the operation and maintenance of
completed tribal systems. The remaining $18.5 million is for
continued construction for authorized projects, most of which
benefit both tribal and nontribal communities.
The budget supports ecosystem restoration, providing $158
million to operate, manage, and improve California's Central
Valley Project, including $35 million for current
appropriations to the San Joaquin Restoration Fund.
The budget provides $437.7 million at a project level for
water and power facilities' operation, maintenance, and
rehabilitation.
Reclamation's highest priority is the safe, efficient, and
reliable operation of its facilities, ensuring that systems and
safety measures are in place to protect both the facilities and
the public. The budget provides $88.1 million for Reclamation's
Dam Safety program, which includes $66.5 million to correct
identified safety issues; $20.3 million for safety evaluations
of existing dams; and $1.3 million to oversee the Department of
Interior's Safety of Dams program.
Reclamation is developing and implementing approaches for
climate change adaptation, including through Interior's Water
Smart program as follows:
The Basin Study program is funded at $5.2 million. Working
collaboratively with stakeholders, we assess risks and impacts,
develop landscape-level science, and communicate information
and science to develop adaptation strategies to cope with water
supply and demand imbalances.
The Drought Response program is funded at $2.5 million and
will implement a comprehensive new approach to drought
planning, drought emergency response, and long-term resilience
strategies using existing authorities.
The Resilient Infrastructure program is funded at $2.5
million to proactively maintain and improve existing
infrastructure for system reliability, safety, and efficiency
for water conservation to prepare for extreme variability and
to support healthy and resilient watersheds.
Reclamation's Water Smart Grants is funded at $23.4
million; Title XVI programs is funded at $20 million; and Water
Conservation Field Services is funded at $4.2 million, enabling
the west to better adapt to the impacts of a changing
environment by helping to conserve tens of thousands of acre
feet of water each year in urban and rural settings on both
large and small scales.
Now I am going to talk about the Central Utah Project
Completion Act or CUPCA. This CUPCA office is a Department of
Interior program that reports to the Office of Water and
Science. In this budget, Interior is no longer proposing CUPCA
be integrated into Reclamation. The 2016 budget request for the
CUPCA program is $7.3 million and includes $1 million to be
transferred to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation
Commission. The budget provides funding through the
Department's CUPCA office to continue the partnership with the
Central Utah Water Conservancy District and the ongoing
construction of the Utah Lake System facilities, required
program oversight activities, and Endangered Species Recovery
program implementation.
Reclamation and CUPCA are committed to working with our
customers, federal, state, and tribal partners, and other
stakeholders to find ways to meet water resource demands in
2016 and for future generations.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement and I would be
happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you and, again, welcome to the
committee. Since this is your first time testifying as
commissioner before this subcommittee, I would like to hear
from you, what is your vision for the Bureau of Reclamation? Do
you have specific goals for the agency, be it programmatic,
administrative, or technical, to accomplish during your time as
commissioner?
Mr. Lopez. Mr. Chairman, as I think you know, I am
relatively new on the job. I have been on the job now for four
months, and I have been confirmed for just a bit over a month.
So I am still on a very steep learning curve, but during the
time that I have been here, first of all I would like to say
that I am very impressed with the quality of the personnel that
we have and with the impact that Reclamation and its activities
have on the West and, by extension, on the entire Nation. It is
imperative that we continue to maintain the existing and now
aging infrastructure, to continue to provide those services.
The economy of the entire West is really underpinned by the
availability of water. If our infrastructure is not maintained,
the economy is going to suffer.
So this year and the last several years we have been
suffering through some very, very difficult droughts.
Reclamation has been focusing on trying to do drought planning
and trying to respond to those droughts. That is going to be a
continuing effort. Climate change is becoming more and more
accepted as a reality, and I think in water management we are
going to be challenged. I think we are going to be essentially
at the tip of the spear, if you will, in terms of dealing with
some of the consequences of climate change. As we get higher
temperatures, crops are going to use more water. There is going
to be more demand for water. Precipitation is expected in many
instances to decrease, and the precipitation that we do get is
often going to be in the form of rain as opposed to snow. So
this is going to require that we plan our infrastructure and
our infrastructure needs to accommodate that increased
variability that we are going to be seeing.
These are not new priorities for Reclamation. I think it is
the path that the previous Commissioner and now Deputy
Secretary had set us upon, but I think they are the right ones.
One other challenge that is a huge issue for Reclamation I
think, is we have an aging workforce. A very high percentage of
our workforce is nearing retirement. We have a challenge to
build up our workforce and bring in new talent, talent that
will help us resolve some of these climate change and water
availability challenges that we are facing.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that answers your question.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. You mentioned the Central Utah
Valley Completion project, Completion Act. I am not really up
to speed on all of that, but I noticed in the title that
Completion Act is part of the title. Is it something that we
are ever going to be out of, that we are going to finish, that
we are not going to have to worry about funding anymore in our
bill?
Mr. Lopez. Mr. Chairman, I think that we will be out of it,
but perhaps not in as short a timeframe as we would all like.
As you know, budgets are constrained and we are trying to make
decisions as to how we allocate the limited resources to move
all of the myriad of challenges forward, but none of them
perhaps is moving at the pace that all of us would like.
Mr. Simpson. Well, what are you proposing to do with this
in your budget? You mentioned it and said that they are moving
it out of BOR?
Mr. Lopez. Mr. Chairman, no. In the last several years I
think Reclamation has proposed on a number of occasions to move
this, to integrate it into Reclamation's operation. At present
it is outside of Reclamation. It is managed by Interior's
Office of Water and Science, and this was I believe at the
request of the constituents in Utah. We have requested it a
number of years and Congress has chosen not to integrate it,
and it has become very clear that the constituents out in Utah
oppose that as well. We are not going to propose anymore that
we integrate it into Reclamation. We are going to leave it
standalone.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. You mentioned during your testimony that
you did take efforts to support Tribal Renewable Energy
projects. Any other energy projects that you help with tribes,
or is just renewable energy? What exactly does that program
entail?
Mr. Lopez. Mr. Chairman, within our mission we are
obviously in the water business and, by extension, hydropower.
So our primary focus is on hydropower and the things that we
might do in that vein to improve energy reliability. Certainly
there are all sorts of other energy options available to
anybody, including the Tribes, but our focus is primarily on
hydropower and to some extent other renewables that might be
integrated into some of our works. For example, oftentimes on
some of the lands that we own in and around our facilities,
they might be conducive to installing solar or wind generators
simply because there are already transmission facilities nearby
and that sort of thing. So that is where our focus is.
Mr. Simpson. The reason I ask that is because there are
some people in the world who do not consider hydro as renewable
energy. In fact, in one of the acts that we passed--and I think
it was the Renewable Energy Standard--if it is hydropower now,
it is not considered renewable. But if you improve the
efficiency of the turbine, the addition will be renewable. And
I am kind of going, this is bizarre. It is either renewable or
it is not renewable. So definitions sometimes get in our way.
Lastly, let me ask you about the Ririe Reservoir in
Bonneville County. It was built by the Corps of Engineers--I
asked this of the Corps of Engineers yesterday--but it was
built by the Corps of Engineers and is now a Bureau of
Reclamation owned and operated reservoir with flood control
authority administered by the Corps. First, I want to thank you
for your work with the local water users and the Corps of
Engineers regarding the possibility of additional water storage
being carried over from one water year to the next. I
understand that the water users are interested in seeing
further changes to allow more water to be carried over and
available for use.
Can you discuss with me what steps would have to be taken
next, which federal agency--the Corps or DOR--would take the
lead in those next steps, under what line item would funding
have to be appropriated, and would further action be considered
an ongoing operation or a new start?
