[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: WATER RESOURCES
PROJECTS AND POLICY, PART 2
=======================================================================
(115-54)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 7, 2018
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
33-629 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Vice Chair Columbia
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SAM GRAVES, Missouri ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas RICK LARSEN, Washington
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
BOB GIBBS, Ohio GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
JEFF DENHAM, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JOHN GARAMENDI, California
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois Georgia
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
ROB WOODALL, Georgia RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
TODD ROKITA, Indiana DINA TITUS, Nevada
JOHN KATKO, New York SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
BRIAN BABIN, Texas ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut,
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana Vice Ranking Member
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
MIKE BOST, Illinois JARED HUFFMAN, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas JULIA BROWNLEY, California
DOUG LaMALFA, California FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
JOHN J. FASO, New York MARK DeSAULNIER, California
A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
JASON LEWIS, Minnesota
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
VACANCY
(ii)
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana, Chairman
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BOB GIBBS, Ohio LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JARED HUFFMAN, California
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
ROB WOODALL, Georgia JOHN GARAMENDI, California
TODD ROKITA, Indiana DINA TITUS, Nevada
JOHN KATKO, New York SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
BRIAN BABIN, Texas ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
MIKE BOST, Illinois JULIA BROWNLEY, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
DOUG LaMALFA, California PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia Officio)
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida, Vice Chair
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
WITNESSES
Major General Scott Spellmon, Deputy Commanding General for Civil
and Emergency Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Oral statement............................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: WATER RESOURCES
PROJECTS AND POLICY, PART 2
----------
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:02 a.m., in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Garret Graves
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Good morning. The subcommittee
will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized
to declare a recess at any time.
I ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee in
today's hearing and ask questions.
Is there any objection?
Without objection, so ordered.
I want to welcome everyone to our hearing today, ``Building
a 21st-Century Infrastructure for America: Water Resources
Projects and Policy, Part 2.'' The Corps of Engineers
constructs water resource projects across the Nation and even
military missions around the world. These include navigation
projects, ecosystem restoration, flood control, hurricane
protection, and other water resources type projects.
Today, we are going to review six Army Corps of Engineers
Chief's Reports and three Post-Authorization Change Reports
that have been delivered to Congress since we passed H.R. 8 out
of committee and out of the House of Representatives. This
brings the total number of Chief's Reports to 12 and the total
number of PACRs, the Post-Authorization Change Reports, to 4
since the last WRDA bill.
These reports are the result of an arduous process where
they look at technical feasibility, environmental implications,
and economic considerations, as well to ensure that there is a
public or national interest in proceeding with these projects.
All the reports are tailored to meet locally developed needs
and have support from the non-Federal sponsors.
This hearing today is an important step in Congress'
oversight responsibility for the Corps water resources program.
And I appreciate Major General Spellmon being here today. I
believe it is the first time you have been in our committee.
And I do appreciate all the Members that are here as well.
I recognize the ranking member, Mrs. Napolitano, for any
remarks that she may have.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased
to be here this morning to welcome Mr. Spellmon. And thank you
for holding this very important hearing to reflect on the
condition of our Nation's water resources infrastructure.
And I do want to extend a warm welcome to today's witness,
Major General Scott Spellmon, deputy commanding general for
Civil and Emergency Operations at the Corps of Engineers.
Today's hearing is a crucial necessary step that this
subcommittee must take as we work towards enactment of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2018, the WRDA. Since the
passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 last
Congress, the Corps of Engineers has completed and submitted 16
Chief's Reports to Congress that include projects in Seattle,
Washington; Norfolk, Virginia; Lower San Joaquin River in
California; Kentucky River in Kentucky; San Juan, Puerto Rico
and others. These projects whose purpose include flood and
storm risk management, ecosystem restoration, and navigation
are critical to developing and maintaining our economy at the
local, regional, and national levels.
Today's subcommittee members have the opportunity to
evaluate this year's reports, as well as the 2017 and 2018
annual reports submitted by the Corps to Congress pursuant to
section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act
of 2014. These annual reports identify completed and proposed
feasibility studies, as well as proposed modifications to
authorized projects or studies based upon requests submitted to
the Corps by non-Federal project sponsors.
Mr. Chairman, like you, I am excited to continue our work
on the Water Resources Development Act of 2018. This committee
has been extremely successful in getting our work done, thanks
to you and the ranking member of the full committee as well as
the chair. And authorizing this next generation of Corps
projects will benefit our communities and our Nation.
Unfortunately, I share the frustration many of our local
sponsors and my own colleagues in this body when we account for
how little work the work they put into authorizing Corps
projects ultimately means if the funding to build that project
does not follow easily. That is to say, our Nation's water
resources infrastructure is vastly underfunded, and what we
need is a bold vision on how to make necessary infrastructure
investments. Ultimately, only increased investment in our water
resources infrastructure will enable us to see that the hard
work of our local sponsors and the Corps comes into reality.
I thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this hearing, and look
forward to the dialogue. I yield back.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mrs. Napolitano.
Before we get into introducing our witness this morning,
allow me to submit some unanimous consent requests.
I ask unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15
days for additional comments and information submitted by
Members or the witness to be included in the record of today's
hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent the record of today's hearing
remain open until such time as our witness has provided answers
to any questions that may be submitted to him in writing.
Without objection, so ordered.
Thank you. I want to welcome Major General Scott Spellmon
to our committee, the Deputy Commanding General of the Corps of
Engineers.
And, General, I recognize you for your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MAJOR GENERAL SCOTT SPELLMON, DEPUTY COMMANDING
GENERAL FOR CIVIL AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS
General Spellmon. Well, thank you. And good morning,
everyone.
Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Napolitano, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, my name is Major
General Scott Spellmon. I am the Deputy Commanding General for
Civil and Emergency Operations for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
I want to first thank you for the opportunity to be here
today to discuss Chief's Reports that have been completed since
the passage of H.R. 8, the Water Resources Development Act of
2018, back in June. As this is my first time testifying before
this subcommittee, I did want to take just a brief moment and
introduce myself.
Before assuming my current position, I served as the Army
Corps commander for the Northwestern Division. In this role, I
had the privilege of overseeing a very challenging and dynamic
annual program of more than $3 billion for civil works,
environmental restoration, and military construction projects.
My area of responsibility covered 14 States, from St. Louis,
Missouri; to Seattle, Washington; essentially encompassing the
Missouri and Columbia River Basins.
I am excited to take on this challenging role leading the
Corps Civil Works program, and look forward to working
collaboratively with this committee as we deliver beneficial
water resources projects to our Nation.
Now, since the passage of H.R. 8, six studies have been
completed and have had Chief's Reports signed. All of these are
still under review by the executive branch. Four of these
Chief's Reports recommend navigation improvements, including
those in Seattle Harbor, Washington; Norfolk Harbor, Virginia;
San Juan Harbor in Puerto Rico; and on the Three Rivers project
along the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. A
fifth is a recommended project for flood risk management on the
Lower San Joaquin River in California. And the sixth is an
aquatic ecosystem restoration study of the resacas, which are
Oxbow lakes located in Brownsville, Texas.
