[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: WATER RESOURCES
PROJECTS AND POLICY, PART 1
=======================================================================
(115-41)
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
__________
MARCH 15, 2018
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC 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
38-053 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JEFF DENHAM, California JOHN GARAMENDI, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina Georgia
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina DINA TITUS, Nevada
ROB WOODALL, Georgia SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
TODD ROKITA, Indiana ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut,
JOHN KATKO, New York Vice Ranking Member
BRIAN BABIN, Texas LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia JARED HUFFMAN, California
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina JULIA BROWNLEY, California
MIKE BOST, Illinois FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
DOUG LaMALFA, California ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania MARK DeSAULNIER, California
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
JOHN J. FASO, New York
A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
JASON LEWIS, Minnesota
(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
TESTIMONY
Hon. R.D. James, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works,
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).... 7
Lieutenant General Todd T. Semonite, Commanding General and Chief
of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers..................... 7
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Hon. R.D. James and Lieutenant General Todd T. Semonite, joint
statement...................................................... 49
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Hon. Garret Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Louisiana, submission of the following:
Letter of March 13, 2018, from American Sportfishing
Association, National Wildlife Federation, Theodore
Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, et al., to Hon. Bill
Shuster, Chairman, and Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, Ranking
Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure..... 54
Letter of March 12, 2018, from Julie Hill-Gabriel, Vice
President of Water, National Audubon Society, to Hon. Bill
Shuster, Chairman, and Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, Ranking
Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure..... 58
Executive summary from report, ``The Ohio River Basin:
Formulating Climate Change Mitigation/Adaptation Strategies
Through Regional Collaboration with the ORB Alliance,'' May
2017, by R.G. Drum et al., Civil Works Technical Report, CWTS
2017-01, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water
Resources; submitted by Hon. Alan S. Lowenthal, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California........ 61
Questions for the record for Lieutenant General Todd T. Semonite,
Commanding General and Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, from the following Representatives:
Hon. Garret Graves of Louisiana.............................. 63
Hon. Grace F. Napolitano of California....................... 64
Hon. David Rouzer of North Carolina.......................... 64
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon.............................. 65
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia....... 66
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: WATER RESOURCES
PROJECTS AND POLICY, PART 1
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Garret Graves
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. The subcommittee will come to
order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recess at any time.
Good morning, and thank you for being here. I ask unanimous
consent that Members not on the subcommittee be permitted to
sit with the subcommittee at today's hearing and ask questions.
Without objection, so ordered.
I would like to welcome everyone to the hearing today:
``Building a 21st-Century Infrastructure for America: Water
Resources Projects and Policy.''
The Corps of Engineers constructs projects critical to the
Nation for the purposes of navigation, flood control,
environmental restoration, shoreline protection, hydroelectric
power, recreation, restoration and enhancement, and fish and
wildlife mitigation, and other purposes. Today we will review
six U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project Chief's Reports that
have been delivered to Congress since the WIIN [Water
Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation] Act, which included
the Water Resources Development Act of 2016.
Additionally, the Corps of Engineers delivered to Congress
the Post-Authorization Change Report on the Savannah Harbor
deepening project, and I had the chance to go out there and go
see that project with Congressman Buddy Carter, the local non-
Federal sponsors, and impressive work being done out there, and
I think certainly of national importance there.
But the six Chief's Reports and one Post-Authorization
Change Report are the result of a pretty robust planning
process. These projects are proposed by the non-Federal
interests in cooperation and consultation with the Corps of
Engineers. And all of these reports, while tailored to meet the
locally developed needs, must justify national economic and
environmental benefits.
Since the enactment of the WIIN Act, the Corps has also
transmitted two annual reports on future water resources
development, as required by section 7001 of the Water Resources
Reform and Development Act of 2014.
The annual reports identify completed feasibility reports,
proposed feasibility reports, and proposed modifications to
existing authorized projects or studies for potential future
authorization by the Congress, and are based upon annual
requests from the non-Federal sponsors.
Today we will also examine the Corps' policy by which these
projects are implemented.
As you know, our Nation's water resource infrastructure is
underfunded and in need of updating. Further, our project
development and delivery process is outdated and antiquated,
and needs innovation and efficiency. Our ports struggle to
maintain their navigation channels at their fully authorized
depths, directly impacting our global competitiveness. As we
have seen growth in our economy as a result of tax legislation
and the reduction of unemployment in this Nation, that puts
additional stress on our infrastructure, whether it be our
ports, roads, and waterways, or it is on our resilient
communities and development.
The annual reports identify--excuse me, I jumped. Our
ports--it is not just our navigation system that needs to be
upgraded, but also our levees and dam systems, which are on
average over 50 years old.
Right now there is a backlog of 1,000 water resource
projects authorized by the Congress totaling nearly $100
billion in need. With an annual appropriation for construction
through the Corps of Engineers somewhere between $1 and $2
billion, it doesn't take a math whiz to recognize that we
simply will never--will never--complete the authorized
projects, and never catch up. Therefore, it is critical that
the Corps of Engineers work as efficiently as possible.
I want to thank you for including in your testimony a
discussion of the President's infrastructure legislative
principles that are directly applicable to the Civil Works
program. And additionally, I look forward to discussing the
next steps taken by the Corps, as well as internal efforts to
drive efficacy and efficiency at all levels of the
organization.
I will say it again, the status quo is simply unacceptable.
In the end, we have a lot of work to do in order to ensure
that our water resources system can sustain the competitiveness
of the American economy and protect our national security.
I will now recognize the ranking member, Mrs. Napolitano,
for an opening statement.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for
holding this important meeting and hearing on the condition of
our Nation's waterway resources infrastructure.
I also want to extend my warm welcome to both the new
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Mr. James, and
the Chief of Engineers here, General Semonite. We have had
conversations before.
But today's hearing presents a good opportunity to
highlight the stark differences between the Trump
administration and the Democratic caucus' better deal on
investment in our Nation's infrastructure, especially as is
water-related infrastructure. These differences were laid bare
just 2 weeks ago, when the President released both his budget
request for the year 2019, as well as the much-hyped
infrastructure proposal.
Judging from the almost universal lukewarm reaction he has
received, it is clear the President's priorities on new
infrastructure are not focused on America's future or ensuring
that our citizens, our communities, and our businesses have
access to infrastructure that is second to none in preparation
for everything including commerce.
No, it seems that the President's priorities are what they
always have seemed to be: how best for the Wall Street friends
to profit off American people and leave behind a weaker, more
expensive, less sustainable future for our Nation.
While the President talks big about trillions in
investment, it is really just a scam. What little Federal money
may be actually in this proposal, his proposal simply comes
from robbing other existing infrastructure investment programs,
such as a $1 billion cut to the construction budget of the Army
Corps of Engineers.
Further, the fine print of his proposal calls for Americans
to dig deeper into their own pockets to pay again and again for
essential public services such as safe and efficient
transportation and transit, essentially water and wastewater
services, and the critical related water infrastructure
projects provided by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Over and over again, his plan is out of step with proud
American-made infrastructure traditions, calling for new tolls
and fees, greater cost, and less decisionmaking authority for
States and local governments, and weakened Federal protections.
Investing in our infrastructure, including our water-
related infrastructure, should be an opportunity to improve the
health of our communities, our economy, and financial stability
of our American families, not the bottom line of Wall Street
investors. It should reward American manufacturers, American
farmers, and American workers, not companies seeking to
privatize public services and seeking to profit on every
highway mile or river mile traveled, or a gallon of water
consumed by American families.
The House Democratic caucus has such a plan. It is called A
Better Deal to Renew America. This bold, comprehensive plan
calls for a historic $1 trillion Federal investment to rebuild
our crumbling infrastructure and create more than 60 million
American jobs. The Better Deal will invest in American iron and
steel and new American-made green infrastructure materials to
support good-paying jobs and ensure opportunities for small
business owners. It will ensure projects advance quickly, while
maintaining key environmental protections and labor standards.
Mr. Chairman, like you I am excited to begin on a new Water
Resources Development Act. Yet this committee has been
extremely successful in getting our work done, thanks to Mr.
Shuster, and authorizing a next generation of Corps projects to
benefit our communities and our Nation. However, I share the
frustration of many of our local sponsors when they realize how
little work they put into authorizing a Corps--means if the
funding to build that project does not easily follow. That is
why we need a bold vision on how to make those infrastructure
investments and see that the hard work of the local sponsor and
the Corps become reality.
The President's vision calls for a diminished role for the
Corps in meeting our water resources future, a vision that
calls for allowing Wall Street buddies to profit off hard-
working American families and taxpayers, a vision that calls
for increased privatization of public services, and the actual
cutting and gutting of critical worker and environmental
protections.
Mr. Chairman, I urge this Congress to reject the
President's vision and to work with our side on the aisle to
make real, substantial investments on our water infrastructure.
We stand ready to work on a better infrastructure deal that
benefits all Americans.
And again, I want to welcome our witnesses here today to
bring the discussion, and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you. I want to thank the
ranking member. I also want to remind her that the
appropriations requests are in line with those of the previous
administration.
With that, I yield to the chairman of the full committee,
Mr. Shuster, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much, Chairman Graves and
Ranking Member Napolitano, for having this hearing today.
Welcome, Secretary James. This is your first time in front
of this committee, so welcome.
And General Semonite, good to see you. You have been here a
few times before. We appreciate you making the trip up here.
You know, this hearing is a critical step in the process to
develop and then move a water resources bill. And everybody
knows that efficient water infrastructure is vital to our
global competitiveness.
So again, I am pleased that we are on track to pass another
WRDA [Water Resources Development Act] bill, get back on the
track we got off of several years ago to every Congress
authorize these projects. Again, it enables Congress to carry
out its clear Federal role in building the Nation's
infrastructure. So again, I am very, very pleased we are on our
way to another water resources bill. And I appreciate Mrs.