Mr. Lopez. Mr. Chairman, I will try to answer at least a
piece of that question. As I think is implicit in your
question, the Corps and Reclamation have worked together in
recent years, and, in fact, last year we issued a record
decision that would allow for some additional winter carryover
of 8,000 acre feet. So we have, I think, begun the process that
water users have wanted.
I am told, and I am not an expert in all of this, but I am
told that the Corps believes that if we were going to go any
further in terms of looking at additional storage that there
would need to be a reallocation study. The Corps believe that
we, as owners of the reservoir, would be the lead agency in it.
I would assume that for this sort of project we would have
to have a cost-share sponsor, local cost-share sponsors. And we
would have to work through all of those agreements in advance
of this.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. Appreciate it. Mr. Visclosky.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner, in
response to one of the Chairman's questions you mentioned the
aging workforce and the fact that you have some turnover. Are
there particular skill sets you are most concerned about losing
and acquiring as you go through that transition with your
employees?
Mr. Lopez. Senator, or excuse me----
Mr. Visclosky. Don't do that to me.
Mr. Lopez. I apologize. I was in a Senate hearing
yesterday----
Mr. Visclosky. No, I am kidding you. I am kidding you. I am
kidding you.
Mr. Lopez [continuing]. I am still in that mode.
Mr. Visclosky. I am kidding you.
Mr. Simpson. You can tell which of us are senators and
which are representatives because we don't have doctors
standing behind us just in case. Go ahead, Commissioner.
Mr. Lopez. I think we have across the board in all skill
sets, we have got a lot of people that have been with the
agency for many, many years and are getting ready to retire.
But of particular concern are some of the engineering positions
and, you know, power hydrology and hydraulic engineering-type
skills.
As you know, most of our dams were built 50 and more years
ago. So we now have fewer engineers that have built those
things and have the opportunity to build them. So people with
those sorts of skill sets are going to be particularly valuable
to us and we are probably going to be left with the
responsibility of helping them acquire additional skills. Young
people acquire additional skills once we are able to recruit
them.
Additionally, some of our facilities are in somewhat remote
areas and that also makes it difficult to attract people with
those skill sets.
Mr. Visclosky. Right, okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner, reclamation emphasizes that water-smart grants
and Title 16 grant programs are primary contributors to the
Department's priority goal of water conservation. The budget
request for '16 maintains funding for water-smart at currently
year levels but reduces Title 16 grants below inactive '15
levels.
Why the disparity in treatment and is it a reflection of
the effectiveness of either of the programs compared to the
other?
Mr. Lopez. I don't think it is intended to be any sort of
reflection on the relative effectiveness of one program over
the other. There are a few authorized Title XVI projects that
continue to move forward and we continue to move forward. We
think the budget that we have proposed, $20 million for that
program, will continue to move those projects forward.
The reason we are asking to grow the WaterSMART component
relative to the other is that we want to try and get as many
participants in this as we possibly can. Both programs do
things that help us conserve water and, in essence, do more
with less. But the WaterSMART grant program, in particular, is
smaller amounts to more people and we want to just get more
people involved in on the action.
Mr. Visclosky. I usually refrain from asking hypotheticals
but I will. If the Committee finds additional resources, would
you have a preference between one or the other program if there
was an add-on by the Subcommittee?
Mr. Lopez. Representative, I think that we could probably
use it in either and a good approach might be to split it
between the two of them.
Mr. Visclosky. Okay.
Mr. Lopez. Last year we had the good fortune, and I want to
thank this Committee for your part in it, of getting some funds
in our budget and we used just criteria that made sense to us
in terms of spreading all of those resources over a myriad of
programs to try and maximize the benefit of those additional
funds. And we would do the same here.
Mr. Visclosky. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lopez, you
probably noticed that three out of the five members
participating in this are from California. And I know you are
very aware of the fact that we are having difficulties in our
state and in the west, you know, and that is--we are not
exclusively in a drought. But there were some questions on
Title 16 and water-grant programs and the Secretary was out in
California recently and made an announcement of some dollars
that were for drought relief. This $14 million of Title 16
program, this apparently an additional $14 million, where do
you plan to spend that money?
Mr. Lopez. I think I have got some in last year's budget,
there was an additional $96 million that was added into our
budget for various categories. One of those categories was for
drought and that amount was $50 million. That drought response
was allocated, it included an additional $4.5 million for the
WaterSMART program, the WaterSMART grants, and $4.5 million for
the Title 16 program.
So those monies would go toward--we have put out, we have
already put out funding opportunity announcements for both of
the programs or are close to putting them out. We generally get
many more applications than we have funds to go around.
Mr. Calvert. So you haven't made any specific
recommendations as of yet where this money is going to be
spent?
Mr. Lopez. For the individual projects?
Mr. Calvert. Right.
Mr. Lopez. No, not yet. We are close. We are in the
evaluation process.
Mr. Calvert. As you know, for the first time in history as
I understand it, you are unable to provide any CVP water to the
water service contractors. And the process on how you make that
evaluation, forecasting, the hydraulic mauling tools, whatever,
how do you make that determination about what you are going to
deliver, for instance, in this year which is zero, how do you
come to that conclusion?
Mr. Lopez. We, first of all, track the amount of inflow
into key reservoirs, Shasta Reservoir being one of the very key
reservoirs, and at certain times of the year we note how much
is in there and we project how much we expect to get into the
reservoir.
Mr. Calvert. Well, the reason I ask the question is during
the five-year drought from 1987 to 1992, the water service
allocations were, in those five years, was 100 percent, 100
percent, 50 percent, then was dropped down to 25 and 25. And in
2011, which was the ninth wettest water season we had since we
have been taking history, we only allocated 80 percent when
those reservoirs were at complete capacity.
The next year you dropped it to 40 percent and then, to 20
and now, we are at 0. What happened between 1992 and 2011 in
the way you regulate, in the way you make your determinations
on how have you allocated water?
Mr. Lopez. Congressman, I think, as you know I wasn't here
in 1992 or until just recently. However, I know of some things
that have fundamentally changed the availability of water. And
one of the big ones has to do with the Endangered Species Act
and the Biological Opinions that are now in place.
Mr. Calvert. You would say that the biological opinion is
now in effect in the northern part of the State of California,
the most recent biological opinion in regards to delta smelt
and the pacific salmon, you would say on the record that that
has the biggest impact of why the water is not being, for the
first time in history, not being delivered to the California
contractors that are asking for that water delivery?
Mr. Lopez. Congressman, I can't say for certain if that is
the largest effect. I know that it is a significant impact but
in addition to that, there are new water quality standards for
water in the Delta. Those things combined, the water quality
issues, that is making sure that we keep salinity out of the
Delta and the fish needs, those two things combined are very,
very significant drivers that control how much water can be
harvested for use----
Mr. Calvert. Well, as you know, we have spent a significant
amount of money through this Committee over the last 20 years
in supposedly improving the water quality in the Bay delta. And
doing significant amount of environmental projects that were
front-loaded in order for us to move toward what we believed
was a long-term solution in bringing both help to the delta and
at the same time being able to meet our obligations for
delivery of water.
Part of that is water storage. You brought up that because
of climate change that snow is now being replaced by rain. So
by definition, we have to capture that rain when it comes along
just like last weekend. We had significant flow of water.
But as I understand, one, we don't have the water storage
in order to capture that right now and want to get into that a
little bit. And two, because of the Endangered Species Act, as
recently as last weekend, you were not able to because of the
lack of flexibility, were not able to pump to what would have
been your allowable level.