The Corps has also approved and transmitted three Post-
Authorization Change Reports for executive review. Two of these
reports document and recommended an increase in the total
authorized project cost which require congressional
authorization. One is for the construction of the Chickamauga
Lock and Dam in Tennessee, and the other is for construction of
a new lock at the Soo locks on the Saint Marys River in
Michigan. The third Post-Authorization Change Report recommends
crediting of costs to the non-Federal sponsor associated with
certain activities on the central and southern Florida project,
Kissimmee River Restoration.
I would also like to take this opportunity to provide a
brief update on the 2018 Report to Congress on Future Water
Resources development as required by section 7001 of the Water
Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014. An open period
for potential non-Federal sponsors to submit projects occurred
between April and August of this year. During this 120-day
window, the Corps utilized traditional media, as well as social
media outlets, to inform the public of the opportunity to
submit proposals. Additionally, we hosted a public webinar to
explain the criteria that these proposals must meet. A total of
34 proposals were received, and they are currently being
evaluated per the criteria in section 7001.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this concludes
my statement. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today,
and I look forward to any questions you may have.
[General Spellmon's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Major General Scott Spellmon, Deputy Commanding
General for Civil and Emergency Operations, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am
honored to be testifying before you today to discuss Reports of the
Chief of Engineers (Chief's Reports) and Post Authorization Change
Reports (PACRs) completed since the passage of H.R. 8, the Water
Resources Development Act of 2018. I am Major General Scott Spellmon,
Deputy Commanding General, Civil and Emergency Operations, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps). This is the first time I appear before you
in my current position; I previously served as the Commander of the
Corps Northwestern Division. I look forward to continuing to work with
this committee. There are six projects that have reports by the Chief
of Engineers but are still under executive branch review. Also, there
are three pending PACRs currently under executive branch review. The
Secretary's office has also forwarded to the Congress a study provided
by a non-Federal interest under the authority of Section 203 of WRDA
1986 (P. L. 99-662), as amended, with the Secretary's Review Assessment
of the study.
I first would like to provide a brief update on the 2018 Report to
Congress on Future Water Resources development as required by Section
7001 of WRRDA 2014. The notice requesting proposals by non-Federal
interests for proposed feasibility studies and proposed modifications
to authorized water resources development projects was published in the
Federal Register on April 20, 2018. The Federal Register Notice is
posted on the Corps Headquarters website and the Corps has utilized
social media throughout the open season to inform the public of the
opportunity to submit proposals. The Corps hosted a public webinar on
July 31, 2018, that explained the criteria that proposals must meet,
the process to submit proposals and the timeline to be considered for
the 2018 Report. Notification to the public regarding this webinar was
provided through social media on several days through July of 2018 and
it also located on the Corps of Engineers website. The deadline for
non-Federal interests to submit proposals to the Corps was August 20,
2018. There were 34 proposals received.
The six proposed projects with reports by the Chief of Engineers
since passage of H.R. 8 that were neither included in H.R. 8 nor
already authorized and that the executive branch is in the process of
reviewing are:
San Joaquin River Basin, Lower San Joaquin, California
(Flood Risk Management)
Seattle Harbor, Washington (Navigation)
Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia (Navigation)
San Juan Harbor Improvements, Puerto Rico (Navigation)
Three Rivers, Arkansas (Navigation)
Resacas at Brownsville, Texas (Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration)
There are also three PACRs that are under executive branch review.
These reports are:
St. Marys River, Soo Locks, Michigan (Navigation)
Chickamauga Lock, Tennessee River, Tennessee (Navigation)
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration (Kissimmee River),
Florida (Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration)
In July of 2018, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works forwarded to the Congress a study prepared by a non-
Federal interest, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD),
under the authority of Section 203 of WRDA 1986, as amended, with the
Secretary's Review Assessment of the study. This study and Review
Assessment do not constitute a Chief's Report. The SFWMD's study
addresses water storage and conveyance needs in the Everglades
Agricultural Area south of Lake Okeechobee. In the Review Assessment,
the Secretary found South Florida Water Management District's proposed
project to be feasible from an engineering and construction viewpoint,
but did not make a determination of the economic or environmental
feasibility of the plan. The Review Assessment detailed a number of
significant concerns with the study, provided recommendations
concerning the plan and design of the proposed project and specific
conditions that must be met to proceed to construction.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today and look forward to answering any
questions you may have.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. General, thank you.
We're first going to go to the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr.
Crawford.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And good morning, General Spellmon. I want to thank you for
being here today. And first, I want to express my gratitude for
the recent Chief's Report on the Three Rivers project in
Arkansas. It is a critical project to keep navigation on the
Arkansas River active and robust.
In the northern part of my district, I have had
constituents tell me they believe there have been more major
flooding events in the last few years, generally speaking, than
historically has been the case. They have been told that the
Corps and perhaps others in Missouri have been actively
cleaning out some of the rivers and tributaries in southeast
Missouri. This could obviously result in more water getting
into my district much faster. We haven't had the same kind of
dredging in northeast Arkansas, and so flooding has been a
problem there more frequently.
I wonder if you can comment on any of this and give me some
clarity as to what may or may not be going on with regard to
that situation?
General Spellmon. Sir, I am not familiar with the situation
as you have described it, as I have been in my job for about 90
days now. I welcome the opportunity to come out to your region
and work with our regional commanders and our district
commanders to get more detail and welcome the opportunity for
my staff to follow up with yours on a more complete answer.
Mr. Crawford. Outstanding. That would be very helpful. We
have a problem in our State where we don't do a comprehensive
approach and somebody does something upstream and it affects
someone downstream. And I am just thinking maybe we could
harmonize with our neighbors to the north in more of a
comprehensive approach, and I certainly would welcome you to
the district to do that.
General Spellmon. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I recognize Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
This subcommittee has passed the WRRDA 2014 and WRDA 2016,
and they were enacted into law. And it speaks to the Members of
Congress' desire to respond to the water resources needs of our
communities but also to the demand for increased investment.
Can you please describe for the subcommittee the scope of
the Chief's Reports and Post-Authorization Change Reports that
the Corps expects to send to Congress these coming months?
General Spellmon. So, ma'am, if I understand the question,
you are asking me to briefly describe each of the Chief's
Reports?
Mrs. Napolitano. Not each one, but what is the scope of
them? What is more important? What has been salient in the
recent submissions to you?
General Spellmon. So, ma'am, let me tackle it this way. As
I mentioned, three of the Chief's Reports deal with navigation.
These are essentially deepening of different segments of the
projects in Norfolk, San Juan, and Seattle Harbors. We have an
ecosystem restoration project in, as I mentioned, the resacas
in Brownsville, Texas. These Chief's Reports go under
concurrent review, both by Congress and the administration.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. I am interested in more detail on one
of them, but I will ask for it later.
In the--a significant amount of time this year to evaluate
the Federal Government's response to the hurricanes, Maria and
Harvey, of course, Puerto Rico stands out and the U.S. Virgin
Islands where people lost their lives and it took 11 months to
restore power to the entirety of the island. Can you provide an
update of the Corps' activities in Puerto Rico and Virgin
Islands related to the 2017 hurricane?