Napolitano for thanking me, but it is really the committee
working together is how we get these things done. And so I
thank everybody on the committee that rolls up their sleeves,
and we figure out how to move a bill forward.
Again, today is part of our transparent process that we
established in 2004, again, to make sure that projects and
related policies are in place and moving forward for the next
bill.
Again, as the chairman mentioned, we need to have a more
efficient project delivery system in place, and I know that the
folks at the Corps have been working hard on it, but we need to
do a better job if we are going to build a 21st-century
infrastructure that we so desperately need to do.
So again, thank you, Secretary James, for being here,
welcome--and General.
I yield back.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
yield opening statement time to the ranking member, Mr.
DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the chairman. I want to welcome
Secretary James here, his first appearance before the
committee.
Obviously, you bring a wealth and knowledge regarding our
inland waterways, and we will also be talking a little bit
about some coastal port issues, too. But I appreciate your
being here.
And General, you know, thank you again for your service.
You know, the exchange between the subcommittee chair and
the subcommittee ranking member, where the subcommittee chair
reminded Mrs. Napolitano that the appropriations were basically
in synch with the previous administration, well, I didn't like
what the previous administration did. And, unfortunately, this
administration is continuing the same practice. That is: we are
assessing a tax on the American people.
Every time you buy an imported good, every single thing you
buy, there is a tiny ad valorem tax added to it. And this was a
creation of Ronald Reagan, supposedly an icon of the Republican
Party. He said, ``We need stable funding to deal with our port
issues,'' so the tax was established.
And, unfortunately, yes, the Obama administration
underspent the tax for phony baloney purposes in the budget,
just as this administration has proposed. Basically, we collect
the tax and part of the money gets diverted into a theoretical
trust fund over there somewhere in the Treasury that we never
spend. It will be about $10 billion of diverted taxes if this
President's budget is adopted and if we appropriated these
levels.
So we are continuing the mistakes of the past. Obama
never--well, he did pretend that he was going to do
infrastructure and went around leaning on a shovel a lot, but
he never really did an investment in infrastructure. That is
why I opposed his Recovery Act. Four percent went to
infrastructure. Four percent of $800 billion.
So let's not continue the mistakes of the past and defend
this administration for doing the same boneheaded thing. In
fact, the same dishonest thing, which is collecting a tax from
the American people to meet, you know, established and unmet
needs for our ports, and divert the money over into some other
program or illusory deficit reduction. It is indefensible.
If we are going to collect the--well, I suppose they are a
little more honest. They want to reduce the tax, so then
permanently reduce funding for our ports.
It is great we do WRDA bills every 2 years. And in the last
couple of bills we have added $40 billion to the unmet,
unfunded, authorized backlog of the Corps. So the Corps now has
a $96 billion authorized, unfunded pile of projects sitting out
there. About half of them are critical projects, the others
are, you know--they have different levels of support or need.
Our harbors, on a daily basis, our 59 largest ports are
operating somewhere around 40 percent of authorized depths. We
don't have the money to do the dredging. I have got harbors on
the south coast of my district. Despite the small port set-
aside, they are not going to get dredged this year. We don't
have the money. We don't have the money. Well, we do have the
money, we are just stealing it from the American people and
dumping it somewhere else, maybe into the wall with Mexico. I
don't know where it is going.
But it is time to stop playing this game. In the last WRDA
bill I offered an amendment out of this committee to have a
real trust fund, and it was the only thing taken out of the
bill by the Speaker at the behest of now-disgraced former
Chairman Price of the Committee on the Budget, who wanted to
put the money somewhere else. Let's stop playing this game.
We have these needs, we have got to meet them. And I hope
the Secretary can help us be an advocate for that. We have one
honest guy who lasted a few months in the Bush administration,
Mike Parker. And he came in and I said, ``Is this budget
adequate to meet the needs of the Corps of Engineers?'' He said
no. The next week he had to get time with his family and leave
his job because he was honest.
We need some advocacy, we need to fight for this money. And
hopefully this committee will join in that. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. How many
other people have you caused to lose their jobs?
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Napolitano. Whatever it takes.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I said how many other people have
you caused to lose their jobs?
Look, I--very quickly, I do want to say that, Mr. DeFazio,
I appreciate your continuing efforts to bring attention to this
issue. I think you know that I agree with you 100 percent on
this, and the problem is not within this committee. If we were
to charge fees under the auspices of using it for a particular
purpose and then spending it elsewhere in the private sector,
that is called embezzling. In the Federal Government that is
called budgeting. And it is ridiculous. So I certainly share
your concerns.
Before I begin introducing our witnesses this morning I
also wanted to dispense with some unanimous consent requests.
I ask unanimous consent that the record remain open 15 days
for additional comments and information submitted by Members or
witnesses being put 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 witnesses have provided
answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in
writing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that letters from a whole bunch of
different groups, including American Sportfishing Association,
National Wildlife Federation, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership, and many, many others be submitted for the record.
And also I ask unanimous consent the correspondence from
the National Audubon Society be included in the record of the
hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The letters from the organizations referenced above are on
pages 54-60.]
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, and I want to welcome
our newly confirmed Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works, Mr. R.D. James, who is with us for the first time today.
And we also welcome the Commanding General and Chief of
Engineers, Lieutenant General Todd Semonite.
Mr. Secretary, I appreciate you being here. You and I have
had the opportunity to work together for about 20 years. And we
have not always seen eye to eye on issues, but something that I
do think we see eye to eye on right now is that we have
fundamental changes within the Corps of Engineers that are
needed, and in terms of improving the efficiency of project
development and delivery. And I look forward to working with
you on that.
And, with that, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. R.D. JAMES, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
FOR CIVIL WORKS, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
(CIVIL WORKS); AND LIEUTENANT GENERAL TODD T. SEMONITE,
COMMANDING GENERAL AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS
Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, other members of the
committee. First, I apologize that I didn't get around the dais
to meet all of you and say good morning to you. But due to the
hour, due to the number of you, I didn't make it around to you.
Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Napolitano, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am honored to
testify before your committee today, along with General
Semonite, Chief of Engineers. We will talk on the subject of
America's water resources infrastructure.
I was recently sworn in as Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works, and I look forward to working with this
subcommittee and the Congress to address the Nation's water
resource infrastructure. And let me state at this point that I
intend to visit with each one of this committee's members in
your office to get a clear understanding of what you think,
what you think we ought to be doing, and get a feeling for this
committee. And I commit to doing that as soon as I can get on
your schedules.
The President's fiscal year 2019 budget and infrastructure
proposal recognizes the current paradigm for investing in water
resources development is not sustainable and can deter, rather
than enable, local communities, States, and private sector from
making important investments on their own, even when they are
primary beneficiaries.
The administration's infrastructure proposal and other
reforms in the budget are designed to enable local
decisionmaking by the local communities and State Governors
since they are the ones who best know what infrastructure
investments are needed.
The President's infrastructure proposals contained
legislative principles that are directly applicable to the
Corps' Civil Works responsibilities. The six principles are
designed to remove barriers and expedite the delivery of
infrastructure projects, combine new and existing revenue
streams to enable greater efficiencies for our Nation's inland
waterways, encourage innovation by providing incentives in the
forms of grants and low-cost loans to non-Federal entities,
streamline the Corps' section 404/10 and 408 programs, and
authorize Federal divestiture of assets that would be better
managed by the State or private entities.
And I would say that the Corps has already begun a few
months ago its own analysis of its own progress, its own
procedures, and how to get more bang for the buck. I will also
say that I have initiated a task force from the Secretary's
office that will be looking into the Corps, as well as some of
the processes of other agencies that may hamper the moving
forward of our critical project processes and get more bang for
the buck.
My office is working with the Corps and other Federal
agencies to streamline the Federal permitting and oversight of
infrastructure projects through implementation of Fixing
America's Surface Transportation Act, FAST-41, and through
various recently signed Executive orders.
In addition, we are continuing to work together to identify
and implement organizational efficiency opportunities,
regulations, and procedures that will improve the Corps'
ability to move dirt and get to results.
Regardless of where the Corps of Engineers is located, we
agree there is need to address internal policies, regulations,
processes, and cultural impediments to ensure that the Corps
remains relevant into our future. We want to be value-added in
addressing the water resource needs of this Nation.
I look forward to working with each of you and other
members of the subcommittee to improve ways that we address the
Nation's infrastructure needs.
Let me say to you when I took this job I had two things in
mind of trying to do, and that was to quit focusing on the
process and get to results. The other was move dirt on the
ground. And I want to work with each of you on this committee
to try to reach that end.
Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I ask unanimous consent that the
Assistant Secretary get an additional 2 minutes for his
southern drawl.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. With that, we recognize the Chief
of Engineers, General Semonite, for 5 minutes.
General Semonite. Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio,
Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Napolitano, and distinguished
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. I am glad to have Secretary James on the Civil
Works team, and I look forward to working with him in
addressing water resource challenges across the Nation.
I have been in command of the Corps for close to 2 years,
and I want to briefly update you on where we are going. As I
said last year, the Corps' credibility is measured on our
ability to deliver results that are on time, on budget, and of
exceptional quality.
Since Congress first authorized our navigation mission in
1824, the Corps has worked hard to develop and implement
solutions to the Nation's water resource challenges. We are
able to do this because we have a world-class workforce of
talented and dedicated professionals who are absolutely
passionate about what we do. None of our work can be done
alone. It is with the full participation and hard work of many
others.
We appreciate value and depend upon the support of the
administration, the Congress, and all of our partners to
succeed in our mission. I am very proud of the work that the
Corps accomplishes, but I am equally aware that this
organization can improve. I have been and remain committed to
instituting changes to the Corps' delivery process in order to
become a more efficient and effective organization.
The Corps faces a multitude of challenges, some old and
some new. Much of our infrastructure is well beyond the design
life, yet the requirements have never been greater. The demands
on the Federal budget continue to grow, and as our
infrastructure ages we find more and more of our annual
appropriation going to operations and maintenance activities at
the expense of both investigations and construction
investments.