I haven't talked to Mike this week, Mike Hunter this week,
but I understand that you were pumping less than 6,000 CFS when
you have 30,000 CFS of water flowing underneath the Golden Gate
Bridge. And the reason I bring this up, the City of Los Angeles
is probably going to go, and the balance of Southern
California, is probably going to go into mandatory rationing
this summer.
For the first time, the most severe rationing probably in
the history of the City of Los Angeles and much of Southern
California. And when people hear, like last year, a million-
acre feet of water went under the Golden Gate Bridge, which I
understand without one risk of losing one delta smelt. Because
of the lack of flexibility in which would be interpreted on how
to move that water, people are going to get upset. So I would
hope that all of you, yourself, you have a big job ahead of
you, Mr. Connor, certainly the Secretary, is going to have to
make sure we don't lose one drop of water.
I think this last weekend we probably lost, I hear--I don't
have the final reports but well, at least 10,000 acre-feet of
water probably is gone because we were unable to pump that
without any threat to smelt population.
And, you know, I respect the fact we have the Endangered
Species Act we have to deal with but if we are not threatening
a species and we are unable to pump, that doesn't make a lot of
sense to me. How do you feel about that?
Mr. Lopez. Congressman, I know there is a lot of
frustration over the water that is going out and not being
captured. But let me take a few of the things that you have
said. In the current situation, right now, we are not
constrained by storage. We are actually constrained, I believe,
by how much we are able to pump away from the Delta.
And that is being driven, in large part, by the Endangered
Species Act but the other thing is making sure that there is
enough water going out of the Delta to keep saltwater from
encroaching into it which would create a totally different set
of water quality issues.
Mr. Calvert. When you have 30,000 cubic feet per second
flowing out and you are pumping 5 or 6,000 cubic feet per
second, how is that going to allow for saltwater intrusion to
get in the Bay delta? You have got water displacing seawater
significantly more than the effect of that pumping operation.
Mr. Lopez. I believe, in the storm event that you are
talking about, you are absolutely right. There is plenty of
water to flush out the saltwater. In this instance, it is the
Biological Opinions that are constraining our ability to pump.
Having said that, we are working very, very closely with
fish agencies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National
Marine Fisheries Service and the California Fish Agencies, to
maximize the amount of flexibility. They put forward their best
judgment about how much flow needs to go out.
But they have been, actually, very responsive to
recognizing the need and recognizing the severity of the
drought and they have been allowing for more flexibility than
was originally in the Biological Opinions.
However, they have----
Mr. Calvert. That didn't happen this weekend.
Mr. Lopez. Congressman, it did but perhaps not as much as
everyone would like and this is what I mean. They required, in
order to get some of that flexibility, they have required that
we do things in a step-wise fashion. That we increase pumping
in a step-wise fashion and we monitor the impacts of those step
increases as we go.
Monitor by sampling for smelt and for salmon, both, and so,
over this weekend we ultimately did get to 6,000 CFS of
pumping. But it was done in increments where they took the
amounts up in increments of about 500 CFS and they checked to
see that they weren't creating problems along the way. Then,
they took it up some more, take it up some more and that is
kind of the way they are allowing the flexibility to happen by
doing monitoring in real time and making decisions that are
well reasoned.
One of the reasons that they are not--that they have not
endorsed simply cranking on the pumps and really taking as much
water as they can is, and I understand this from last year,
that last year there was an instance where some of that was
done and as a result, some of the smelt moved into the area
where the pumps are. At that point, they had to constrain
pumping dramatically.
Mr. Calvert. I understood that was less than 50 smelt.
Mr. Lopez. It is very few Smelt. I, you know,
Mr. Calvert. These are 50 minnows, by the way.
Mr. Lopez. The numbers that they use to guide whether it is
allowed or not, it is an extrapolation. They measure how many
they catch and they extrapolate. If they are catching that many
that means a much larger number is actually being impacted. I
am not the biologist. I don't claim to know all of the validity
of the statistics but that is my understanding of how those
numbers work.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Ms. Roybal-Allard.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Commissioner Lopez, let me join my
colleagues in welcoming you to the Committee. First of all, I
just want to say Los Angeles always keeps getting mentioned and
I think in a lot of ways we get a bad rep. While it is true we
are going to have to have these measures in terms of
conservation, I don't have the exact date but I just want to
say that the level of water usage in Los Angeles today is
somewhere at the same level it was in the 1980s. So Angelinos
have done a pretty good of doing their part in trying to
conserve water.
Now, if I understood you correctly, the $50 million in
funds that the Bureau of Reclamation has allocated for the
Western Drought Response, you still haven't decided on the
types of projects and activities that you plan in implementing
in California for 2015, is that correct?
Mr. Lopez. No, that is not correct.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. That is not correct? Okay.
Mr. Lopez. The projects that we haven't selected yet are
the ones that have been proposed for WaterSMART Grants or Title
XVI. But there is a whole--another long list of projects that
we have identified specifically and California was the largest
recipient of some of that drought money.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. But could you elaborate then a little
bit on what types of projects and activities you plan then?
Mr. Lopez. Sure, we can. For California in particular,
first off, the reason that California got so much of this is
that California is kind of in the bull's eye of the drought. If
you look at the drought maps, the drought shows up on these
maps as red, you know, the more intense red being the more
severe drought. And right now, if you look at those drought
maps, most of California is dark, dark red. And that is the
most intense drought anywhere in the nation right now.
And so, what we have done is we have allocated $19, almost
$20 million, $19.9 million to Central Valley project areas. And
we did this, we described it to try and get as much flexibility
as we can in how it is used. Such that if it is needed for
emergency situations, that the water managers will have it at
hand to use for those things.
But then, we broke that $19.9 million into six or seven
specific projects. If it is not needed for those emergent
things, there are a number of things that can be done. For
example, for some gates that control cross-channel flow and for
some monitoring on some of the fish things, those are just a
couple of examples but we have identified six specific projects
that that money could be used for.
And in addition to that, California also benefits. We have
allocated 18, or excuse me, $8.6 million to some projects,
drought response projects on the Lower Colorado River. In Los
Angeles in particular, Los Angeles takes water both from the
State Water Project that brings water from the Bay Delta area
but also, Los Angeles receives a significant portion of its
supply from the Colorado River. So that will benefit California
as well.
Then there are the ones that I was talking about earlier,
the WaterSMART Grants and the Title XVI. Those things are
applied via competitive processes and those are the ones where
we haven't yet selected the----
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I see.
Mr. Lopez [continuing]. Specific project.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Besides the 50 million that we
were just talking about, you know, given this recurring drought
that we have in the West, what additional and more specific
activities does the Bureau plan on implementing and what would
be the total cost that the Bureau plans on spending on
preparedness and response during FY2015?
Mr. Lopez. I am sorry, could you restate the question?
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Yeah, well, in addition to the projects
that you were just talking about, are there additional
additional, and more specific activities that the Bureau is
planning to implement, with regards to drought preparedness and
response.
Mr. Lopez. Okay. So, specifically out of the extra funds
that we got last year, out of that 50 million, we also
allocated $5 million specifically to the Drought Response and
Comprehensive Drought Plans. We recognize that this is going to
be a continuing type of activity, and we want to encourage
communities, and states, and the people that we deal with, to
think proactively about how they will respond in times of
drought, what sort of measures can they take to impact their
own demands and that sort of thing.
So, we have allocated that amount, but besides the
additional monies that we got, and how we allocated those, our
general budget has a number of things, that we are constantly
dealing with things that will impact our ability to withstand
drought. You know, all of what we do is all about making sure
that water is available in drought.
On the Colorado there are huge storage reservoirs, on the
Colorado River, Lakes Mead and Powell, but for those reservoirs
and all of the people that rely on the Colorado River supply
would have probably been out of water two or three years ago.