And additionally, the hurricane season has left us largely
unscathed thus far. I believe it is imperative we apply the
lessons learned from those hurricanes to prepare for future
storms. To that end, can you please describe activities the
Corps has undertaken or plans to undertake to better prepare
our Nation for future hurricanes this coming season?
General Spellmon. Yes, ma'am. I would start out by saying
that any loss of life is tragic and that our hearts and our
thoughts are with those families that suffered the loss of
loved ones in the storms of last year.
Ma'am, I would refer you to the GAO report that came out--I
saw it for the first time yesterday. It came out this month--
that effectively describes the conditions that the Corps and
our other FEMA partners were operating in. First of all, we had
concurrent and overlapping storms. Harvey, Irma, and Maria were
disaster number 25, 26, and 27 of----
Mrs. Napolitano. What about the preparations?
General Spellmon. Yes, ma'am. So we go through a very
detailed AAR process and capture lessons learned from our
performance last year in disaster response. We do AARs, After
Action Reviews, at the district level, the regional level, and
at the headquarters level. I will tell you, the actions that we
have taken already this year include prepositioning of people
well in advance of the storm.
So, for example, Hurricane Lane here a couple of weeks ago
that approached the main island of Hawaii. We sent in advance--
long before that storm was scheduled to make landfall--our
roofing teams with an advance party of our contractor. We run a
model. We can predict what communities were going to have
trouble, and we had people on the ground before landfall
looking and getting assessments and inventorying of our stocks
to ensure that we could respond in a more rapid fashion.
Mrs. Napolitano. All right. That is good to hear, but I am
still worried that we are not prepared enough in rebuilding to
withstand future hard hurricanes.
General Spellmon. Right. So I would thank you, Madam, as
well as all of Congress for the very generous appropriation in
the Harvey, Irma, Maria storm supplemental. Congress gave us
$17.4 billion, and, ma'am, that is going to fund 235 projects
in 33 States to add resilience to our communities.
We are taking this very, very seriously. We know we have to
deliver for the Nation. In fact, we have a lot of our senior
staff meeting in Dallas, Texas, this week as we outline that
program, because we want to get these projects in the ground as
soon as possible.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, sir.
I yield back.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you.
We are going to go to Mr. Gibbs from Ohio.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, General, for
being here.
On the Soo lock, we have got the economic validation study,
the executive summary here. This came in June, I believe, of
this year. My understanding is that the full report hasn't been
released because of security sensitive redactations. What's the
status of getting the full report to the committee?
General Spellmon. So, sir, we received the report from our
Mississippi Valley Division and General Kaiser, and that report
is undergoing review in my office. We are going through that
with a fine-tooth comb before we forward that on.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. Also, you have to refresh my memory, I think
in your testimony you talked about the one lock there at Soo,
the St. Marys--Soo lock. What is the status? Because I am
looking here on this executive thing on the benefit-cost ratio.
I remember in the past, we have had discussion about OMB and
the Corps and where we stand on all this, on this benefit-cost
ratio to move this project forward.
General Spellmon. Yes, sir. So the analysis that our team
has done developed a benefit-cost ratio of about 2.42, if my
memory serves me correctly.
Mr. Gibbs. Yeah.
General Spellmon. I think some of the differences that we
have with the local sponsor is how we calculated that economic
benefit. So I am happy to go into detail, either here or
separately, on the details of that difference and how we are
continuing to gauge and work through that.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. So you anticipate this moving forward? I
have been a big advocate that this Soo lock needs to get done.
So your anticipation is that we are on the right track?
General Spellmon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gibbs. OK.
General Spellmon. Yes, sir, we are.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, thank you very much for all the work that you are
doing, and congratulations and condolences on your new job. You
are going to have your hands full.
You have been very, very helpful to me in the Sutter Basin
issue. I don't suppose you had been in your job too long before
I had the opportunity to talk to you about it. And you have
been very creative, and I very much appreciate that.
We are down to the last wire of this. And if you could turn
your attention to a vertically integrated process, I think we
can get this thing done for the next flood season and complete
a 40-mile project in the Sutter Basin. So I really appreciate
your effort on that. So we will move that along, and it has
been a very good process in which the Corps, working with the
local entities, has been able to successfully move in a very
rapid way. Also, the Marysville project, two very important
projects in our area. And so my appreciation and thanks to you
and to the district, as well headquarters here.
The section 204 authority fits right into this, and so here
we go. Maybe next time we can write legislation with more
clarity and not run into the problem that we have had here. I
guess that is our problem.
This is really addressed to Mr. Graves and to the chairman
and the ranking member of the committee. WRDA is in process,
the conference committee is moving along. I would like to draw
the attention of the committee and certainly to the conferees
to the necessity of maintaining section 310 of the House bill.
I don't know, the Senate sometimes is a bit difficult to deal
with, but section 310 authorizes the Three Rivers Levee
Improvement Authority, and that is the last 3 miles of the
project on the Yuba River, at no cost to the Federal
Government. It is simply the authority to get that project
done.
And finally, I know this is going to be an issue all of us
are going to deal with so we may as well get it on the table,
and that is should the Corps of Engineers continue as it is
today or should it be reorganized? My own personal experience,
having dealt with the reorganization in 2010 in the Department
of the Interior where the mine safety programs were dispersed
from the Department of the Interior and sent to multiple
places, it created a decade of chaos. And so I would suggest
that we stay with where we are and not deal with any further
effort to dismantle the Corps of Engineers.
So I am taking the opportunity to express our position,
some of which is of interest to the members of this committee
and beyond.
With that, I think I have just about consumed 3 of my 5
minutes. So let it go at that.
Again, General, thank you very much for your work on the
Sutter Basin project. I appreciate it, appreciate your
willingness to be creative and find a way past some legislative
glitches that unfortunately we created for ourselves. So thank
you.
With that, I will yield back.
General Spellmon. Thank you, sir. I look forward to working
with you.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I want to thank the gentleman from
California.
And just very quickly, section 310 of the House bill
pertains to the Yuba River. That is a project that we have been
discussing with the Senate together with our counterparts, and
we have been working to defend the House bill which we think
has very good policy, which would include section 310, but we
will follow up with you directly as we continue discussing this
with the Senate. But I will say that we are united with Mrs.
Napolitano in pushing the House bill which would include
section 310.
Mr. Garamendi. There is no doubt in my support for your
position, which we all created here, and the hard work that you
are doing. I didn't mean to indicate anything otherwise, but to
put this on the record that this is important, as is the bill
that we put out, which was, in my estimation, perfect.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I want to thank the gentleman from
California for his contributions to the bill, and we will
continue to work with you. Mrs. Napolitano and I have both
advocated for the inclusion of that project in the final
version, and we will continue to work together to push the
Senate on that. So thank you.
We are going to the gentleman from California, Mr. Denham.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, good morning. It is good to see you this morning.
Glad to see the Chief's Report for phase 1 to the Lower San
Joaquin River is now signed and included in the WRDA bill. This
is a great cost-benefit ratio.
But more importantly than the cost benefit, this is also
the area where the Corps is going to build their first VA mega
clinic. And so while we have got 262 critical infrastructure
sites in that area, 12 which are considered essential to life
and safety, we also have Sharpe Army Depot, and now we are
going to build a VA hospital.