Today we have over $96 billion in construction
requirements, representing the Federal share of a multitude of
projects. We have close to 100 ongoing feasibility studies,
which, if authorized, will simply add to the Federal budget
requirement. Our feasibility studies are formulated with an
assumption of efficient funding, and most all are multiple-year
projects, but we budget on an annual basis with no assurances
that adequate funding will be available from year to year.
This creates uncertainty for our non-Federal sponsors,
drives up project costs, and delays the realization of
benefits. At the current rate, it will take over 100 years to
address that backlog. And this is simply unacceptable.
Together we must remove barriers to the development and
improvement of our water resource infrastructure. We must
encourage and incentivize alternative project financing,
streamlining Federal procedures, and delivering projects and
reduce unnecessary Federal oversight to facilitate timely
delivery of projects.
The Corps has been working on this issue with the
administration, and was instrumental in developing 20
legislative proposals--they are in my hand, right here--that we
think should be part of the President's infrastructure package.
The Corps continues to work on policy and administrative
changes that can improve infrastructure delivery.
Over the last year I have assembled my general officers, my
senior executives, my colonels, and my senior leaders to look
internally at our organization, our authorities, our policies,
regulations, and procedures in order to identify opportunities
for increased efficiency and effectiveness.
The Corps is fully engaged in support of five
administrative efforts aimed at streamlining our regulatory
processes. The Corps is addressing topics such as implementing
the one Federal decision that establishes discipline and
accountability in the environmental review and permitting
process for infrastructure projects. We are also reviewing the
nationwide permit program to identify modifications that will
increase the efficiency of decisionmaking. And we continue
working with the EPA as we review the 2015 ``waters of the
United States'' rule.
Our goal is to simplify the process for gaining
infrastructure permits while protecting the environment in
accordance with the law. We are working to delegate more
decisions to the lowest appropriate level and encouraging our
leadership to take more prudent risk: an example out of the
multiple improvements the Corps is implementing in our section
408 review process. Our technical experts close to the issues
can make decisions based on their experience, knowledge, and
competence in a specific area.
To put this concept to practice, we are seeking to make
section 408 decisions at the lowest possible level, eliminate
redundancies, identify alternative processes or authorities,
and clarify when such permissions aren't even required. We
believe that risk-informed or professional judgment decisions
should be made and documented without being subject to numerous
time-consuming reviews.
We are looking at how we can best capture the total value
of our projects. Most communities have a master plan that was
developed based on an analysis to determine best value for the
community or region. This may consider facts like life risk
reductions, economic value, and resiliency of the community. We
want to make sure that our reports reflect the total value of
our projects so that we may enhance opportunities for non-
Federal investment.
We are reviewing existing authorities that allow sponsors
to take ownership of the project delivery process, and may help
leverage non-Federal financing, such as section 203 and 204
authorities provided to WRDA in 1986.
The Corps wants to be part of this solution, not part of
the problem. We recognize the need to address internal
policies, regulations, processes, and cultural impediments in
order to remain relevant into the future. We want to be value
added to deliver solutions, whatever role we may have in that
endeavor.
But we can't do all these reforms in isolation. We need the
help of OMB [Office of Management and Budget] and Congress to
unleash the power of the Corps by acting on our numerous
recommendations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.
This concludes my testimony, and I look forward to answering
questions you might have. Thank you.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, General. We are going
to go ahead and go to questions. I appreciate the testimony
from both of you. We are going to start with the gentleman from
Ohio and the author of the WRRDA [Water Resources Reform and
Development Act] 2014 and WRDA 2016 bills, Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Chairman Graves.
Great to see you, General and Honorable James. The first
question, many stakeholders have shared concerns with me about
the inconsistency in the application of the 2008 mitigation
rule, which has resulted in uncertainty and confusion in the
section 404 permitting. This in turn has resulted in
significant costs and delays in the Clean Water Act permitting.
My question is do you plan to exercise your oversight
authority with more predictability, such as issuing a national
guidance with respect to the provisions in the rule that have
been applied in certain districts in a manner that has led to
the undue costs and delays?
I guess anyone, either one of you, can try to answer that.
Mr. James. I am sorry, sir, I thought you were talking to
the general.
Mr. Gibbs. Oh, I am sorry. Well, look. The question is the
2008 mitigation rule in regard to section 404 permitting, the
shareholders--about uncertainty and confusion. And I think you
can exercise oversight authority to bring more predictability
to that by issuing a national guidance.
Go ahead, General.
General Semonite. So, as I said, sir, we are looking at all
of those permitting issues. Again, a lot of it goes back to
how, over the years, some things have migrated to a higher
level. So we have got to be able to delegate it back down to
the level of where there is competence and capacity--both of
those--to be able to streamline.
The challenge you have sometimes is when you delegate back
down, especially when you have 43 districts, sir. Then it is
closer to the decision. But sometimes there are areas where
somebody might make different decisions.
So we have a process where we have a lead district to be
able to make sure we are as consistent as possible. We are
trying to put more information back out so that the adherence
back into those policies can build consistency back in. I think
it is something we want to do.
But I think what we don't want to do is overly centralize.
If you centralize, then what happens is, sir, is that
obviously----
Mr. Gibbs. I agree with that, General. But we want to make
sure we don't have a similar situation in one district and----
General Semonite. Exactly right.
Mr. Gibbs [continuing]. Doing the opposite in another
district, and that just drives people crazy.
General Semonite. And the best thing, sir, we can do is,
when we identify those issues, we bring the players together.
But we also have to learn, and then we have to get that word
back out so that everybody gets to be able to apply that the
same way.
Mr. Gibbs. OK, thank you. My next question, talking to Soo
locks stakeholders informed us that the Corps is including in a
new benefit-cost ratio calculation for the Soo locks project
only a $2 billion--the cost to build an alternative rail system
to transport iron ore, if there is a significant outage at the
Poe lock.
I also understand that the Corps' own contractor estimated
the cost to actually build the rail connection would be closer
to $6.5 billion.
Why isn't the Corps including the entire cost of the
construction of the rail capacity plus the rail operating costs
for an average lock outage in the Soo locks project in their
economic review?
General Semonite. So I have been to Soo locks a couple
months ago, sir. I think--and I am looking at this right now--
we ran a series of failure analyses on the Soo locks. We did
about 10,000 runs of a risk failure. About 50 percent of those
runs would require the rail. So that is where, right now--the
way that the formula is doing is we are only apportioned 50
percent of the cost. But that doesn't really make a lot of
sense.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, that is----
General Semonite. You can't build 50 percent of a railroad.
So I think, as we go back in there, we want to be able to
make sure that we are giving all these projects the absolute
best chance of success, so when you get to make a decision you
are able to figure out where best to put that money.
So I think it is up to the--even myself, I am asking, is
that the right way to do it? And if we don't have the authority
to be able to make that decision when we come to that analysis,
then I want to come back and make sure we are using common
sense and maybe get the appropriate guidance to have that
authority.
Mr. Gibbs. Well, I am glad to hear that, because, I mean,
it doesn't--you have got to be fair in these benefit-cost
ratios. And if you skew the input, you are going to get a
skewed output, right? And I think you mentioned that. And I
think it--you know, there is other things to probably go
through there besides iron ore.
Mr. James. Mr. Congressman, if I may?
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. James. The Soo locks is very high on my priority list,
and the main reason is, as I understand it--and I did not know
this before I got up here 4 weeks ago--is that all the iron ore
in this country comes out through that Soo locks system, and
through the existing Poe lock.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, correct.
Mr. James. I do not think we have rail capacity in that
part of the country to get iron ore out of there. I think iron
ore is critical to the national defense of this country, to the
automobile, as well as other industries, and to homeland
security.
So the benefit-cost ratios that we have been looking at
historically I am going to look into trying to change the
parameters of the benefits, and try to move this project
forward.
Of course, as you know, we are looking at both the repair
and extreme updating of the existing one, plus the capability
of a new one. So I will have that on my priority list.
Mr. Gibbs. Well, I am glad to hear that, because I have
been pushing for this for--since I have been in Congress--
starting my eighth year--and it has just been frustrating. It
needs to get done. It is of national economic importance for
national security, as you say.
And your predecessor, when I was chairman of this
committee, I challenged her a little bit because she said they
had to do this cost-benefit ratio, and I said to her, ``I
think, Ms. Secretary, we could sit here in the next 15 minutes
and do it, because it is a no-brainer.'' And so I am glad to
hear that. That is refreshing.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Mr. Gibbs, your clock actually got
reset during the thing, so I think we are actually in excess of
5 minutes right now.
Mr. Gibbs. Oh, OK.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. As a matter of fact, it literally
just reset in the middle, so I----
Mr. Gibbs. All right. I yield back, then.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I am going to turn to----
Mr. Gibbs. I thought the clock was acting funny, but I
didn't want to mention it.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I was trying to figure out what
button you pressed to do that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I am going to yield 5 minutes to--
--
Mr. James. Mr. Chairman, I think the general reset it.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana [continuing]. Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Chairman, there seems to be an
emerging discussion on the merits of keeping Civil Works
function within the Department of the Army. I and other members
of this committee believe the Corps should retain its Civil
Works mission, not only because of historic expertise in
managing and balancing our Nation's water resources challenges,
but also because this civil mission complements our national
security, as was pointed out, and our military readiness.
As you know, protecting our navigation corridors,
especially during times of military conflict, is critical to
our national security, as is ensuring the health and safety of
our citizens, our communities from flooding and coastal storms.
General Semonite, I would appreciate your views and the
potential consequences of removing this function from DoD, and
potentially breaking up Corps missions among other Federal or
State agencies. In your view, is there an ongoing reason for
retaining the mission within DoD?