Those reservoirs combined store something like a four-year
supply of water, and we have been able to withstand multiple
years of drought as a result of these efforts. So, it is really
part of our overall basic mission, in terms of helping
withstand droughts.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I just have one final question. Are
there any temporary changes that the bureau is planning to make
during this fiscal year to better manage the water supplies and
make water available for use during the drought?
Mr. Lopez. Going back to what I was speaking about with
Congressman Calvert, in the operation of the Central Valley
Project, there are some specific, temporary plans that are for
this year in particular. We have worked with the State, and the
State Water Project, and the fish agencies.
All of us have worked, combined, to develop a Drought
Contingency Plan for 2015 that has a whole series of things
that we are coordinating to try and make sure that we are able
to capture as much of the water as we possibly can in this very
trying time.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Those are all flexible, and I see.
Okay.
Mr. Lopez. We have tried to build in as much flexibility as
we possibly can.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mm-hmm. All right.
Mr. Lopez. And it is still important to make sure that we
are protecting the environment, while maximizing water
availability to the farmers and to the municipalities.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Valadao.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Commissioner I
appreciate the position you are in now, obviously coming into
this and the disaster we have got going on in California, you
are obviously in a very tough position. But no matter how we
look at this, this is something that has to be addressed, and
has to be addressed quickly.
The comments you made about the TUCP earlier, and how you
are working with some state agency, since it has been basically
shut down by the State Water Resources Board when they said,
no; and you had the support of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife,
National Marine Fisheries, California Park with Fish and
Wildlife, for that added flexibility. What have you done to put
pressure on the State Water Resources' Board, to make sure they
do approve this temporary flexibility so we can get some water
pumped?
Mr. Lopez. Well, Congressman, as I understand it, the
denial of one element of our permit----
Mr. Valadao. The most important part, where we can actually
pump water?
Mr. Lopez. An important piece, admittedly. That was by----
Mr. Valadao. Was it the State Water Resources Board, that
denied that portion of it?
Mr. Lopez. It was not the Board in total. So the Board,
still, can weigh in on it, and that is--I think there is an
appeal to the Board.
Mr. Valadao. Well, I signed onto a letter, as did Mr.
Calvert, and Senator Feinstein, and others, so that we can
voice our opinion that this needed to be approved. It is very
important to us, and I hope that you can use everything--every
power that you have got, to put some pressure on them as well.
Back in December of 2014, Secretary John Laird, Secretary
of Natural Resources in California, wrote a letter in
opposition to a Bill that I wrote, introduced last year in
Congress. And what he stated was, ``As a result of the drought,
of emergency declared by the Governor on January 17, 2014,
California state agencies have worked very closely with their
Federal counterparts and impacted stakeholders to provide
critically-needed water supplies while protecting our water
quality in imperiled species and fragile ecosystems. All are
suffering from these unprecedented drought conditions.''
One other Federal counterpart's reference in the statement,
is the Bureau of Reclamation, ``How much critically needed
water was supplied to South-of-Delta, CVP AG service
contractors and farmers, as a result of this work described in
the Secretary's letter,'' and I think we both know the answer
to that, it is pretty much zero, and there might have been a
percent or 1 thrown in there. And how much do you believe will
be allocated this coming year? I am assuming another zero.
Mr. Lopez. Congressman, I do not know what the allocations
are going to be yet, but the outlook right now is looking very,
very similar to what it looked like last year.
Mr. Valadao. Yeah. So, I have got a few cities in my
district as well, some of the most underserved communities,
obviously in the Valley, Abeno, Coalinga and a few others, that
have their M&I, Municipal and Industrial Water, and they are
allocated to a certain amount of water.
And when those numbers come out on paper, they always look
really large, and they come out like at 75 percent, sometimes
80 percent, or 90 percent, and everybody thinks, well, they are
getting all their water.
But the problem with that statement is it has always
followed 75 percent, or the number of their historical use; and
every year that 75 percent of their historical use, that
average keeps getting notched, lower and lower and lower; and
so some of these communities are under 50 percent, barely
struggling to stay over 40 percent.
And so when the Governor is very proud of the fact that the
state has learned to live with less, 20 percent, the
constituency in those parts of the district, are laughing at
that number saying, we have make up the majority of that
average, and we help bring that number down, and they get
absolutely no credit for it and no relief when this drought
does take effect.
I know that is something that is very important to my
constituents, the people there, and I would like you to just
know a little bit about that situation. And then in my
district, and this is another, there are people now, who two
years ago had jobs. They were working on farms, and they had
homes, and we got a lot of stores and a lot of businesses in my
district that are struggling. But this people that had jobs
back then, had homes. And now they are basically living in
shacks build along canals out in the middle of nowhere. I do
not know if you have seen any of those pictures, but I know
that some of those pictures have been in the capital.
These are people that are out of work and standing in, you
know, food lines, because farmers have no water. According to a
March 2014 letter, from Fresno County Sheriff, Margaret Mims,
to the California State Water Resource Control Board, which I
would like to enter into the record.
``Reclamations failure to deliver water to farmers in my
congressional district is having what Sheriff Mims refers to as
an immediate public health and safety----''
Mr. Lopez. There is, as you know, it is a crisis, there is
no water and we cannot make water, and we have the
responsibilities for certain priorities of delivery, and we are
doing our best to makes sure that we meet the health and safety
requirements, first and foremost, but----
Mr. Valadao. I would like you to be really careful with
that statement because I hear that a lot, with, we cannot make
water. We all know we cannot make it rain, we all know that we
cannot produce water here, but back to the comments made by a
lot of members here, there have been real water from my
constituents and for many south of me. And so it is something
that whenever we fall back on that line of trying to make
water, there is ways that we can produce, save, and produce
some water for our constituents.
So I would appreciate it if you just take that comment a
little more to heart, and careful with that line in the future.
So, thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Ms. Herrera Beutler.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Powering our
future initiative; I have three questions and they all relate
to different things, so I am going to start with this one
first.
On your testimony you talked a little bit about this
initiative and I wanted to see if you would expand on it, as it
relates to hydropower, because as I understand the goals, the
program is to promote renewable sources of energy, hydropower,
and in my mind it should be at the forefront of an initiative
like this, since it is the cleanest, cheapest and most
reliable, if not the only really strong reliable source of
renewable energy. I wanted to hear if you had a plan for
hydropower as you move forward.
Mr. Lopez. Thank you, Congresswoman. We had a bit of a
discussion about that, earlier, about how oftentimes hydropower
is not counted as renewable, and I think it is all about how
they've defined it, or how we have set baselines. Basically, if
it was already in our baseline, it is not counted, and it is
only if it is incremental that it is counted. But there is a
significant opportunity for incremental power within our
facilities.
We still hold a lot of water, and we have identified, I
think it is something like 300 megawatts of additional
potential for generating additional hydropower Reclamation-
wide, off some of our facilities. Oftentimes, we do not have
the capital to make the investments that would be needed, so
what we have done, is we have got a Lease of Power Privilege
Program, whereby our partners, the people that operate or
benefit from our facilities, can make an investment, and they
can get some of the benefits of that to try and develop as much
of that additional power as we can. So those are some of the
examples.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. And, you know, I had a sense of
Congress Resolution, I think, last year that I might be working
on again this year, the last Congress. To count hydro as
renewable, at the Federal level, at the very least; because I
now can. So it is interesting if we have an existing
infrastructure that we are not fond of, coal, whatever. I mean
I have one coal fire plant in my district, and at the state
level, they had really, they had slated it to close, so we
basically have none of that. But if we have it, we counted
against us, but if we have something amazing like hydropower
which produces, 60-plus percent of the energy for Washington,
Monticello Dam, California, and they all count it as renewable.