So my question to you is, as we are looking at--again,
appreciate the fact that we signed phase 1. It has taken way
too long. We have been working on this for quite some time, but
because we are building the new mega clinic, and now we have
got phase 1 in the works, it is time to get quickly on to phase
2. And I want to see the Corps request funding from Congress so
that we can do our job here and expedite this as well.
So my first question is, is the Corps ready to request
funding on phase 2 of this project?
General Spellmon. Sir, my understanding is that phase 2 is
not included in the scope of the current effort by the non-
Federal sponsor. We would ask that the non-Federal sponsor give
us their desire to move forward with phase 2 and then we can
take the necessary next steps, sir.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. And I look forward to having the
Corps come back out again and have this discussion at the local
level. I think it is critical to understand specifically what
is happening on the ground.
But from a national perspective, one thing that is very
different here versus any other project in the country is this
is the Corps' first big project where they are going to build a
mega clinic for the VA. So I do think that there is some
uniqueness in this.
One of the other challenges that we have with moving
forward is the Executive Order 11988. Can you commit to me that
the Corps will quickly address and resolve that Executive order
issue, the question surrounding the RD 17 area and move forward
with the second phase of this feasibility study? I know that
our locals have to do requests, but we have an issue with the
Executive order that we have got to resolve as well.
General Spellmon. Yes, sir. You have our commitment, once
we receive the request from the non-Federal sponsor, we will
take the necessary next steps.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, General.
I yield back.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you very much, Mr. Denham.
We are going to go to the other gentleman from California--
we have got a triple here--Mr. Lowenthal.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
And before I begin, I would like to preface my remarks by
agreeing with Representative Garamendi in complimenting the
chair of the subcommittee and the ranking member for working
together on the WRDA project. I think this is a model for the
way the legislature should work, and I am proud to be part of
this subcommittee and to state that.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Would the gentleman yield?
Dr. Lowenthal. Yes.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I just want to make note, this
bill, this is a major infrastructure bill. This passed the
House of Representatives by a vote of 408, and there were only
2 confused people.
So I yield back.
Dr. Lowenthal. I am glad to say, on this occasion, I was
not one of those two confused people. Not saying that on other
occasions I haven't been confused.
General Spellmon, first, I want to thank you for the Corps'
important work on the Chief's Reports that were submitted to
Congress this year. I also congratulate you also on this
assignment.
I am the cochair of the Congressional PORTS [Ports
Opportunity, Renewal, Trade, and Security] Caucus. And I
applaud the efforts to complete reports on the critical
navigational improvements in both Seattle and in Norfolk. That
will increase the flow of commerce at these ports, and I
strongly support that and I strongly support the Corps' work.
But closer to home, I know that the Port of Long Beach is
working with its L.A. District on a navigational improvement
study, but they have requested a waiver to allow the study to
exceed some limits of the 3 x 3 x 3 SMART Planning process. The
waiver will make sure that the channel deepening study moves
forward in tandem with the ports master plan, that is the
reason that they are asking, to make sure that the master plan
and the 3 x 3 moves. I would appreciate just your full
consideration of this request.
General Spellmon. Sir, thank you. We fully understand and
recognize that not every project, not every study neatly fits
within the confines of 3 x 3 x 3. We go through a process to
evaluate what we will get from the district, and then I meet
with Assistant Secretary James every week and we talk through
these requests as they come in.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. And as one of the nonconfused
Members of Congress, I yield back.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. The gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Babin, is recognized.
Dr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, welcome. Thank you for being here. I also want to
thank you for visiting my district in my region recently. And I
appreciate your service too. I notice a Purple Heart ribbon on
your chest there. Thank you. I don't know the details of that
but appreciate your service.
One year ago today, my district and most of southeast and
coastal Texas was still reeling from the devastating effects of
Hurricane Harvey. I wanted you to please share briefly some of
the specific lessons that the Corps has learned from our
experience with this terrible storm and how you have applied
those findings to improve your practices and protocols for your
response to the inevitable next storm, if you don't mind, just
briefly. I appreciate that.
General Spellmon. Yes, sir. Certainly, 60 inches of
rainfall over the city of Houston and the surrounding areas was
unprecedented. So, yes, sir, we have done an early set of After
Action Reviews; as I mentioned, both our Galveston District,
our southwestern division, and also at the region.
I think one of the key takeaways that we have shared
amongst the command is the importance of communication with
partners above and below the other projects. So we believe the
district and the division went through means to talk to
everyone affected, or potentially affected by this
unprecedented rainfall, but the perception exists that we did
not. So we have got to double back on our efforts and look at
our processes for storms of this nature when they occur.
Dr. Babin. Right, OK. Thank you.
And then the second thing, I am aware of various
procurement practices at the State and local levels that are
really artificial barriers to competition for new and
innovative materials on projects, and that is why I introduced
a bill, H.R. 5310, the Municipal Infrastructure Savings and
Transparency Act, to ensure open competition and competitive
bidding in infrastructure projects that receive Federal
funding. And that will help lower costs and provide greater
choice of new and innovative materials for engineers.
And I was hoping that the Corps might help me, commit to
helping me to identify some of these State and local barriers,
and work with me on recommendations to eliminate them so that
we can save taxpayer money. I want to ask you, what are the
specific programs that the Army Corps already has in place to
spur innovation and infrastructure investments in technologies
and any comments you might have there?
General Spellmon. Sir, just a couple. So we recognize that
with this record level of appropriation in storm supplemental
that we have been trusted with, that our standard project
management processes are not going to allow us to deliver on
time for the Nation. One of the areas we know we want to--we
have got to get better at is innovation, both in our
acquisition strategies, in our designs, and certainly in the
materials that we use.
So we have a set of labs, as you know, sir, throughout the
Corps, and we have tasked them to be able to help us. We want
to work with industry, want to work with private partners such
as the ones that you are mentioning, sir, so we can get better
in this regard. You do have our full commitment.
Dr. Babin. I appreciate that.
So how does the Corps ensure competition in contracts to
maximize taxpayer savings and help with investing in more
projects? What are some of the things that you already do?
General Spellmon. Yes, sir. So obviously, we are bound by
the Federal acquisition regulations in all of our acquisition
processes. Having said that, some of the things that we want to
take on to allow us to speed the delivery of project is not
have 43 districts, each going after separate acquisition
strategies for the 253 supplemental projects I mentioned
earlier. We want to get into things we call multiple award task
order contracts. We can do them at the regional level. We are
even discussing doing them at the enterprise level, sir, again
to expede the ability to get moving dirt, as Assistant
Secretary James would describe it.
Dr. Babin. Absolutely. We want the latest technologies to
be utilized to save taxpayer money, so we sure hope so.
And that is all I have. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, General.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. The gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Weber.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Spellmon, welcome. Glad to see you here. I have got
five ports in my district, three coastal counties of Texas
starting at that other foreign country, Louisiana. We were
ground zero for Harvey flooding. We have got more ports than
any other Member of Congress: Port of Beaumont, Port of Port
Arthur, Port of Texas City, Port of Galveston, and then Port of
Freeport. Sabine-Neches Waterway is the longest waterway in the
gulf coast, second only to the Mississippi River.