General Semonite. Ma'am, thanks for that question. And I
think it probably involves a lot more than a couple-minute
answer here.
I think the biggest question is what is the problem we are
trying to solve. And let's make sure we understand what is the
end state we are trying to get to, and then how somehow do we
address that.
I think your very, very key point there was national
security.
The other thing is the Corps of Engineers works for many,
many different capabilities in the Federal Government. Those
capabilities are resonant in all of our different engineering
capabilities. The service we provide, one of those, is Civil
Works.
Right now, though, we put 13,000 volunteers in Iraq and
Afghanistan for national security to do critical missions for
the Department of Defense. We put 4,000 people in Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands, Texas, and Florida in the last 6 months to take
care of being FEMA's [Federal Emergency Management Agency's]
engineer.
So while you think you could cut Civil Works out, the rest
of the depth of the Corps, which is really the engineering and
construction capability, is so much more powerful back to the
Nation.
And I would love to have more discussion, but I know in the
interest of time I am just going to keep it very, very short.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for the answer.
Mr. James and Lieutenant General Semonite, my local water
agencies, the Water Replenishment District of Southern
California and the Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works have been working with the Corps over 12 years on
providing interim deviations and permanent deviation for
additional water supply at Whittier Narrows. This is a big
success and a great failure. We are still waiting.
The great failure is that the local agency has spent 12
years and $5 million of their own money working with the Corps
on a permanent deviation. My water agencies can no longer
contribute their time and their money to a never-ending and
excessively bureaucratic process. They feel the Corps should
have implemented 12 years ago, but delayed because of post-
Katrina, which is fair. And that produced effective water
supply measures at dry dams when our dry-prone region most
needed it.
Now the project is delayed further, and costs have risen
due to the new dam's safety work at the dam. And a recentU.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service determination that millions of
dollars in mitigation funds are needed for gnats, little old
gnats. This all would have been avoided if the Corps had been
committed to the project 12 years ago.
Can you commit to us that when local water agencies are
offering to give Corps money like WRD to work on projects that
will address local needs, the Corps will work expeditiously on
these projects?
General Semonite. So, ma'am, let me answer. We are very,
very committed to continue to look at where we can find more
capability for water supply. You and I have talked about this,
I have been to California, we are doing this on other dams
right now.
We are committed to continue to look at Whittier Narrows.
The problem is that is a DSAC[Dam Safety Action Classification
I] dam. So we will have our analysis done by June 2019 on how
we are going to fix that dam. Once we do that, we then want to
look at how can we put more water in the dam. But right now we
are focused on the safety of the dam. But we are continuing to
be able to get that dam hopefully fixed with the congressional
funding by 2022.
Mrs. Napolitano. Is that a promise, the timeline?
General Semonite. Ma'am, it is obviously dependent on
budget, if the money comes.
Mrs. Napolitano. Again, the budget.
Well, section 1304 of the WIIN Act directed the Corps to
integrate and incorporate into the Corps dams in L.A. County
seasonable operation for water conservation, water supply. What
is the Corps doing to implement this provision and allow for
more water supply and recharge opportunities at these dams?
General Semonite. So that would be mixed back in with that
study. We are doing both concurrently, where we could continue
to fix the dam, but then we have got to be able to look at
how--where is the safe zone of how much water supply can we
keep in there so we still have the flood control piece. That is
the big balance there.
And we have seen areas where sometimes local people want to
have more and more water in, but now all of the sudden you have
a microburst on top of that flood control area, and you don't
have enough capacity.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, we hope we have more water.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you. We can go to Mr. Weber
from Texas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Hicks--I am sorry, this is from Fred Hicks, Gulf Coast
Water Authority, and this is about Lake Whitney in Texas, which
is north of our district a little bit. And this is actually for
both of you, Mr. James and Lieutenant General Semonite.
My constituents at the Gulf Coast Water Authority are
responsible for providing water supply for a number of
municipalities, industrial plants, agricultural irrigation from
my district, and those of actually several other Members of
Congress. This water supply comes from the Brazos River and
from Lake Whitney, which is a Corps reservoir.
The Gulf Coast Water Authority is currently working with
the Army Corps to address a reallocation of some of the waters
from Lake Whitney to better serve the 21st-century needs of our
Greater Houston region--of course the area that I represent, as
well as some of the other Members of Congress. This would be
through the Corps' O&M budget, and with 100 percent of the
necessary funding provided by the Gulf Coast Water Authority.
Now, we just went through one heck of a flood with Harvey,
and so we had more water than we knew what to do with. But
there will come times we will have a drought, and we need to be
able to reallocate some of that water from Lake Whitney, which
has not been used to date.
So I guess the question for the both of you is can we look
forward to you all's cooperation and participation working with
the Gulf Coast Water Authority? And then who should we contact
in your office to get this set up and get this ball rolling?
Mr. James, I will start with you.
Mr. James. Yes, sir. I can say that water supply is a
growing concern in the entire country, due to the heavy
population concentrations. You know, our population as a Nation
may not be growing, but they are concentrating in certain
areas. That makes water supply very important.
We have to balance that with the other authorized uses of a
Federal project, one of them being flood control. And we have
to look at those as individuals.
I will tell you that--I think that the general will back
this up--that we will be looking at this as we move forward,
the area that you are talking about in Texas.
Mr. Weber. Well, you are probably not--I know there is
hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of these, so you are
probably not specifically, you know, knowledgeable about this
one--and, General, you may not be, either. But I just--I needed
the name of somebody in your office that we can get this ball
rolling.
General Semonite. So, sir, Colonel Zetterstrom talked to
you a couple weeks ago, and there are four different issues you
are tracking. So we are aware of this.
Mr. Weber. OK.
General Semonite. Especially when the funding is coming
from somebody else, that really is able to take that burden
back up to the Federal Government. So----
Mr. Weber. So much for budget problems, as the ranking
member pointed out.
General Semonite. Zetterstrom is the guy. I talked to him--
--
Mr. Weber. OK.
General Semonite [continuing]. He sent me a note last
night. I will make sure I follow up and tell him to come see
you.
Mr. Weber. Fair enough. I need to move on to, actually, a
more sticky subject, and that is there is a critical military
issue in my district hearkening back to a Clinton-era
initiative referred to as the Columbia Bottomlands, Columbia
Bottomlands. And what that--which was actually killed back then
by then-Senator Phil Gramm and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.
Well, the Obama administration tried to revive it, and
snuck in an 11th-hour rule making the record before President
Trump took office, and the subject matter, nationwide permit
reissuance. All right?
NPRs, I guess you call them, were apparently announced by
the Corps on January 6, 2017, in the Federal Register
announcing the reissuance of all 50 existing nationwide
permits, NWPs, general conditions and definitions with some
modifications done with little fanfare, little public notice,
very short comment period, as I recall, with virtually no
transparency in the process.
To this date, to this day, most of my constituents don't
even realize in Brazoria County that they have been the victims
of ``property taking.'' The following went into effect on March
19, 2017, and I will quote this: ``For the purpose of this
regional condition, Columbia Bottomlands are defined as `waters
of the United States' ''--sound familiar?--``that are dominated
by bottomland hardwoods in the lower Brazos and San Bernard
River regions.'' Totally unacceptable.
Short of working with my Appropriations Committee
colleagues to absolutely defund this property taking by the
Corps, I am hopeful that we can revisit this matter. Again,
somebody in your office that we can interface with, so that we
can actually get this reversed, because this is totally
unacceptable.
Mr. James. Sir, right now I think the Corps has out for
review--[to General Semonite] is this the one out for review?--
that is due right away, within the next month or two. I have
marked it in my office to review whatever the Corps comes up
with on this ruling, as we move forward, not only in your area,
but the rest of the United States. That WOTUS [waters of the
United States] rule has been overexpanded, it has been
overinterpreted. And I am going to look at that. And if I have
the power to do anything about the WOTUS rule----
Mr. Weber. Let me interrupt, if I can, Mr. Chairman, with
your indulgence. I have a developer that wants to go on there
and put 250-something homes in this area. And that developer is
held up by this taking right here. So time is of the essence.
Mr. Semonite, can I jump to you real quick? Who do we work
with?
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Please, quickly, and let's finish
up.
General Semonite. Sir, this is definitely tied up in the
WOTUS work that we are doing with the EPA.
Mr. Weber. OK.
General Semonite. So this is a big issue. We will work it
as a team, and keep you informed.
Mr. Weber. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you. We are going to go to
the ranking member, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
General, the estimates I have from the Corps--to achieve
and maintain constructed--widths, depths of all Federal
navigation projects--are about $20.3 billion over the next
decade. Do you have anything to contradict that, or--I mean
that is a recent estimate we have.
General Semonite. Sir, I am not exactly aware of that
number.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, all right.
General Semonite. But I think that is probably in the
ballpark.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. So as we discussed earlier, since we are
going to divert or perhaps even reduce the tax that goes to
harbor maintenance, the projected budget is a little less than
$10 billion.
So is there a 50-percent increase in efficiency in dredging
and maintaining jetties that you can conceive, unless we are to
maybe commission, you know, the Chinese to come in and use
illegal immigrant labor, or something? How are we going to
get--how are we going to double our efficiency and achieve
those depths and get to that point with that money?
General Semonite. So, sir, I am not prepared to answer the
actual doubling you are talking about. I know that you are very
concerned about jetties. We are doing a study, and we are going
to have that study done in about 4 months. And that should lay
out some of those answers. I have not seen the analysis yet,
but we want to come back to you. And, if nothing else, we will
brief you on exactly where we are at with the jetty analysis.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, I appreciate that.
You know, Mr. Secretary, I mean I know you have only been
there 4 weeks, and some of this preceded you. But again, if you
look at these numbers, the estimates are if we fully spent the
collected tax and didn't reduce the tax--for the next 5 years,
if we spent $2.5 billion a year on maintenance dredging and
jetty work on all our Federal projects, and then $1.6 to $1.7
billion over the next 5 years, we could get to authorized
depths and be at a state of good repair.