We do not count it; so it feels like we need to bring some
common sense to how we look at an amazing, clean, carbonless
source of energy. All right, moving on.
Quagga Mussels; quagga mussels are a pretty big threat to
our infrastructure, and in Washington, our PUDs, imports have
been speaking to me a lot about their concern on their assets,
invasive species, with several threats when it comes to
invasive species, but this is the one they have been talking to
me a lot.
And I wanted I wanted to hear what steps the Bureau is
going to be taking to address this particular species within
its own facilities and, hopefully, how you can help Park
Service and Fish and Wildlife, as they move forward so we can
prevent the spread.
Mr. Lopez. Before I get into the question of Quagga
Mussels, regarding hydropower I just want to mention that I
recently got an opportunity to tour the dam you were talking
about.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Oh.
Mr. Lopez. I got an opportunity to go up into Washington,
to Grand Coulee.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Oh, yeah.
Mr. Lopez. And that is an amazing facility that generates a
huge amount of hydropower.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Yeah.
Mr. Lopez. So, I agree, hydropower is something that we
ought to be doing as much as we can with it.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you.
Mr. Lopez. Going back to the question of Quagga Mussels,
these are invasive and very difficult organisms to deal with.
They have been moving into many of our reservoirs, as you are
probably aware. If a boat goes into an infested reservoir, some
of the larva can attach themselves to the boat, and then if
they go into a reservoir that did not have them in it, it can
in that way, in essence, infect that reservoir.
So, we have been working with some of the parks that
control access into reservoirs and so forth, to try and get
decontamination facilities, those sorts of things. But in
addition, this year, we are doing a significant amount of
research. We are focusing some research on Quagga Mussels, how
to control them, you know, and also developing--quite frankly,
trying to develop materials that they cannot really stick to.
For example, on the Colorado River, some of the reservoirs
that are already infested, that take water for Los Angeles, and
other communities, they increased the operations cost
dramatically, because you have to clean these screens all the
time. So if we can develop materials that they cannot adhere
to, that might help us deal with it in a different way.
But this is going to be a continuing challenge for us and
for anybody that has any waterways to deal with, and we will
work with all of the other entities to learn from them and,
hopefully, find a solution to this.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. We appreciate that. And one final
question, and it has to do with fish passage, I cannot say that
fast once, let alone 10 times. I was very happy to hear about
the Yakima Basin, the support that you are giving to the Yakima
Basin for its water enhancement project, fish passage,
sometimes I can say it, fish passage is incredibly important to
our regions, and I mentioned hydro earlier.
We really have an amazing success story to tell with regard
to how we have worked, and how peers in our region, and how
tribes, and how the communities have come around to allow for
that hydro project, and in addition we have had record returns
for our salmon population, our wild salmon population which is
incredibly important to us, and we are working on continuing
fish passage.
So, in the FY '16 request for fish, I wanted to hear how
the fish--I am sorry guys; it is how your fish passage budget
this year compares to what you have done last year. We are
hopeful for continued interest and investment on your part. And
in the selection process, just as a hint about how you did
selection process, where you spent that. I wanted to hear what
your thoughts are, when you are deciding that money.
Mr. Lopez. So, I can tell you a little about how we did the
selection process for this, just recently.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you. Yeah.
Mr. Lopez. In the additional monies that were allocated in
2015, a portion was allocated specifically for Fish Passage.
I'm sorry, I am not sure that I said Fish Passage any better.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. I am sorry. I will try not to laugh.
Mr. Lopez. There was $4 million; $4 million that was
allocated to that, and basically what we tried to do was to
select a couple of projects that we knew that could benefit and
that was ready to move forward on this thing; and the Cle Elum
Fish Passage, that was one of them. So, we try and find
projects that are ready to go, we try and distribute the money,
kind of, geographically; those sorts of things.
Where we can make an impact immediately, that is the
selection process; for this year's, for the 2016 Request we are
requesting a little bit over $5 million for Cle Elum Fish
Passage.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Great, great. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner; Mr.
Wolf, good to see you all today. I have some questions about
dams and dam safety. Dam safety continues to be a high priority
for the subcommittee. Around of Reclamations dams are more than
60 years old. A couple and age and improved understanding of
hydrological and seismic issues, and change in construction
practices, you have quite a challenge in ensuring the safety
and security of the nation's dams.
I have three questions in this regard. How often do you
perform risk assessment of the dams?
Mr. Lopez. Congressman, this is going to be subject to
check. I know I read this recently, but I believe we have--we
try and rotate through all of our facilities on no longer than
an eight-year cycle. Is that correct? Eight-year cycle----
Mr. Fleischmann. Eight-year cycle?
Mr. Lopez. And in addition if we know of, or if we are
going to be there for another reason, even before that eight-
year cycle comes up, we will do an assessment of it. Or if
something is brought to our attention that we know might bear
additional scrutiny, we will certainly go out there, on a more
frequent basis.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. How does the Bureau
prioritize future safety and security work on the dam, sir?
Mr. Lopez. We try and assess the impact of failure,
including, if there is potential loss of life that's,
obviously, one of the things that we will put at a highest
priority. I am not intimately familiar with the process, but
basically if we try and assess the probability of failure, and
we look at if there were a failure what would it impact?
For example, if a city has grown up right below a dam, and
if the dam were to fail it would create large loss of property
and life. That is going to be given the highest priority.
That's the sort of consideration that we take.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. As a follow up to that,
Commissioner, what is your plan to deal with the inevitable
increase in the amounts of dams that will require
infrastructure and safety activities in the coming years?
Mr. Lopez. In the current year's budget we have allocated
$88.1 million to that of which $66.5 million is to deal with
problems that we have already identified, and deal with those
directly. A bit over $20 million is to continue our assessments
of all of the rest of the dams.
But I think, that in general, this is one of our
priorities, to make sure that we have safe facilities. So we
continue to look out for, and this is one of our priorities in
terms of the aging infrastructure that we have to maintain. It
will continue to be. It has to be.
Mr. Fleischmann. Does reclamation conduct a comprehensive
review or keep a comprehensive list of maintenance needs and
costs?
Mr. Lopez. Congressman, we do, but that is a difficult
question. I know that in----
Mr. Visclosky. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question.
Mr. Fleischmann. Does reclamation conduct a comprehensive
review or keep a comprehensive list of maintenance needs and
costs?
Mr. Lopez. We track all of our rehabilitation needs and so
forth. However, we do not generally try and lump them all into
one lump sum figure. What we try and do is establish, kind of,
a five year work plan of the Aging Infrastructure, and figure
out how we would address that over a five year period that
makes sure that we keep the most critical needs at the highest
priority, and then move into the next phases as they come in.
Mr. Fleischmann. Okay. One final question, Commissioner,
presumably the budget request does not fund every maintenance
need. Do you know how big the maintenance backlog is, sir?
Mr. Lopez. So this is related to the last question. Our
agency, I believe, I am told that we define backlog differently
than some of the other agencies that we deal with or that you
may deal with.
If we have programmed a certain project, if we have planned
on doing it, say, in the next year, and then for whatever
reason we do not do it be it we just do not have the resources,
whatever the case may be. That we would term a backlog. Not the
overall outlook into the future.
So the way we have approached this is we look at what our
most critical needs are, and establish, kind of, a five year
window or a five year work plan for that. And on the basis of
that five year work plan we have estimated an aging
infrastructure funding need of something like $2.9 billion. But
not all of that would need to be appropriated monies. We
estimate that about 36% of that would need to be appropriate,
and that is over a five year period.
The addition would be either from power partners or the
beneficiaries' cautionary partners that we would be looking to
fund the incremental costs.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome.