We have a Chief's Report, I believe from 2014, WRRDA, on
deepening the Sabine-Neches Waterway. And you may be aware that
the Port of Beaumont moves more military personnel equipment
than any other port in the country. So I would argue that
national security is extremely important. It shoaled in bad
from Hurricane Harvey, all the rain from Hurricane Harvey, as
you know, was more of a rain event for that part of the Texas
gulf coast than a wind event. There is a lot of lightering
having to go on because of the fact that it shoaled in. The
channel needs to be deepened.
We have an approved Chief's Report, and I didn't see it in
the PDF today that you offered at the end of your comments, the
updated 2018 PDF. Why is that?
General Spellmon. Sir, if you are referring to the Sabine
Pass-Galveston Bay----
Mr. Weber. No. Unless that is including--I read it very
briefly. I know that there is a coastal storm barrier
protection study going on, because as Congressman Babin said,
it is not a question of if we get another hurricane, but simply
when. And a lot of jet fuel and energy is produced on that part
of the Texas gulf coast in his and my district combined.
So it is extremely important that we don't have a release
out in the Galveston Bay if something destroys some of the
tanks holding oil or other noxious chemicals, but also the fact
that we want to get the Sabine-Neches Waterway dredged down to
close to 50 feet. I don't see that anywhere in your remarks
here today.
General Spellmon. No, sir. The Sabine Pass-Galveston Bay
was funded as new construction in the storm supplemental, total
of----
Mr. Weber. Right. Well, that is actually something
separate. There is a Chief's Report from WRRDA 2014 on the
deepening of the Sabine-Neches Waterway. And I looked at your--
there are 77 pages in the PDF at the end where it says
``Chief's Reports Updated 2018.'' And I see the one that you
are talking about which is the study being funded, but I do not
see the Chief's Report for the Sabine-Neches Waterway. Can you
shed some light on that?
General Spellmon. Sir, I will follow up with you. I will go
back and take that and we will follow up with your staff.
Mr. Weber. Yeah, let's find that out. I also see the one
there for Galveston Channel Extension. There is also--there is
a Chief's Report, thankfully, on the Galveston Channel
Extension and also the one Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay that
you cited. But please follow up on that because that is very,
very important to our area.
General Spellmon. We will, sir.
Mr. Weber. You have been there 90 days, you said?
General Spellmon. About 90 days, yes, sir.
Mr. Weber. About 90 days. You will find out that the BCR on
the Sabine-Neches Waterway is--some might say it is a little
lower than they would like to see it. And, obviously, we would.
There is billions of dollars of development along that long
waterway. It has the most developable area, and the fact that
it is so instrumental in national security, I don't know how we
figure that in, how do we get that BCR up, because it is
strategic to our country's defense. A MARAD fleet is out there.
We have got some mothball ships out there, if you want to call
them that.
So please check in to that because that is extremely
important. The Galveston Channel Extension Project also is
important to us. So if you could check on those and get back to
our office, it would be greatly appreciated.
General Spellmon. Sir, I will. And I had a great visit down
to that region here a couple of weeks ago. And you mentioned
Beaumont. I am certainly familiar with the importance of
Beaumont from deploying out of Fort Hood a number of times.
Mr. Weber. Right. Well, please come back. We have got good
fried shrimp and good seafood gumbo. We would love to show you
around and show you how important it is. Just please get back
to us. Thank you.
General Spellmon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Weber. I yield back.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you.
We are going to go to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mast.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate it.
Thank you, General, for taking the time today. I appreciate
you speaking with me before this. I appreciate all your work
and the Corps' work on WRDA 2018, the work with the southern
reservoir, the EA Reservoir there, the work in working to help
us get an update to the Lake Okeechobee regulations scheduled,
the Kissimmee River restoration, all of it, really appreciate
the partnership on that.
All of these things that you have worked with my office on,
they surround what is known as management of Lake Okeechobee. I
know you are very familiar with this. And I wanted to ask some
questions about Chief's Reports, specifically a little bit on
that process. Are old Chief's Reports ever updated?
General Spellmon. Sir, as we get closer to appropriation
on, say, a dated Chief's Report, they may have to go through a
limited reevaluation. Economics may need to be updated. There
may be design changes or new materials, new technology that may
be incorporated, but there can be a requirement to update the
report, sir, before we move forward with construction.
Mr. Mast. But being dated, that is something that you would
say, we look at this and we can say this is dated, it should be
updated, that is common practice or----
General Spellmon. Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. Mast [continuing]. Within the parameters of being
reasonable?
General Spellmon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mast. The Chief's Report for the development of the
central and south Florida project that governs all of this,
that is a Chief's Report from 1948. Would you say that there
might be room to update a Chief's Report from 1948? It is what
specifically provides that the priorities are flood control;
water supply for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses;
prevention of saltwater intrusion; water supply for Everglades
National Park; and protection of fish and wildlife, but it is
from 1948.
General Spellmon. Yes, sir. So I am not familiar with the
1948 central and south Florida project. I am more familiar with
some of the more recent efforts under the Central Everglades
Restoration Program and the 68 projects associated with it to
get after some of the water supply and water quality issues in
your region.
Mr. Mast. And I am glad you brought up water quality
issues. It matters to me to hear you say that. It is important
to my community to hear you mention water quality, because
sometimes that is often left out. These other issues that I
just mentioned are important, but, to me, when we are talking
about these Chief's Reports, it is an issue that the Chief's
Report mentions very specifically the things that will be
managed and it doesn't mention anything about the water
quality, which in many cases is a State issue, but you did
mention it is an issue in what is going on with central and
southern Florida policies.
So in that, I would ask, are you aware of some of the water
quality issues? One of our most recent tests, which is in line
with other tests, it said that the sample was 495 parts per
billion of microcystin, an algae, a toxin. That is what is
being discharged out of the lake into an epicenter of human
population. That is an issue of water quality.
And so I would ask, do you think that the 1948 Chief's
Report could be updated, it could be looked at as dated and
there is potential to put something in place that mentions
health and human safety as being a factor?
General Spellmon. Yes, sir. Certainly, there is always room
for updating. I would just--I want to be clear, we don't have
the authority to regulate water quality. The State's
responsibilities for water quality in your region are very
clear in the Clean Water Act and, as you mentioned, the central
and south Florida authorities. But, sir, no, this is a
partnership going down to Central Everglades Restoration
program, we want to do our part with the State and all of our
partners to help those communities.
Mr. Mast. Well, in that, in talking about the balance
between State and Federal relationship there, the Army Corps
feasibility study from 1999 on this issue, it reads: Water
quality improvement must be an integral part of all hydrologic
restoration. It also reads: Several plan components and other
project elements are included to improve water quality
conditions. It also reads: Water Resources Development Act of
2000, which established the Central Everglades Restoration
Project and Public Law, it lists protection of water quality as
a specific authorization.
So water quality is the intent of Congress. I just listed
off three specific places. It is clear that water quality is
the intent of Congress. And so it is in that that I would like
to ask you, can you work with me on addressing the fact that
this issue, this human health and safety issue that is related
to water quality is not listed in this Chief's Report? Can your
office--can the Corps work with me on making that a piece of a
Chief's Report when managing this system?
General Spellmon. Yes, sir. I would welcome this dialogue
with you and your team.