How are we going to do that with half of that money? That
is essentially the same question I put to the general, but you
talked a little bit about reforms. I mean, you know, I have
been here long enough--we used to have Federal dredges. We did
studies that showed, in fact, they were more efficient and less
expensive than the private dredging companies. But because of
political influence--particularly a very powerful Senator from
down in that southern area--we pretty much did away with most
of the Federal dredges. We have some in reserve, and I have
still got them operating in the Northwest.
So how are we going to, you know, deal with that $20
billion need over the next 10 years with half the money?
Mr. James. Sir, I apologize, but I can't answer----
Mr. DeFazio. I know. You have been there 4 weeks. Anyway, I
am just putting that to you. So if you will think about that, I
would love to chat.
Mr. James. I will think about it, and I will be glad to
visit you personally on it.
Mr. DeFazio. Great. Here is something else that I know you
won't know, but I just want to put this to you, because I have
been trying to get the information. This is a regional issue.
Columbia River, we have a treaty that has, you know,
expired. We are in the beginning of renegotiation with Canada,
and one of the most critical aspects of that is flood control.
And I am trying to find out if the Corps has completed--and
maybe the general knows, or maybe you--either of you probably
don't know, but if you could get it to me--have you completed
the modeling of that system? Because it is a critical aspect as
we enter into negotiations to know what we need, in terms of
flood control.
The whole system has changed so much, with all the Canadian
dams, you know, over the last 50 years, that we don't have
current data, and our negotiators don't have it at the table,
so--and we have to know and plug in flood risk management into
this negotiation.
General, do you have any knowledge?
General Semonite. I don't know the exact answer on the
modeling, I will get that back to you. But we are very, very
aggressively working on everything involved with the treaty.
But also we have an EIS [Environmental Impact Statement] we
have got to do for the operating system. So all of that is
pretty much wrapped up in what are the capabilities there.
There are a lot of environmental issues, there are a lot of
navigation issues. But that modeling is critical to be able to
make sure it can inform both the Columbia Treaty, as well as
the EIS.
Mr. DeFazio. Yes. Well, the EIS, unfortunately, is due to
an overly aggressive Federal judge, who basically adopted the
arguments of the plaintiffs and said this is science, when it
isn't. And so I understand you have been given--I think it is
our fourth time around on this. And we even had marine
fisheries and, you know, we had the--all the Federal agencies
were agreeing that this was good. And I--but you are stuck with
that. But I think the analysis of the flood risk is separate.
And if the modeling is done, we need to know what the results
are, and we need to get that to our negotiators.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. We are
going to Mr. Mast for 5 minutes, the gentleman from Florida and
the vice chair of the subcommittee.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, no question the Corps has an excessive amount of
authorized water infrastructure projects by Congress. You all,
the Corps, you have the technical expertise to complete these
projects. Oftentimes the State has allocated their cost share
of those expenses, yet there still remains billions of dollars
of backlog of projects.
And what I am wondering is another piece of this, that
arbitrary quota that gets put on the new starts that can exist
out there limits the Army Corps to a select number of new
starts each year. Can you speak to does that policy, that new
start policy, does that delay the Army Corps from completing
some of the water infrastructure projects out there? Is that
something we need to look at for reform for you?
General Semonite. I think, just from our approach, sir,
clearly it is a relatively minor investment to be able to do a
study to inform Congress of where can the money be put to the
best place. So if, in fact, there is an arbitrary limit that is
put on us on studies, then of course we can't do that degree of
analysis. So I think that, in honesty, I do think there is a
limit in our capability to be able to inform Congress of where
best to put the work.
On the other hand, there has probably got to be some degree
of guidance. You can't do too many studies, because then we are
just going to continue to keep adding. So there is probably a
sweet spot somewhere, and I will let the Secretary or, you
know, the administration figure out where that is.
Mr. Mast. So let's jump to that a little bit, those
feasibility studies. You know, the readiness of the Corps to
conduct these feasibility studies to begin construction
projects, you know, oftentimes you have to wait for an
appropriation cycle to move to the next phase of what is going
on there.
I was listening to your testimony from yesterday, and you
literally said, ``Our feasibility studies are formulated with
the assumption of efficient funding, and most all are multiple-
year projects, yet we are budgeted on an annual basis with no
assurances that adequate funding will be available from year to
year. This creates uncertainty for our non-Federal sponsors, it
drives up project costs, and it delays the realization of
benefits.''
And what I am wondering--is there some reform that can go
on in that area, maybe something in terms of development of
some sort of revolving fund, where the Corps isn't subject to
the fiscal year constraints? It gives you a little bit more
flexibility to advance to the next phase of project completion
without having to wait for that year over year.
General Semonite. I think there is room in almost all of
our processes to be able to find ways to streamline and to give
us more flexibility. Most of our money is allowed to carry over
into another year, and we try to budget efficiently. So I don't
have a problem at end of year, having to initially obligate.
But I do think, where we really have challenges a lot of
times is when we have a construction project, where we get
ready to go through something and every single year has to be
revalidated, so that causes us to have a lot of confusion in
the contractor base and the stakeholder base. So I think there
is a lot of room--and this is what Chairman Graves said--there
are a lot of things that we can do to try to somehow streamline
some of these processes that have been too bureaucratic.
Mr. Mast. And that is what we want to get to, right?
Cheaper, faster, but more efficient, and a great product that
you produce. So I thank you for your time, thank you for
answering these questions.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you. So now we are going to
go to the gentlewoman, Ms. Frankel, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you very much. Thank you, gentlemen, for
being here.
So maybe a couple years ago I sat in one of these Civil
Works review boards, which I guess we don't have any more. But
it was--it took, like, a full day. And there were, like,
maybe--I don't know, there were a lot of people around the
table.
But one of the things that I got--I realized, in listening
to all the discussion and the different steps was that a lot of
the requirements of the steps were based on laws that the
Congress had passed, and requirements.
So I wanted to just ask you. I think one of you testified
about impediments, impediments to the process, the
authorization process. I would like you to tell me specifically
what you see as impediments that have been created by the
Congress, because that is where we could probably help out.
Mr. James. The Chief may speak to this further, ma'am. But
as far as I am concerned, there are some. It is not our place
or our position to determine which ones are impediments and
which ones are still good legislation. But when you go through
the entire process that the Corps has to do on a continuing
basis, either on a project or future policy, there is
legislation, as well as our own internal policies, that affect
that. I would be more than happy to talk to you about any of
the individual legislation you may be talking about, or in
general. I would be happy to talk to you personally.
Ms. Frankel. Well, no, I am not--myself, I am not talking--
I am asking you because we may have the ability to--you know,
you keep talking about changing your processes. I am asking you
how does Congress impede your process.
Mr. James. Well, ma'am, I think you would have to point to
specific legislative pieces in order to point that out to----
Ms. Frankel. OK. Maybe the general can answer that
question.
General Semonite. Well, ma'am, I mentioned this in my
testimony, and I am not sure that any one of those actions was
ever specifically to try to slow down, but the cumulative
effect of all of those processes has had a significant impact.
And I talked about the 20 things that we work, they are
right here on a spreadsheet.
Ms. Frankel. Right.
General Semonite. We have worked very closely with the
administration to say here are some ways that we could continue
to be able to make sure we are protecting the environment, we
are taking care of water resources, but it allows us to
streamline, things like acquisition, long-term contracts, how
do we go down through the budgeting process, how can we work
through OMB and continue to be able to streamline the processes
in OMB. So that is what we want to offer back to you, to help
us find ways of helping ourselves.
Ms. Frankel. Will that require legislative changes?
General Semonite. I think some are, but the vast majority
of them are policies. They are things that we can change by
changing rules or regulations, but not necessarily law.
Ms. Frankel. OK. Well, that is why I am just asking you if
you thought we needed to change any of the laws.
OK, I have another--my timer is not working, so I am just--
OK. So I have another question for you. Oh, and this is Mr.
Shuster's favorite issue, this--yes, the sand. It is the sand.
We are running out of sand in--we have run out of sand in
Broward and Dade County. It is gone. And sand is very
important, obviously for tourism, but also to protect the
shoreline and so forth. So for them to get--I am going to give
you an example. A recent Miami-Dade trucking contract was $8.6
million for 140,000 cubic yards of sand. Now, they could buy
sand, foreign sand, at about 50 percent less.
Now, for the Congress, oh, you know, $8.6 million is
considered chump change, but not for local governments. And I
just gave you one example. So I tried to change the law. We
did, in this committee. We changed the law that would make it
easier to buy the sand from the Bahamas. Incidentally, the sand
goes south. I think the sand from Miami went to the Bahamas,
anyway, so we are just trying to get it back.
But what happened is, along the way, I am sure--I am just
guessing, but I know Mr. Shuster could probably verify this--
the truckers got involved in the process, because the language
changed and turned what had been language in our bill into a
study.
Now, I don't think the study has been done. Has the study
been done? I mean it is a stupid study, I don't know why we
have to do the study. I am just curious, though. Did we do this
stupid study?
General Semonite. Ma'am, I am not tracking a study on sand
in those two counties. The challenge we have--and this is a
national issue--is we continue to spend an awful lot of money
on beach renourishment, and we are having that same challenge
in other places.
So the question is are there innovative ways that we can
try to retain that sand so that, if nothing else, we can dredge
it from just where it is moving back on. Most of the stuff we
do on the east coast is dredging that sand back on the beach.
Ms. Frankel. OK, no, that is a different issue. I
appreciate that issue, but that is not the issue. The issue is
there is language that says if materials are not available from
domestic sources for environmental or economic reasons, these
local governments can't buy sand, for example, from the
Bahamas. And so they are forced to buy sand from the middle of
the State in Florida, and it costs them twice as much. All
right? So that is the issue. That is a separate issue, until
you invent the way to keep the sand on the beaches. They need
the sand.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. The gentlewoman's time has
expired. General, if you could please provide an answer to the
committee in writing, that would be great. Thank you.