Commissioner Lopez, I am very concerned about the public health
and safety implications of allocation decisions, and the over
drafting of our groundwater basin in and around my Silicon
Valley district.
Last year the ground water reserves in Santa Clara Valley
were drawn down 80,000 acre feet. Our county experienced 14
feet of historical subsidence, prior to 1970, with much of the
county already subsided below sea level. Our region is densely
populated with waste water treatment plants, sewer and water
lines, rows and foot controlled levies that traverse; areas
vulnerable to subsidence.
Even if Santa Clara Valley Water District were to receive
its expected 50% municipal and industrial allocation or
approximately 65,000 acre feet from the Central Valley Project
it will still be a challenge to address the risk of subsidence
in our country. They'll be likely not enough water supply to
meet Silicon Valley's projected indoor residential, and
commercial and industrial demands, our public health and safety
needs, if you will, without pulling from our groundwater basin.
In Silicon Valley the groundwater basin is used to balance
our water supply needs, but it is critical that in doing so we
avoid land subsidence in the San Jose area.
So, obviously, this awful draught has left the Bureau with
significant challenges the past three years. So I wanted to ask
your thoughts on how public health and safety issues should
come into play when we are making difficult decisions about
allocation decisions?
Mr. Lopez. Congressman, thank you for your question. Public
health and safety has to be given one of, if not the highest
priority, in terms of allocations. We have a lot of contractual
obligations that we have to meet. We have environment
regulations that we have to meet, but public health and safety
has to be given a high priority as well.
The problem that you highlight, the fact that the last few
years there has been so little water that you have had to go
more and more towards groundwater is, obviously, a huge
problem. I think to the extent that communities are able to
find alternatives, potentially desalination, reuse, things of
that nature. Those are, obviously, much preferred.
Mr. Honda. Yes. I appreciate the level of concern and where
it sits in the allocation decisions, but in Silicon Valley the
driving force in our economy is technology. So we have
commercial, high-tech, including the public consumption of
water, so it seems to me that that kind of consideration
hopefully played a large part in how we look at allocations.
Because I think sometimes we make allocation decisions based on
historical uses, urban versus ag, and I think with ag we are
even looking at how we are going to allocate ag waters if they
have certain kinds of conservation practices. So with that,
appreciate some thoughtful considerations on that area.
On the Bay Delta conservation plan can you provide us with
an update on the status of efforts on the Bay Delta
conservation plan, and what has been the federal role to the
state?
Mr. Lopez. Congressman, the Bureau of Reclamation continues
to work very, very closely with the state and the other
agencies that are looking at this thing, notably the Fish and
Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fishery Service,
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the California
Water Agencies to try and figure out how to move this forward.
As I think you know, we have been through an EIS,
Environment Impact Statement, California in an Environmental
Impact Report last year, and then we put it out for comments
and got thousands of comments. We have adjusted, and we
recognize that there needs to be a supplemental EIS or
Environmental Assessment. We are getting ready to finalize
that. We should have that sometime in the Spring to be able to
put out and keep that process moving forward.
Mr. Honda. In that 2016 budget request of the reclamation
section what federal role is envisioned under that current
plan, and what kinds of costs would be involved at the federal
level, and are those costs including reclamation activities or
include other federal agencies that will be included in
reclamation or that kind of activity? So just kind of curious
how much and what role it is going to play.
Mr. Lopez. So I have described, kind of, the agencies that
I am familiar with that are working on this, but for our
budget, for our portion of that work, we have requested $4
million for continuing our part of that process.
Mr. Honda. So I can pursue how that would be distributed
and what we can expect to spend it on?
Mr. Lopez. Mr. Chairman, yes. I think that it basically
would be to continue the sort of, technical work that needs to
go into this, sort of, continuing to move this environment
compliance forward.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I think I kind of see how this
committee is going to breakout now after this just being our
second hearing is that we are going to have California water as
the main issue, and with the four Californians that do not
always agree on the best solution to everything, and it is
going to be the rest of us trying to protect ourselves from
California with Representative Herrera because they want our
water.
Mr. Honda. Idaho has a lot of beautiful water.
Mr. Simpson. Yes, it does. First, just kind of a technical
question I need to ask, Fiscal Year 2012 reclamation was
directed to assemble data on pipeline reliability for a variety
of types of pipe, and to conduct an analysis of a performance
of these types of pipes. Additional clarification was provided
in subsequent fiscal years, including that reclamation should
take all steps possible to avoid even the appearance of bias in
this work.
Can you please provide the committee with an update on what
is being done in response to these directives, including
reclamation's role, and what activities are being conducted by
an outside entity? And when will this report be completed and
submitted to the committee?
Mr. Lopez. Mr. Chairman, yes. This has been a long running
issue for Reclamation. Following the National Academy of
Science Report that was done a few years ago, one of the items
that that National Academy of Science Report identified was
that the amount of information or the amount of data on the
corrosion rates of various types of pipe was, kind of, lacking.
So coming out of that we were directed to conduct that sort
of survey on the various types of pipes that are out there. We
have done that. We have formulated the survey documents or what
we need to do the survey. Then it became apparent that there
was concern about whether we could do that objectively or
whether we would be biased and try and drive the outcome of the
survey. So we were instructed to have an independent entity do
that. We are doing that.
In developing, kind of, the scope of the survey and all of
that we are required to make that available to the public
before going out and starting the work. We have done that, and
we have put it out to the public for 60 days, and right at the
end of the comment period we got a very large amount of
comments. As a result, we redid the survey instruments, and we
put it out for public comment again.
Halfway through that process some of the interested
Congressmen asked if we would give additional time for comment
on those things. We accommodated that. That moved the timeframe
into December, I believe it was. We are now trying to still
finalize the thing.
We had anticipated that we would be able to do all of this
by this September, September of 2015. Because of these delays
and the comments that we have tried to accommodate we think
that it will now take us into mid-2016 to complete all of this,
assuming that there are no further delays.
Another element that you asked about was what role we would
play. As I mentioned, there is concern about whether we can be
unbiased in that process, so we had already planned on having
an independent contractor do the work. Now we have been asked
to have an independent contractor do the analysis, the economic
analysis, that would follow up on the results of that. That is
part of our plan as well.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. Thank you. I want to get into just a
little bit something that Mr. Visclosky and I were talking
about that has come up. Having been ranking member and chairman
of this committee we both have, kind of, an interest in this.
That is the future. We do not like to be surprised. Do you have
a five year plan in place for your agency, five year work plan?
Mr. Lopez. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned we have a five year
plan as relates to, kind of, our infrastructure and the aging
infrastructure and making sure that we can deal with that. We
have that. Is that what you are referring to?
Mr. Simpson. That and, as an example, today in this budget
we are funding three of the four Indian water rights
settlements proposed in this new account, and it has increased
significantly in this budget request.
Some of these settlements have statutory deadlines for
completing work. Are we on track for those deadlines? Can we
anticipate over the next five years what we are going to be
spending on Indian rights settlements on water rights and
stuff, in all of those categories?
I guess to ask it in kind of a not too specific way, and I
will not ask you to do this, but if you ran a business I could
go back and sit down and probably put together, if someone
asked me to, what it was going to cost me to run my business
next year, and what I anticipate it is going to cost me in a
couple years.
Understanding that there are, sometimes, things that happen
to change those plans. Could you do that, and I am not going to
ask you to do it, but could you tell us what, and I am not
asking you to actually tell us, but if you had to could you
tell us what you think the budget will be for the next year and
the year after?