Mr. Mast. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Mast, vice chairman
of the subcommittee.
We are going to go to the gentleman from California, Mr.
LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yet another Californian, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you.
As we know, farming agriculture is a major economic
activity in the U.S., totaling $100 billion in exports every
year. And the Army Corps and EPA have been making it very
difficult to responsibly use land when they regulate the Clean
Water Act the way they have, especially in my district in
California.
They have been unfairly attacking farmers and legitimate
land users by retroactively claiming that ag land is a wetland
or that normal farming practices exempt under the Clean Water
Act suddenly require permits, otherwise known as previously
converted crop land. Should someone decide to go along and
pursue that permit, it might take 3 years for them to get it
off their desk, 3 crop years lost for them to move this permit
that they are already exempt from having under previous
converted crop land, et cetera.
So what I am asking you, sir, is will the Army Corps and
EPA work with the other land management agencies to make their
jurisdictional determinations so that land users have some idea
where to direct their issues when someone suddenly decides a
permit is needed?
General Spellmon. Sir, yes. So the program we started here
just in the last 90 days in the Corps is taking a deep dive, a
hard look at every longstanding permit. I have some permit
applicants that have been outstanding for 5 years. We are doing
a detailed look at every one of those and why those permit
actions have been suspended. There is a variety of reasons,
but, yes, sir, you have our commitment to move on these
decisions in a much more rapid fashion.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. You promised to move more quickly on the
permits, but what about the concept that the permit wasn't
needed to begin with under exemptions clearly spelled out in
the Clean Water Act and reinterpretations done by some
divisions of the Corps that seem to have gone off on their own
tangent?
General Spellmon. Sir, I am not familiar with the details,
but you have our commitment that we will look into this.
Mr. LaMalfa. I appreciate that. Check it out in northern
California, via Sacramento, the Redding office, and there is a
lot of action happening in Tehama County. For example, disking.
You are familiar with disking in agriculture?
General Spellmon. No, sir. No, sir.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Well, I will explain it to you. It is
similar to plowing, only a disk is an implement towed behind a
tractor that has approximately 40, maybe 50 round disks on it
that rotate as you are pulling it through the field. It turns
the soil slightly and, you know, reincorporates. Disking is
used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for wetland
management, it is used for mosquito abatement to prevent more
breeding of mosquitoes, protection from invasive plant species,
used to recycle nutrients in the soil to keep the land
productivity high, and is used by almost every agency and
organization that has something to do with land use for a
variety of reasons, but only to very slightly if at all alter
the land.
So we have agencies using this as a tool that they need,
and I am glad they do, but the Corps and EPA have attempted to
say disking is an activity that requires a permit by a farmer
because it creates slight mounds and therefore changes the
topography. What we heard in a couple of these cases is that
when you have gone out and disked the field, that because it
creates these mounds, that they are looking at this as a high
land and a low land that is now regulatable by some of the
people in the division here.
So do you believe that really should be a standard of the
Army Corps?
General Spellmon. Sir, I am not familiar, I have not run
across this particular issue set before. And I would like the
opportunity to get back with my staff and get some additional
detail of decisions, procedures that are being made in the
field in this regard.
Mr. LaMalfa. We would certainly be happy to supply you that
information too. Please get back to us.
So are you familiar with the Duarte Nursery settlement that
happened in California?
General Spellmon. No, sir.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Well, they finally gave up and settled for
over $1 million after having tilled their land--after it had
been idle for several years, with the idea that when land is
idle, you know, farmers tend to fallow their land, that now
that requires a permit and that they had somehow disturbed a
wetlands or a waterway to the United States.
So do you think the Army Corps is going to extend that
decision to more and more retroactive activity by other farmers
around the country?
General Spellmon. Sir, I don't know the answer to your
question. We will get back with your staff and with you on this
issue.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK, thank you. Because this has really been an
out of control situation. And not with the intent of the law,
the intent of Congress, and I certainly think at some point
your organization, so I would really ask you to look into it,
especially the Sacramento division and what their activity has
been in northern California.
General Spellmon. We will, sir.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you.
General Spellmon. Thank you.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa.
I want to make note that that is a problem in Louisiana as
well, and I have also heard from other Members about it,
General.
We are going to go to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Ms.
Esty.
Ms. Esty. Thank you very much.
So, General Spellmon, I had two points I wanted to raise
with you. And, again, thank you for appearing before us today.
I understand that the Corps is proud of efforts it has made to
publicize when deadlines are, but I have to tell you, in my
district, there are a number of organizations that had been
looking to and working with my office to try to figure out
whether it is appropriate to request a grant. They did not
realize how early the deadlines are.
So I would respectfully urge that more be done, that
efforts be done with every Member of Congress so that we can
help get them out to our communities, nonprofits, councils of
government, counties, because those of us on the committee even
have communities that were not aware of this or entities within
our communities. So I think we can do a better job, and I am
just telling you anecdotally, and I have been on this committee
for almost 6 years now and on this subcommittee for 6 years,
and we had organizations and nonprofits and things that had no
idea when the deadlines are, and they are early.
If you look at it in line of the pretty early deadlines and
people have a sense of when other deadlines are, and since they
are as early as they are, I think we can do a better job. And I
am sure that is in the Corps' interest, and just wanted to give
you that----
General Spellmon. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Esty [continuing]. Feedback and see how we can help on
that.
The second was, again, on coordination and sort of some of
the nontraditional uses. I am going to use an example, in my
district, we have a dam in Thomaston. The community is looking
all over the Northeast to do greenways as part of connecting
communities to be able to do bikeways, walkways, reclaim our
rivers, et cetera. Well, a lot of that in a State like mine, in
Connecticut, we have a lot of dams. We have a lot of water in
Connecticut. Quite unlike my colleague, Mr. LaMalfa, we have
different issues. We have too much water and the risk of aging
dams.
We are having a little bit of trouble with getting
proposals like that considered. So I would ask that to
recognize that depending on the part of the country, it would
be helpful to local communities to consider a little more
flexibility for community involvement and appropriate usage.
And we have met and we have got folks meeting soon with the
Corps again to talk about this. I have already met with them
regionally, but I think that will help the public understand
that the Corps is there to serve our purposes. But that also
includes, when appropriate, constructive use of areas, and so
we have several that are things like greenways, in addition to
your traditional flooding area.
So we will, the Fifth District of Connecticut will be back
with proposals from the Naugatuck Valley Council of
Governments, from New Britain, Connecticut, which has some dam
work and some dredging that they are looking for help with
permits. And, again, we have worked on continuing authorities
projects. I do want to let you know we are eager to see more
funding there, cutting that redtape, which we are working on
raising those limits so that we can get more of those projects,
again, in conjunction with our communities, getting these
projects moving. And we have got a lot of aging dams in my part
of the world. There is not enough money to go around, and we
are going to have to be creative and collaborative to make sure
these projects get done in a way that works to the benefit of
communities as well as protecting the public.
So, again, I want to thank you. We have had a good
relationship with the Corps during my time on the committee,
but we can always do better.
General Spellmon. Yes, ma'am. And thank you for sharing
both of those with me. And we will follow up with our district
and our regional team on both of these topics. Thank you.