I turn to the full committee chairman, Mr. Shuster, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Shuster. I am aware of the lady's problem with sand.
The study is ongoing. And the ruling is--and you pointed out
there--if it is not available, that they can buy foreign sand.
But, you know, when I go to the beach sometimes I get sand
in my shoe or other places, and it is just--we got to solve
this eventually, because Ms. Frankel is--she can take it to me.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Are you suggesting they use a
different material on the beach?
Mr. Shuster. No. No, I am not.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Shuster. My question is not about sand, but it is about
the upper Ohio. The upper Ohio of--I believe the OMB
recommended that the project be looked at again for additional
economic analysis, even though the first study said it. It is
the first time I think I have ever seen the Government say
restudy this because there is more economic benefit than you
have already pointed out.
So again, usually it is not enough economic benefit. So
anyways, the $5.5 million I think you folks put forth to do the
study, can you let me know how it is going? What is the
timeline? Are you encountering any kind of problems that we may
be able to help you in the legislation, as you move forward?
General Semonite. Chairman, no issues. We were going to do
it in 3 years, we are now doing it in 2. We took a year off of
it.
Mr. Shuster. That is great.
General Semonite. We have enough money to be able to
complete it. It will be done by summer of 2019.
Mr. Shuster. OK, that is great to hear, great news.
Second question is concerning the Raystown Lake. In the
2016 WRDA we directed the Corps to update its master plan to
look at alternatives for recreation, to look for the
development possibilities. Do we need to have all that land
that we have there that is--that could be developed in a county
that is a very low-income county?
The lake is a great benefit to them, but it would be of
tremendous benefit if they could develop not on the water--I
don't want that, I don't think anybody wants that--but, you
know, you got a mountain that is 1,000 feet or so rising above
it. If you were allowed to build along that ridge line it would
be a tremendous economic positive impact.
And I know that--funny how things work around here--that
the only Corps lake that I have seen development occur on is in
South Dakota, and that is because Senator Daschle put it in
some WRDA bill years ago that they could do that. So if it is
good enough for South Dakota, it is good enough for central
Pennsylvania. So can you let me know where that master plan is,
and how it is proceeding?
General Semonite. So, Chairman, we are on plan to keep
working this. We got money in the 2018 budget, about $600,000.
We want to continue to be able to get it up and done. I don't
have an exact date of when it is going to finish, but I will
get that back to your staff.
I think the other thing, though, is we are supposed to do
these every 10 years, and sometimes we don't have the funds to
be able to keep up with that. If we are able to do that in a
more routine manner, then we don't need so much time to be able
to get--this one is like 25 years old, up in Huntingdon County,
so we need to try to figure out how to get this thing up.
Mr. Shuster. Right.
General Semonite. But we are committed to get this study
done as fast as we possibly can.
Mr. Shuster. OK. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. We are going to go to the
gentleman from California, Mr. Lowenthal, for, gosh----
Dr. Lowenthal. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very
brief in my comments, not like some Members.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Lowenthal. General Semonite, Mr. James, I want to
follow up on some of the comments and echo some of the comments
of Ranking Member DeFazio, when he began to talk about the
harbor maintenance fee.
And, you know, the President prides himself as a builder.
And you know our country has tremendous needs for
infrastructure improvements, especially in our harbors and
waterways.
Ports are the center of the 21st-century global supply
chain. They enable American manufacturers to reach foreign
markets and to facilitate the movement of consumer goods and
industrial imports throughout our Nation. They are a vital
national asset. But they face new challenges with larger ships,
rising container volume, more congestion, both at the gateways
and on land.
So in looking at the President's budget and the President's
infrastructure proposal, it seems like the administration is
trying to cast aside the Federal responsibility for these
assets, cutting investments in the improvements that we need to
make to grow commerce at our seaports.
You know, last week we held a hearing on revenue options
for surface transportation. However, I would like to point out
in our harbors we have the revenue, yet the administration
doesn't propose to spend it or to use it.
Can you tell me what is the administration's vision for our
ports? How do they propose that we meet these challenges of
congestion, growth, international trade by not allocating the
resources? Can you tell me?
Mr. James. No, sir, I cannot. But I will be glad to meet
with you later with staff, and we will discuss this.
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about our ports yet to
discuss them intelligently, and I don't want to give you some
kind of off-the-cuff answer.
Dr. Lowenthal. I--just to refresh--and I am not sure I know
the exact names--you know that the harbor maintenance fee,
which is really a user fee, or a harbor maintenance tax, which
is a--generates, I think, over $1.6 billion. It goes into a
trust fund. The President is only proposing to spend $900
million of that. We have tremendous needs. We are generating
for both dredging and for harbor maintenance. That is what the
money is supposed to be used for. And yet I don't understand
what the President's vision is, where we are going on that.
So I would appreciate meeting with you and understanding
that more. I think it is vitally important because the revenue
stream is there. We are not talking about surface
transportation, where there is no longer a revenue stream.
Same issue is on the inland waterways fund. I would love to
have a response back about what is the vision for the use of
the inland waterway.
Mr. James. Yes, sir. Certainly.
Dr. Lowenthal. I think that would be appropriate, and I
really look forward to our meeting.
Mr. Chairman, I want to ask unanimous consent to enter into
the record the executive summary of an Army Corps Civil Works
report called ``The Ohio River Basin: Formulating Climate
Change Mitigation/Adaptation Strategies Through Regional
Collaboration with the ORB Alliance''--the Ohio River Basin
Alliance. I am the cochair of the Safe Climate Caucus, and I
often talk to my community about how we are going to have to
adapt to sea level rise and other effects of climate change.
General Semonite, I was struck by how this report detailed
the substantial effects we expect from climate change in
America's heartland along the Ohio River Basin, from higher
stream flows in the spring to longer, drier droughts in the
summer and fall, it seems that these challenges will require
substantial investments in the resiliency of our inland
waterways, which gets back to that fund.
How is the Corps working to meet these challenges from
climate change?
General Semonite. I think, sir, the main thing is when we
look at a project we have got to be able to predict what is
going to be those future conditions. We can't design for today,
we have got to be able to make sure we are designing for about
50 years out. And then we have got to build them back in.
So how do we take the effects of weather, how do we take
all the things you are talking about, and make sure----
Dr. Lowenthal. Climate change specifically, yes.
General Semonite. How do we make sure those things are
wrapped into a future project, and formulated? And then, how do
you do that in an affordable manner?
Dr. Lowenthal. So you build resiliency in, knowing that
that is really going to be the issue.
General Semonite. We always look at alternatives for a
bunch of different options. And then, based on the best return
back to the taxpayer, we pick the best alternative.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Could the gentleman please clarify
the author of the summary of the report he wanted in the
unanimous consent agreement?
Dr. Lowenthal. The author is--it is the Army Corps Civil
Works----
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. OK, so it is their executive
summary.
Dr. Lowenthal. It is their executive summary.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Without objection, the report is--
--
Dr. Lowenthal. Yes.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana [continuing]. Included in the
record of the hearing.
[The executive summary from the report entitled ``The Ohio
River Basin: Formulating Climate Change Mitigation/Adaptation
Strategies Through Regional Collaboration with the ORB
Alliance'' is on pages 61-62.]
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you. We are now going to--
should we shorten his time? Going to the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. I speak with a slow accent, too. Can I get some
extra time?
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. They usually just say that you are
slow, but--please.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And R.D., it is great
to see you here. I am looking forward to working with you. We
have worked together in the past, and I know you are going to
do a great job here.
But as you know, I always have some issues that I bring up
with the Corps of Engineers. And it wouldn't be a first hearing
for you here without me bringing up NESP [Navigation and
Ecosystem Sustainability Program]. I think it is unacceptable
that the Corps has taken a position to do another study before
even we can get to preconstruction engineering and design. This
project, NESP, has been studied, I believe, more than any other
Corps project in your agency's history. And to do another
economic analysis for a PED to move forward, I think, is a--is
something that needs to be rethought.
I want to remind the committee, too, that this was a
position that the previous administration took after Congress
has already spent nearly $60 million on preconstruction
engineering and design.
We have strong bipartisan support for this, R.D., for NESP,
and moving the program forward. So can you commit today to work
with me and my colleagues to get the preconstruction
engineering design back on track as soon as possible, so that
we can get these critical navigation and ecosystem restoration
projects to actual construction?
Mr. James. Yes, sir. I will work with you on that. And I
would like to know your current thinking, as well as other
Members that are concerned about NESP.
My concern about NESP is that neither the environmental
concerns nor the navigation concerns can go anywhere until we
are funded to the spot that they can both go together. I think
that is the way that was authorized. It has been a problem
since the very beginning.
At one point the environmental part of it could move, then
the other couldn't. At another point the navigation part could
move, the environmental couldn't. It almost looks like it was
put together that way, I don't know. But I would like to visit
with you. And if you have any more people interested in getting
together, I would be happy to do that.
Now, the general may shed some light on where we are right
now, but I would like to look at that, too. Thank you, Mr.
Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
General Semonite. I will just keep it short, sir. Bottom
line--you know this well--37 locks, these are all about 70 to
80 years old, 1,200 miles of river. If we don't do something
soon--I mean we can't keep putting Band-Aids on these.
Mr. Davis. That is exactly why I made this point. To do an
economic analysis once again, I think, is just overkill. And we
have got to move on.
Another issue that I know we are going to work together on,
Mr. James, is on Asian carp, Brandon Road. I am working with my
colleague, Mr. Mitchell, to find ways to make sure that we
continue to reduce the Asian carp population in the Mississippi
and Illinois Waterways.
I have a concern, though, that the Corps may be rushing
toward an authorization of authorizing a project for $250
million that actually may be a solution in search of a problem.