Mr. Lopez. Mr. Chairman, yes, I think. And going back to
your question about the Indian Water Rights Settlements and so
forth, this year showed a significant increase on that, and it
is driven by the statutory deadlines that are built into those
settlements, and making sure that we can meet those deadlines
for implementation.
I am told, I spoke with Mr. Wolf earlier that the level
that we have asked for this year, the $112.5 million, should,
essentially, stabilize. We may have a little bit of an
increase, but not a big increase. That is assuming that we are
focused on the settlements that are now currently in place.
Obviously, if we get new settlements that add additional
responsibilities that changes that picture. But for the
settlements in place we think we are, essentially, a stable
funding level.
For the rest of this, in general, we have been over the
course of the last eight years or so, essentially, very close
to an overall flat budget. I would anticipate we would be,
essentially, the same. We will have to reorder our priorities
within that as we move forward.
Mr. Simpson. When you talk about the Indian water rights
settlements, is this for the negotiation of the Indian water
rights settlement or is this payments that were negotiated? In
other words, are we appropriating money for that or does that
come out of the Judgment Fund?
Mr. Lopez. The $112.5 million that I am talking about is
for the implementation of settlements that have already been--
--
Mr. Simpson. Negotiated?
Mr. Lopez. Negotiated and approved by Congress. In most
instances, the monies that are being put out, that we are
asking for, is to build infrastructure that is a compliment of
the settlement.
Mr. Simpson. Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr.
Visclosky.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just would make a
comment in conjunction with what the chairman said on the work
plan, $2.9 billion over five years, if I am doing the 36
percent correct, that gets me at about $1.44 billion, which
divided by five, five years, is 18 percent more than you asked
for this year.
I despair that this institution continues not to address
the issue of entitlements and adequate revenue, because I do
not see how you get your work plan done, which is no failing of
yours.
On dam safety, a number of questions were asked. I would
have one on the authorization ceiling. The Bureau has indicated
that reauthorization efforts for the Safety of Dams Act would
need to be completed prior to the submission of one of the
modification reports planned for fiscal year 2016 and future
modifications.
Authorization extensions were called for in the budget for
CALFED as well as the Secure Water Act. Why did the budget not
include any recommended changes for the Safety of Dams Act,
given the pressing need?
Mr. Lopez. We have some room in the authority for the
Safety of Dams Act, I believe, somewhere on the order of $383
million still within the existing cap. You are correct, there
is at least one dam that we have identified in Oregon, that dam
by itself, the cost of that modification is estimated at about
$450 million.
Before that could be moved forward, we would need to raise
the authorization ceiling. We did not request that. We know the
Authorizing Committee is aware of it. It was requested last
year, but they opted not to.
Mr. Visclosky. I assume it will be worked on.
Mr. Lopez. We hope to talk to them and see if they are
willing to do that.
Mr. Visclosky. Sooner rather than later.
Mr. Simpson. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Visclosky. Sure.
Mr. Simpson. Is there any controversy with that, do you
know, with the authorization committees or anything?
Mr. Lopez. I am looking at Mr. Wolf, and he says no.
Mr. Visclosky. One final question. The budget request
increases funding for the resilient infrastructure investments
account, it is a component of WaterSMART, by 67 percent.
Could you provide for the subcommittee details of what
Reclamation is doing with this line item, and how it
compliments or is different from another line item, which is
the examination of existing structures?
Mr. Lopez. Let me describe the last portion first, the
examination of existing structures is part of our Dam Safety
Program that basically is again--I described earlier how we do
an eight year rotation, make sure we inspect all of our
facilities. That is what that portion is.
Mr. Visclosky. Okay.
Mr. Lopez. The Infrastructure Resilience Fund, we are
asking a modest amount, $2.5 million. It is an increase over
what we have had before. What we are trying to focus on here is
not the infrastructure rehabilitation itself, but trying to set
up the mechanisms and the protocols such that as a matter of
course, when we know we have to rehabilitate infrastructure,
that we are not just dealing with bringing it back to what it
was before, but rather looking out into the future about
climate change and what modifications can we change to make
that infrastructure as we are doing that routine work, make it
more resilient to withstand those kind of anticipated future
changes, or as we were talking earlier about, kind of some of
the environmental impacts.
If there is something we can do as we are just doing some
of our routine rehabilitation, upkeep, if we can anticipate the
needs such that we do not have to come back and do a retrofit
later, that is what that money is going to be focused on.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
emphasize again, Mr. Valadao certainly brought this up, and I
will do it again. The short term issue that we were just
discussing on the flexibility to pump to the maximum degree
possible under the existing biological opinion, I do not
believe that is occurring.
I will be talking to you and Mike in the future about this,
but I do not believe it is occurring because of some of the
difficulties that Mr. Valadao brought up and others that this
is happening.
When we get the final report, if we did lose 10,000 acre
feet of water this last weekend, that is enough water to supply
Mr. Valadao's small communities for the rest of the year. That
is a lot of water. When you have 30,000 CFS, most people cannot
even visualize that kind of water moving down and through the
Bay.
I wrote the CALFED bill a number of years ago. That was my
legislation. How long has that been, 12 years ago? Something
like that. We have had reports. We have had studies. We have
had technical evaluations. We have had environmental reviews.
If all that stuff was water, the drought would be over.
We have been studying the various expansions of capacity
and dams in California to move the construction of this long
term solution of storage. A Shasta study was supposed to be
done this year, I understand. The Upper San Joaquin River study
is supposed to be done this year.
We have had frustrations on the Sites Reservoir, and
certainly we have some issues with a non-Federal share, and
those issues have to be resolved.
All of these things, at the end of the day, we have to
finish these studies and we have to get on with it and start
building reservoirs, and the long term solution to California
is we have to get the storage completed. That was the intent of
the bill. We have spent God knows how much money on
environmental projects in the Bay area. That is great.
We have to build the storage because Silicon Valley is
going to be out of water. Los Angeles is going to be out of
water. Southern California is going to be out of water.
People like to joke about California, but we are a big part
of the economy. You cannot do much without water. I will be
leaning on you, Commissioner, Mike, and the Secretary, that we
have to deal with this.
I have not even got into the Colorado River. As you know,
we have 67 million acre feet of storage in the Colorado River
system. What are you down to right now in capacity?
Mr. Lopez. We are down below half.
Mr. Calvert. Below half. That is about as low as it has
been since the creation of much of those projects, is it not?
Mr. Lopez. Certainly, Lake Mead is down at a lower level
since it was built.
Mr. Calvert. Las Vegas is putting in a new tunnel to be
able to capture water out of the bottom of Lake Mead. If Lake
Mead runs dry, they are going to have to shut down that Palazzo
Hotel. We will be having Frank Sinatra sprouting water. I make
a joke about it. That is a big part of the western economy.
Arizona is out of water. Nevada is out of water. New Mexico is
out of water.
This is severe. We cannot lose a drop of water. That is the
point I want to make. We have to start building storage and
resolve this problem for the long term.
With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. I was going to ask a question, but I thought I
would get into that discussion about water. We do not manage
drought. We manage water. The drought issue is a phenomenon
that is kind of global, I think, and it is affected by a lot of
other things.
We can figure out the different ways of recycling water,
manage the water, things like that. Water is a finite commodity
in the world, globally. I think it is something that California
is going through, and we have not learned to manage a couple of
things, and one is understand that water is a commodity that
you can only get so much of, it is a limiting factor, I guess
they call it.
If we continue to grow our population without taking into
consideration how we are going to have sufficient water for the
growing population, then we are going to constantly face this
issue of the shortage of water. It is really learning how to
manage it.