Ms. Esty. Thank you. And I yield back.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Chairman Graves, for allowing me
the opportunity to speak at this hearing.
And thank you, Major General Spellmon, for coming today. I
also thank you for your service to the Nation and your
continued service in the Corps of Engineers. I also appreciate
the efforts of your staff before you came even. They met with
me a couple of times to look at the economic analysis, to talk
about the importance of Soo locks.
As we talked about when we started, I have a fair amount of
water around me in the Great Lakes, not as much as some of my
colleagues here, but important water.
This hearing is an example of Congress and the
administration working together to make significant
infrastructure improvements to this Nation. As the chairman
notes, only two wayward Members didn't quite understand the
importance of the Water Resources Development Act, and that is
quite a feat around here.
We are here to talk about your updated reports, and one in
particular is interesting to me, the Soo locks. The Soo locks
is a critical source of infrastructure in this Nation. In 1985,
Congress authorized a new lock, a 1,200-foot lock, because we
only had one, the Poe lock, right now as you are studying your
notes. Nearly all domestic iron ore goes through that lock
because it accommodates 1,000-foot freighters. It is a national
security concern, it is an economic concern, which we talked at
length to your staff. And, again, my appreciation to them for
sitting down the extended time they did in talking about the
economic assumptions that were going in that report.
While this is my first term in Congress and my first term
obviously on the committee, since day one, the Soo locks were
something that were important in Michigan in this country. This
isn't the first time it has been discussed in the 115th
Congress. Also it was discussed, as you are aware, I think, at
the House Armed Services Committee that I sit on, and became a
component of the report for the NDAA this year.
I was also pleased that the President decided to speak up
and say that we needed to deal with the Soo locks, that we
could no longer ignore the fact that if the Poe lock goes down,
11 million people lose their jobs in 90 days, we can't move
iron ore nor mine other trade. So I appreciate all your work, I
appreciate the study you have done. And we will work with you
and the Army Corps and other Members to ensure that we secure
the funding we need to go to the next step, which is some of
the detailed studies you need to do for engineering so we can
build that lock that we promised this Nation in the mid-1980s
we would do, and we will finally move forward.
Please be aware and tell your staff if they need any
assistance, any feedback, that in Congress, I certainly hope to
stick around and will do anything I can to support the efforts
for the Soo locks to continue the development of that
additional lock. Any feedback you have on that issue, General
Spellmon, I appreciate.
General Spellmon. First of all, I want to thank you. I have
been to the Soo locks on a number of occasions, so we do
understand the importance, as does the Chief, our Assistant
Secretary, and, frankly, all of the Army understand the
importance of that waterway to the Nation. We want to do this
and we want to do this work. We thank Congress for the funding
to do the major rehabilitation on the existing lock, and we
look forward to getting the funds and the appropriation to
construct the new lock.
Sir, we would love to continue the conversation and
dialogue with you and your staff on the economics study that we
have done. I know there is some disagreement, but I don't think
there is any disagreement on the importance of this piece of
infrastructure to the Nation.
Mr. Mitchell. Well, there may be some differences on the
details in economic study as I will use the term, ``close
enough for government work,'' and now let's get on with
actually doing the work. Next time you decide to go to the Soo
locks or your staff, let my staff know, I will wander up there.
It would be nice if we didn't do that in the dead of winter,
but happy to go to the Soo locks with you and talk further
about the importance of that, not just for our State, and the
Great Lakes, but for this Nation. Building a lock is critical.
General Spellmon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you very much. I yield back. Thank you,
Mr. Chair.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Woodall.
Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being here today. Thank you for your
partnership on all the projects you are working on down in
Georgia. Of course, we are particularly proud of what is going
on in Savannah. It was a long time coming, and you all never
gave up on making that happen. And we are about to have real
economic results for the entire southeastern United States, and
I thank you for that.
What I really want to talk about, though, in terms of 21st-
century policy is return flows. I represent a community in
Georgia, County of Gwinnett. They spent $1 billion on a water
treatment plant to pump the water back in to Lake Lanier, our
core lake, cleaner than we took it out. In fact, we sit on the
Continental Divide. If you dump your cup of water out on one
side of the county, it runs into the gulf. And if you dump your
cup of water out on the other side of the county, it runs into
the Atlantic. And knowing that that Gulf Basin, that
Chattahoochee River water system is so threatened with
overutilization or undersupply, we make an effort to put as
much as we can back into that basin. And yet, as we talk about
water allocations, we get absolutely no credit for the $1
billion water treatment plant that is doing it better and
taking more stewardship responsibility than any other community
in the basin.
If we are to encourage jurisdictions to take those risks,
to make those investments that are going to benefit us all as a
community, as a region, as a Nation, we have got to get some
credit. It has got to be skin in the game for making bad
decisions and skin in the game for making good decisions.
Could you speak to that just a little bit?
General Spellmon. No, sir, I agree with you. Thank you for
those comments. I have got much to learn about Lake Lanier and
this particular basin and the project, the recycling project
that you mentioned. I would love the opportunity to get down
there and walk the ground with your staff and the constituents,
and then come back to you on the math of the reallocation that
you mentioned.
Mr. Woodall. I appreciate that. I know folks want to be
good stewards, and I am proud to represent a community that
puts its money where its mouth is, but just like good tax
policy encourages people to make different decisions, good
water policy is going to encourage more good stewardship in the
basin.
I also want to make sure I told you, we often have forums
to poke the Corps for things that didn't go the way we wanted
them to go, and I get those telephone calls from constituents.
In fact, I have several families with wheelchair-bound family
members who live on Lake Lanier. And, of course, if you want to
get from your house to your dock, you have got to roll over
Corps property to get there, and the Corps has some real rules
about how you can develop that property. And these families
were unable to put together a pathway that their family members
could use to get from the house to the dock.
I mentioned that to our local Corps leadership, and they
said, not on my watch is that going to be true. These rules are
in place to protect communities, these rules are in place to
empower communities, and these rules are not in place to stifle
families who are just trying to do the very best they can with
the hand they have been dealt. And you all stepped in, made the
necessary waivers and allocations such that those family
members are now utilizing their facilities, and those families
feel included in our entire regulatory process.
It could have been a multiyear headache. It could have been
one of those things that we argued about for a decade, but
instead, it was one of those things that your men and women on
the ground took responsibility for, said, we can do better and
we will do better and we wish this had never happened to these
families to begin with. And I just want to thank you for giving
the teams on the ground the kind of flexibility to make those
things happen.
General Spellmon. Thank you, sir. I am very familiar with
this issue from my time. Very similar cases in the Missouri
River, on the Columbia River, and all the tributaries, I
understand, and thank you for the comment.
Mr. Woodall. And one final accolade that we did have thefts
start to tick up, and one of the regulations that we had in
terms of trying to keep docks up to code was that security
cameras were prohibited on docks, as were couches and old
washing machines, dryers, and things that you would want to be
prohibited from the dock. But security cameras made that list.
You all partnered with us last summer to change that
regulation. It has made a real difference in terms of
homeowners and their security and their watercraft security.
So, again, things that once upon a time, 4, 5, 6 years ago,
would have just been like pulling teeth to get done, you all
are making possible, and I am grateful to you for really
changing the partnership spirit that those men and women with
whom you work every day on Lake Lanier are feeling. Thank you.