I had our Illinois Department of Natural Resources director,
Wayne Rosenthal, here in DC last week, and he reminded me that,
since 2012, the State has reduced Asian carp population in the
Dresden Pool below the Brandon Road lock by 93 percent already.
So what we are doing seems to be working.
And further, it is the conclusion of the Department of
Natural Resources in the State of Illinois that, based on 28
years of scientific monitoring data, there is no indication
that the Asian carp population front will move from its current
population and its current position. This is evidence to me
that we are currently doing something that is working.
That is one of the reasons why I am supportive of the GLRI
[Great Lakes Restoration Initiative] funding, which the
department uses for these population reduction efforts.
Specifically, Mr. James, I am concerned that, following the
Corps' release of the tentatively selected plan, an entity
outside the State of Illinois could be chosen as the non-
Federal partner for this project. And unfortunately, this, as a
possibility, has apparently been alluded to by leadership at
your Chicago district office.
Does the Corps have the authority to name a non-Federal
partner when the project is completely within the State of
Illinois that wouldn't be the State of Illinois?
Mr. James. I visited with the Lieutenant Governor maybe a
week or 10 days ago about this very issue. You know, I can't
answer that, Mr. Davis. I think that is an issue that the State
holds the trump card on.
I have also met with some of the other adjoining States
that are really pushing for this, and I wish I could give you a
yes or no. General Semonite may have a differing opinion than
me, but I don't think we can recognize a sponsor of a Federal
project outside of a State boundary. And that is including the
earth under the water.
General Semonite. And I would concur our analysis is that
unless the State wants to be able to share with someone else,
there is no authority we have to force an external player to
come into a State.
Mr. Davis. Well, I appreciate you working with me and my
colleagues, like Mr. Mitchell. We all have the same goal, we
just want to make sure we do it in a way that addresses
Illinois's concerns.
Thank you, and I don't have any time to yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I think we have heard enough.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I want to thank the gentleman from
Illinois. We are going to go to the gentleman from California,
the ranking member of the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Subcommittee, Mr. Garamendi, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
Secretary James, welcome. I look forward to working with
you. You have got a big job out ahead of you, and it will be a
pleasure. I represent the Sacramento Valley, California, 200
miles of the Sacramento River.
General Semonite, thank you so very much for coming to
Beale Air Force Base. It was a pleasure meeting with you and
working with you there, and I look forward to your good work
out ahead.
Like most Members, I have got my own projects. I am going
to go through them very quickly. I know that you are aware of
them.
Marysville, a city in my district, there is $35 million in
the budget, we appreciate that. There may be more. We can
finish this entire project. It has been all on board.
The Sutter Basin, this is the Feather River, the west side
of the Feather River, a 40-mile project. There is about 5 miles
left to do. We can get it all done. It is ready to go. It does
need a new start designation, but it has been underway for a
long time.
And the city of Woodland, the lower Cache Creek feasibility
study. It was on, it went off because of some local issues. It
is now--we want to move it forward. We appreciate your
attention to that.
Hamilton City, another project almost completed, making
progress on that, $6 million.
And then we get down to the really interesting questions.
You have heard from all of us. We have got our projects, we
need our money. Keep in mind that in the infinite wisdom of
this legislature, our Congress and the President, we ripped
$1,600,000,000 out of the Federal Treasury over the next 10
years. So you want to know where the money is? It is gone.
And so, when we holler and scream about the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund and why it is being ripped off to be
used for other things, well, there is the reason. There is a
huge hole in the Treasury that is being filled by the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund and by the inland waterways fund, both
of which are being ripped off to backfill the hole that we
created in our wisdom or lack thereof.
And so we are going to scream and yell about money, but it
is all gone. The trillion-and-a-half dollar infrastructure plan
that the administration is putting forward, of which $200
billion is Federal money, that is not new money, that is
existing money, some of it coming right out of the Corps of
Engineers.
So if we are looking for the devil, it is us. We did it to
ourselves. I don't know how we are going to deal with all of
this, going forward. The fact of the matter is the money is not
there. The $96 billion of projects already authorized, it is
not going to happen until this Congress decides that it is
actually going to find new revenue.
So, you know, enough of that.
You have got six principles in your testimony, Mr. James,
some of which have profound effect on the way in which the Army
Corps of Engineers will operate. I know that you don't have the
detail today, but you are going to be under enormous pressure
from the administration to carry out the principles in the
infrastructure program, of which the six principles in your
testimony will radically change how the Army Corps of Engineers
operates, not just on the environmental side, but on the
operational side. So we have got some challenges out ahead on
the policy.
You are not going to be able to respond today. You have
been at this less than 3 months--2 months, actually. But I just
draw your attention to those six principles. Obviously, I want
my projects. Obviously, we all do. Obviously, there is no money
for any of this, or for much of it.
But the six principles that you mentioned in your opening
testimony have profound effect on all that we do. So I look
forward to working with you or perhaps against you as those
principles are enunciated and as they come into legislative
reality, or at least before us. I will let it go at that. We
both have some enormous challenges out ahead of us. I look
forward to working with you.
Welcome. If I can provide you with any information on the
Sacramento River I look forward to that. And I am looking
forward to what you have offered everybody else, that in-office
opportunity to talk.
Mr. James. Thank you, sir. And I will take you up on that.
And you know, I am willing to look at those principles and get
your opinion on what they would affect. I am trying to affect
efficiency and getting down to actually moving dirt. So we will
work on that together.
Mr. Garamendi. Well, given your many years on the
Mississippi River and my work on the Coast Guard maritime, we
will be coordinating, as well as on this committee. I look
forward to working with you. We do have challenges.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi. We are
going to go to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin, for 5
minutes.
Dr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you, Mr. Secretary and General. Congratulations on your
appointment. And I am glad you are where you are. A lot needs
fixing at the Corps of Engineers, and I know you have a big job
ahead of you.
President Trump has repeatedly said that we need to shorten
the permitting process. This is a great concern to me, as well,
especially in my district of southeast Texas, from Houston over
to Louisiana. I have always had a great relationship with the
Galveston District, I served 15 years on the river authority,
the LNVA [Lower Neches Valley Authority], and then also had a
brother-in-law that worked for the Galveston District for about
25 years, who retired a number of years ago.
But lately we have been getting a lot of complaints about
permitting. It just doesn't seem that the Galveston District is
adhering to the national standards for performance results. It
is my understanding that only 11 permits were approved out of
more than 100 pending. I have talked to numerous constituents
who were supposed to get an answer in 60 days. It has been more
than 180 days. So I have a real concern about that.
On another note, Hurricane Harvey was an unprecedented
storm. But now we know there is precedent for a future one.
What can I report back to my constituents about lessons learned
and actions taken by the Corps to help make sure that this same
disaster does not strike if we are hit again next year or 5
years from now?
And also, if you would address the permitting, as well,
thank you.
Mr. James. Thank you, sir. And thank you for the welcome. I
have a priority on my desk of working with the general on the
permitting process actually in shop, in his command. He is
already working on that. I have a task force I established, and
we are going to work on it and--from a different perspective,
and hope we together reach a good end for everybody. I have
been familiar with it and impacted by the permitting process
for years, myself.
Dr. Babin. Right. I am sure so.
OK, and then you have heard a lot of constructive criticism
today, but I want to talk to you about an issue that I believe
the Corps actually does get right. But it is in another sector
of our Government that, unfortunately, does not.
As you know, when determining benefit-to-cost ratios, or
BCRs, the Corps of Engineers calculates an unquestionable
economic value of a project that is in the energy export supply
chain. This is called a section 6009 value add.
Unfortunately, as I see it, not everyone in our Government
does the arithmetic the same way. Namely, the OMB. This means
that for projects like my Cedar Bayou project terminal in my
district, in Baytown, Texas, the value you assign is five to
one. But OMB's is less than two to one.
And a discussion for another day, Congress has yielded most
of its specific spending authority to the administration, and
this office in particular. So, unfortunately, the decision of
OMB is pretty much how things will stand, and it has been
several years we have been trying to get this project off the
ground.
Can you explain a little bit why the Corps makes these
commonsense calculations on section 6009? And can I get your
commitment to explain to officials at OMB why they should do
the same thing?
Mr. James. I can explain the first. I cannot commit to
trying to get OMB to do anything. Now, I have already met with
OMB once. I have met with the Secretary of Agriculture once.
And I have meetings planned for EPA and the Department of the
Interior--basically, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As far
as OMB, I am working with them, trying to get them to
understand better where our benefit-cost ratios are coming
from, and how we are prioritizing projects with the limited
funding we have available.
And you know, they have the decision. They are the Office
of Management and Budget, and they have had that job under
every administration that I have witnessed. And so it is not a
change. But I do think there is a glimmer of hope that we will
be able to explain our positions maybe more than there have
been in the past.
Dr. Babin. OK. You never addressed my storm question,
either, but that is OK. I am out of time. And so I will yield
back.
Mr. James. I will be glad to meet with you on it.
Dr. Babin. OK, thank you.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
We are now going to go to the honorable acting ranking member,
Mrs. Lawrence, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Lawrence. I just wanted to hit the gavel.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Lawrence. My question to Lieutenant General, with the
development and maintenance of our water systems and
infrastructure, the need for skilled trades has drastically
increased, because we will and we shall invest in our water
infrastructure.
Even now, more than 8,300 skilled trade job openings are
across all industries in Michigan, and more than 6,200 are
expected to be available each year through 2022. This creates
an issue that must be included when you are planning and
navigating in your job.
As the cochair of the Congressional Skilled American
Workforce Caucus and advocate for skilled trades, I am very
concerned about the skill gap facing our country.
Lieutenant General, what do you think the administration
should do to increase the number of skilled trade workers,
given our country's mass infrastructure needs, especially when
States like Michigan will not be able to meet their labor
needs?