One of the ways is we could probably tap into Idaho's great
rivers where large sturgeons are living. My point is I think as
humans we have to start looking at the essence of the limiting
factor that water presents itself in and how we look at our
population, how we look at growth, how we look at management,
and storage is one way but it is not the answer to this thing
we call a ``drought'' that happens, that we do not have much
control over, unless we understand other dynamics.
I go to Idaho to enjoy your beautiful rivers. I think the
salmon and the different places is something that needs to be
preserved. I think Idaho has something to be proud of.
We have some things to be proud of in California. We just
have a large growth of people that want to live there, and I
think we have to learn how, as farmers and ag people, learn how
to manage that. A lot of them are doing it. I think we just
have to learn how to manage our water.
In California, we were rationing 25 percent in the last
drought, and after the drought was over, we lifted it, and we
should have continued our practice of managing and rationing
our water so that we learned to live with what we can.
A lot of it is going to be behooving upon us as a
population to understand how we do that as a community. It
affects a lot of people. I think this is one of the lessons I
have learned. I think it behooves us to sort of share that
insight, and at the same time, solve a problem.
I do not think we as humans know how to do flood control,
but we certainly should know how to manage the water that we
have.
I have a parochial question, in the words of the chairman
that he used yesterday. The water hyacinth, what is happening
with that in the San Joaquin/Sacramento Delta area? For some,
it is a plant, and it is a beautiful plant, but for others, it
is a weed. As a fisherman, it messes up my fishing. It just
drags my line down the river.
Mr. Lopez. I spoke earlier about some of the constraints on
pumping water out of the Sacramento River Delta and so forth.
Water Hyacinth, I understand it is an invasive species and it
has been around for a long while, I think it may be an
attractive plant but it can also completely clog these
waterways. That is what has happened this year. It has
completely clogged these waterways, including preventing us to
really be able to operate those things the way we would like.
We have been doing all that we can to remove that. There
was literally, at least at the beginning of this, miles of this
they were trying to clean up. They were moving a tremendous
amount of these plants out of the area, but not really able to
keep up.
Since then, they have made some headway. A number of the
irrigation districts are working with us, the State of
California is working with us, providing resources. We are
working on trying to clear out these things, but they continue
to be a huge challenge.
Mr. Honda. The use of fertilizers, is that a big
contributor and something we should be looking at also?
Mr. Lopez. Congressman, I do not know the answer to that. I
was told yesterday something about the drought itself and
perhaps the increased water temperatures might have been
contributing to it, but frankly, I do not know the answer to
what is driving that.
Mr. Honda. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Valadao.
Mr. Valadao. There was a lot in that last statement there,
but one comment on transporting water across different state
lines that would require a pipeline, and those are not popular
back here at times.
On the agriculture, I am the only farmer up here and I
still currently farm. When we look at the pesticides that are
being used throughout, and herbicides, the things we do use,
they are so expensive and resources are so tight, there is no
room for just throwing stuff on fields or just putting it
around.
I happen to be the guy that has the permit on our own
personal property. The amount of work it takes for me to get my
ability to hire a PCA and the permitting process he has to go
through so he can come out and look at my fields and tell me
what pesticides to use, for me to then hire another guy who has
gone through a permitting process again to be able to apply
those things, it is not as simple as the people that go to
town, whatever hardware store they go to, and purchase
whatever, and just put it on their grass without any specific
measurements.
There is a huge difference between agriculture and urban
users. I just wanted to just make a point of clarification.
Mr. Honda. If you would allow me to make a quick comment, I
was trying to make a distinction between urban users and ag,
and I think urban users, we do put a lot of stuff on the ground
with a lot of thought. I think that is probably a great source
of the nutrients that run off. I think you guys are pretty
scientific about it.
Mr. Valadao. We have done everything we possibly can to
save money and preserve resources.
Commissioner, as you know, obviously building water
restructure is very important to me and something I am very
interested in. Yesterday, I met with representatives from the
Sites Reservoir or Sites Project Joint Powers Authority, the
JPA. They said they are on the verge of making great progress
on the project itself.
The JPA and the Bureau of Reclamation are working on a plan
to get the feasibility study and the environmental documents
completed no later than December 2016, which will help ensure
the project is in a position to compete for the funds made
available.
The Sites JPA is pursuing investors and reaching out to the
environmental community and land owners that will be impacted
by the project.
I want to make sure that the Bureau is committed to helping
to move this project forward and that you have the resources
necessary to help ensure the feasibility study and EIR and EIS
are completed no later than the end of 2016.
What steps is the Bureau taking on this project to make
sure the deadline is met?
Mr. Lopez. Congressman, we also met with some of those
folks in the last couple of days. They are very focused right
now on getting us what they need in terms of the agreements and
so forth. We are working with them on developing a Project
Management Plan. That is one of the key elements.
Obviously, I am relatively new to this one, but I met with
a group that included a number of people within our
organization that are very familiar with what needs to be done.
I got a very distinct impression during that conversation that
we were all on the same page about being able to get to that
deadline you are talking about and making sure a decision can
be made relative to the funds. As I understand it, that is kind
of the driver for that whole thing.
Mr. Valadao. One of the issues with pumping on the Delta,
there is a lot of blame to go around, if it is ESA or other
things, but there is that issue, I think it is called
``hyacinth,'' that weed, the invasive species that has come
over on ships or whatever it was.
Some money was brought in through that $50 million to help
eliminate that issue. Is there anything going on or do you have
any plans going forward with that to help remove that invasive
species? I do not know what the proper term is for that. When
are we going to see some action on that?
Mr. Lopez. There is a lot of action going on right now.
Basically, we are trying to get as many resources as we can to
get that cleared out right now. We are finally having some
impact. Initially, when we started out----
Mr. Valadao. It is an underwater weed; right?
Mr. Lopez. It floats on the water. As I understand it, I do
not know much about this but I have been talking to a lot of
people in the last few days about it, and I am told it floats
on the water with kind of a bulb-ish mass on the top with roots
that go down into the water. I am told it can be up to five or
six feet thick, just floating on the top there.
Right now, we have partners, the San Luis and Delta-Mendota
Water Authority, the Central California Irrigation District,
the Department of Boating and Waterways, the Department of
Water Resources. They are all helping us to try to remove that
right now.
In some instances, we are entering into agreements, such
that they can operate some of our equipment. We are trying to
do all things to move that process forward.
Mr. Valadao. It is a huge challenge. This is my last
question, so I just want to thank you very much for taking some
time out for us today, and I look forward to working with you
in the future, and appreciate the chairman for giving me some
time today.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. It is interesting sitting and
listening to this debate and the questions about California
waters and the drought down there. I went and visited the
Central Valley in Mr. Valadao's district last summer, I guess
it was, last May or so.
To tell you the truth, I was shocked. I have never seen any
place where agriculture has done as much to conserve water as
they have in the Central Valley. You do not see sprinklers
spraying water all over the fields and that kind of stuff like
you do in most agricultural places, or flood irrigation, or any
of that. It is all drip. They use as little water as possible
to address the needs.
It is also really kind of sad to see them taking out the
almond trees and the pistachio trees. If the drought is over
next year, they do not come back next year. A potato crop you
cannot grow because of a drought this year, next year when you
get water, you can replant it.
Losing some very long term investment there that is
important. Anyway, they do a great job in the Central Valley in
trying to conserve what they have during these difficult times.
Mr. Visclosky, anything else?
Mr. Visclosky. No, thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. No, thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you for being here. We look forward to
working with you, and congratulations on your confirmation by
the Senate. The Senate finally did something that we are very
proud of.
Thank you for coming today, and we look forward to working
with you as we put this budget together.
Mr. Lopez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members,
appreciate the discussion.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Bostick, General T. P............................................ 1
Darcy, Jo-Ellen.................................................. 1
Lopez, E. R...................................................... 97