General Spellmon. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Woodall. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Woodall.
I recognize myself.
General, Houma Navigation Canal, section 203 that has been
submitted to the Corps of Engineers, candidly myself and
Congressman Scalise are a bit frustrated that we are not
talking about that today. Could you give us an update on the
status of that, 203?
General Spellmon. Yes, sir, I can. It is under executive
branch review. I believe specifically it is with the Office of
Management and Budget, sir. It went over to the office in early
August. And I believe they have upwards of 60 days to conduct
their review, but that is where the----
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. And how long did it take the Corps
to review this?
General Spellmon. Sir, I could get you that answer. I don't
know.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Actually, I think I have it
already, but I just--I want to reiterate the urgency of that
project. It would be incredibly unfortunate to miss the window
that we have on this bill right now to authorize construction
of that project.
And, General, I just want to make note, as a sort of
thematic concern: This project dates back to 1998, as I recall.
And the project, according to the Corps of Engineers' own
schedule, was supposed to be completed, a Chief's Report was
supposed to be completed, let's see, even on your revised
schedule, which was crazy, because I think it came back and
suggested 2008, which a project that was authorized or study
authorized in 1998, I think the revised schedule by the Corps
of Engineers showed completion by the Corps in 2008. So 10
years to look at simply a deepening project.
Then when the Corps continued spinning the wheels, the
locals ended up converting it to a 203, which is where we are
now. So I just want to, again, reiterate the urgency there.
General, next question. General Semonite has ordered the
Corps of Engineers to move forward on a reorganization plan.
You are familiar with the House bill that does direct the GAO
to conduct a study looking at perhaps a different home agency
for the Corps of Engineers. The President's reorganization
plan, which I support this component of it, also looks at
reorganizing a portion of the Corps within the Department of
the Interior and a portion with the Department of
Transportation.
While I am not willing to endorse those agencies at this
point, I do believe that there is some compatibility issues
with the Corps being in the Department of Defense. When I
called Secretary Mattis and talked to him about Russia and
China and North Korea and Syria and Iran, I don't think I
should also add a wetlands permit. It is not compatible.
Could you give us an update on where the Corps is with
that?
General Spellmon. Yes, sir. So we have had the opportunity
to brief both General Semonite, Secretary James, and Dr. Esper.
We walked him through the early stages of a mission analysis:
What are the limitations and constraints? What are some of the
legislation that would have to be changed in order to implement
this particular proposal?
What I shared with all three, including Dr. Esper, after
walking him through the six major bodies of legislation that
would have to be changed, is the point you just mentioned. We
do not think it would be wise to separate water management
responsibilities on any basin between two Federal agencies. The
eight project purposes in many cases that Congress asked us to
achieve with water above and below our projects, those
decisions ought to remain in one agency.
The second concern that we outlined to our leadership was
the loss of the Civil Works workforce, and the impact to the
Department of Defense. So, sir, you know there are 22,900,
roughly, Civil Works employees in the Corps, and they do much
more than just civil work. So today you have Civil Works
employees renovating and modernizing the Mosul Dam in Iraq on
behalf of the Department of State and CENTCOM.
We have Civil Works employees in Afghanistan working on the
Northeast and Southeast power system, again, in support of the
combatant commander there. You are familiar, that we sent Civil
Works employees to Puerto Rico to restore the power grid when
the Nation called. So the guidance that came out of Secretary
Mattis' staff was, as we do this planning, is there a way that
we retain that capability, either internally, or have an
expeditionary capability in the other agencies?
So to answer your question, sir, we are on the very early
stages of outlining all of this to our leadership, and we have
more work to do. I would say it is the same people, the same
staff that is trying to deliver on this record supplemental and
program that Congress has trusted us with that would be doing
this particular planning.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. General, thank you.
I just want to quickly note a couple of other things. One,
I do want to thank you and thank your team for the allocation
of supplemental funds. We do plan on having a hearing. I know
there are a number of Members from Texas and Florida, as well
as myself, Members from Louisiana and other States that are
very interested in the implementation plan, want to ensure
proper oversight, want to discuss with you the potential for
where section 1043 authority may apply to ensure expedited
implementation of those projects.
Also, I would like to talk to you a little bit about some
of the problems we had with permits, and particularly the
Shellfish Caucus issues in your former area of operation out
West.
And, lastly, we are going to submit some questions to you
on the record, pertaining to some of the projects that we are
having oversight over today, particularly, the lower San
Quentin. We are talking about potentially $42 million per mile
for that project, much of which is existing levees.
I have questions about Seattle Harbor. You are talking
about $65 per cubic yard of material. I understand it is a
locally preferred plan. Just want to make sure we understand
those components. That is an extraordinary cost.
I would like cost on cost per cubic yard for the Norfolk
Harbor.
San Juan Harbor, I know this is a really important project
for recovery. Thinking about $350 million to be borne by the
island of Puerto Rico right now when we all know their
financial situation. In addition to the authorization of this
project, I think we need to have a discussion about a financial
plan. I think that should include obviously my friend Mrs.
Napolitano, but also Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon needs to be
part of this. We need to be discussing how to implement this.
This is part of their recovery, and we need to make sure that
we don't just authorize it, but we actually have a feasible
financial plan of how to move forward.
Lastly, on the Soo locks, just looking at this, you are
increasing your contingency to 37 percent, 37 percent
contingency on this project. General, I have built tens of
billions of dollars in projects in this space over my life; 37
percent is a high cost. This project dates back decades. You
also were showing a 700-percent variance in your BC ratio.
Those numbers, you are asking us to authorize nearly a $1
billion project. That is an awful lot of wiggle room. You have
got to give us some confidence that you know what you are doing
and that this is going to be a good investment for taxpayers.
So I would like to learn a little bit more about that one. But
with that, I am over time.
And any other questions that folks have? The gentlewoman
from California?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
No, I will submit my questions for the record. I do have
some.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. We good? All right.
So, General, again, I want to thank you very much for being
here today. I know this was your first time, and I know you
haven't been in that job very long. So I do appreciate you
getting up to speed on all of these issues that are important
to the subcommittee and to the full committee. If there are no
further questions, I want to thank you for being here today,
and this has been informative and helpful.
This is going to be probably one of our--one of our final--
though there should be a few others, but I do want to make
note, and I am sure there are going to be other opportunities
in closing that our full committee chairman, Mr. Shuster, is
retiring from the Congress. It has been an incredible pleasure
to work with him. He has been able to get us on a track for a
2-year water cycle. He has been a very fair, bipartisan
chairman.
I remember when I first came to the Congress, and I told
him of my interest to join the committee; I think he got right
up in my face in a very intimidating manner and said: Are you
going to do what I say?
And I very sheepishly said: When you are right.
And he really has been a great chairman to work with and
really been very fair on policy.
I think we are going to see incredible, incredible reforms,
and I am very excited to see implementation of this
legislation, of FAA legislation, disaster recovery, of course
the FAST Act, and many other bills that are going to be an
important part of his legacy but, most importantly, affect the
lives of every American. So he is going to have an important
legacy, and I do appreciate the opportunity to work with him.
If no other Members have anything else to add, then the
committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:12 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]