General Semonite. So, ma'am, I share your concern. This
goes to a much bigger question. It goes back to not just
skilled trades, but also having the same thing with STEM when
it comes to engineering, the capability to be able to make sure
we have the capacity to be able to do this.
I have not thought through how the Nation should solve this
issue. I stay in my lane and I worry about making sure we have
got the capability in the Corps. I would love to be able to
take it on, but I am looking for innovative ways now of
bringing people in. I have a hard time hiring people because of
the challenges we have of going through the hiring process. I
would love to be able to--if I find somebody to apprentice--I
would love to do direct hires so I can go down to an apprentice
or a local co-op and to be able to bring them in.
The average right now is over 100 days to be able to hire
an employee. We just can't do--that goes back to this thing
about process. How can we find better ways of being able to
change some of the policies to be able to bring people on
board?
It is a concern, though, without a doubt.
Mrs. Lawrence. Lieutenant General, you said something that
is extremely important: staying in your lane. This issue of
skilled trades has risen to a point that we are bordering on a
future crisis. And we are going to have to be able to work
across our lanes because the education, the employment--and
actually the Corps should have an internal system to develop,
recruit, and develop, and not just think that we are going to
be able to pull in skilled workers. So I am going to be pushing
for that.
I want to pose a question about water affordability. I
represent the city of Detroit. And there is a growing issue
because of the cost of infrastructure in communities with the
affordability of water. I am from Flint, Michigan. I am very,
very sensitive about the infrastructure of water.
As our systems continue to crumble, especially in our
large, urban areas--in Detroit, over 90,000 residents, which is
14 percent of the population, are not or cannot afford to pay
their utility bills. This is due because, in order to maintain
the system, there is an increasing cost just for drinkable
water.
I know you keep saying, your honor, that you have only been
in the job a short period, and I recognize that. But that must
be on your agenda. You must be extremely aware and sensitive to
the fact that affordability of safe drinking water must be on
the agenda for the Corps. And I would like for you to comment.
Mr. James. Yes, ma'am, and I agree with you 100 percent.
And that is not just in your area, that is all over the United
States. We are seeing it in areas that you would think have
plenty of water. And yet, for fresh drinking water, that is not
the case.
That is not under the Corps' purview, water supply. It is
added at times. And I am not sure that we shouldn't be looking
at it as a Nation. But that is my feeling. Fresh drinking water
is--you know, it is--our first job is to protect the people,
provide for the people, and fresh drinking water is number one,
when you come to that.
Mrs. Lawrence. It is a necessity for human life.
Mr. James. It is.
Mrs. Lawrence. And it must be a priority.
Mr. James. It is.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you. We are now going to Mr.
Mitchell for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for
allowing me to participate in the hearing, sir.
Unfortunately, my colleague from Illinois left. I am well
aware that the State of Illinois has a different perspective on
the Brandon Road question than we do, than the rest of the
Great Lakes do. I would ask the State of Illinois if they would
indemnify the Great Lakes States, should Asian carp get into
Great Lakes, but we know that is not--they can't afford that.
They have enough problems. I would ask my colleague, but I
don't think he wants that bill.
So I would urge the Army Corps to continue to look at the
Brandon Road, continue to look at how to implement that.
Because while they contend that Asian carp are down to 93
percent of what they were, it only takes a few to create a
major crisis in the Great Lakes. And I continue to urge the
Army Corps to move forward. And, if need be, we will wrestle
with the State of Illinois, and it will be fun.
And another project I wanted to ask you a question about,
General, is, as you both know, there is an economic evaluation
report in progress for the Soo locks. Can you tell me what the
current status of that report is?
General Semonite. So, sir, we have been pushing hard to be
able to continue to bring this to the left. Right now I talked
to the district commander. They are in the final throes of
recalculating what that looks like. I will see that in another
month or so. And then it is our goal to try to get that in so
that, if there is a WRDA, we can certainly have that eligible
for WRDA.
We are using a date roughly the order of magnitude around
June to be able to get things into the committee, and I think
that is what we would be looking at.
I think there is another discussion we have to have, as
well, on the value of Soo locks to national security. And do
we, in fact, have to hang Soo locks on a benefit-cost ratio, or
is that a project that has so much more value that perhaps
there is another way that the committee can look at authorizing
that.
Mr. Mitchell. Well, I would agree. When the report is done
right around June, will you release that to the public at the
same time, do you believe?
General Semonite. I think so, sir.
Mr. Mitchell. OK. It is my understanding, for a project to
move forward, if you just look at economic value, it needs a
cost-benefit ratio of one. Is that correct? At least one or
greater?
General Semonite. For me to sign a Chief's Report, it is a
benefit ratio of 1.0 at the current interest rate, which is
about 2.35, I think they use----
Mr. Mitchell. Right.
General Semonite [continuing]. Or whatever it is.
Mr. Mitchell. One of the problems I understand in economic
analysis is they don't consider what they call tertiary
factors. Those include people losing their jobs. The estimate,
which most people agree on, is about 11 million people,
Americans, will lose their jobs within the first 90 days,
should the Poe lock go down.
Back to national security, back to economic rationality, I
went to school in economics and public policy. The idea that
you don't consider job loss and economic impact on this country
as part of evaluating the economic value of something like
this, does that make any sense to you?
General Semonite. Sir, on all the projects we do there are
always a lot of stakeholders that want to add additional
analysis in there. I think, in fairness, we have a set of
authorities that we normally follow on what can be included and
what can't. I am not necessarily sure whether job loss is one
of those, but I think it is something we have got to be aware
of. But I am not sure that we can add it into the calculus.
Mr. Mitchell. Well, it is my understanding that job loss,
as a tertiary item, is not in that one-to-one economic
calculus. I have had pretty extensive conversations about that.
And while I understand the idea that stakeholders have a
variety of positions on it, the reality is these are people
working in this country. They are the people that vote for all
of us here. They vote for us so we can actually provide money
to the Army Corps to do what they need to do. So I think they
fall in a different category than some interest group, frankly.
So I could not encourage more the Army Corps--it is not
just this project. I just look at the projects in the country.
We need to look at the economic impact of those, in terms of
the impact on individuals to--will people lose their jobs if
you don't do it? How many people are going to be impacted? To
say that is not part of the economic analysis is, to be honest
with you, a pretty astonishing thing, to me, I have found.
What is the next step after your economic analysis, sir?
General Semonite. So then we will, obviously, see where it
competes in the budget. And if, in fact, it competes well, then
we continue to drive on.
So, we are very aggressive on the Soo locks. I personally
was there about 2 months ago. I know the Secretary is going,
and it is something that we think is very, very valuable. And
we can talk all day about security, especially with the
Department of Defense. This goes back to steel, it goes back to
other things, when it comes to what the Department of Defense
needs in time of war to be able to make sure we have the right
degree of iron ore to be able to take care of our country.
Mr. Mitchell. Well, and you are right. On the national
security front, it is not just a time of war. The ability to
supply iron ore and various other things for the defense
contractors to build what they are currently building just to
make this country safe is jeopardized.
Can you real briefly, as I am running out of time, outline
a couple of the national security concerns you see with not
having a second lock?
General Semonite. Well, I think it really goes back to what
our Nation would need to be able to mobilize very, very
quickly. And if you don't have that capability coming in, you
are just going to have to find what we talked about earlier.
You are going to have to find another way of moving iron ore
around through the lock, and that is very expensive, and it
takes a lot of time.
Mr. Mitchell. That infrastructure doesn't exist right now,
either.
General Semonite. Exactly right.
Mr. Mitchell. Rail lines to move around the Soo locks was
between $6 and $10 billion, and the cost to put in a new lock
is estimated at what?
General Semonite. I am not sure of the number, sir.
Mr. Mitchell. OK.
General Semonite. It is a large number, without a doubt. I
can get it to you, it is in the book.
Mr. Mitchell. I appreciate it.
General Semonite. I will see you afterward, and I will tell
you the number in about a half an hour.
Mr. Mitchell. Well, my time is expired, and I appreciate
the--thank you, sir.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. I am
going to turn to the gentlewoman from Illinois, Mrs. Bustos.
Mrs. Bustos. All right. Thank you, Chairman Graves and
Congresswoman Esty, and thanks to the Army Corps for being here
today.
My congressional district covers the entire northwestern
region of the State of Illinois. So the entire western border
of my district and, of course, the State of Illinois is the
Mississippi River, and then we have the Illinois River that
runs through the southern part of my district. So I just want
you to understand where I am coming from.
And I know that people from throughout my congressional
district would line up and talk with you about how the locks
and dams have outlived their usefulness. I mean you understand
this.
Our inland waterway system moves more than 600 million tons
of cargo each year. But because of the outdated infrastructure,
nearly half of the shippers are experiencing delays. Again, I
know I am not telling you anything you don't know.
The fix-as-fail approach of the locks and dams puts our
growers and our manufacturers and the navigation industry into
a guessing game as to whether they are going to be able to
deliver their goods on time. And Assistant Secretary James, I
know that, as a farmer, that you understand this. And I am
really happy to have you at the Corps. I love that you have
that background.
Also, I know that my colleague from Illinois, Congressman
Davis, brought up NESP. And that both the navigation and
environmental aspects of the program are critical to his
district, my district, to our State, to our region. So I do
really appreciate your commitment and also would appreciate
being able to work with you, and just wanted to let you know I
am somebody who you can work with on that program.
So let me get to my questions. The President's fiscal year
2019 budget request proposed a new user fee on commercial barge
owners operating on the inland waterway system. This fee would
be on top of the current diesel fuel tax that was just raised
in 2014.
At the same time, the budget fails to spend the money that
users have already paid into the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. So
I am wondering what the administration's reasoning is behind
imposing a new user fee, while failing to reinvest the full
money users have already paid to improve our locks and dam
system.
And, Mr. James, maybe you could start with that, please.
Mr. James. Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Bustos. Thank you.
Mr. James. Thank you for the welcome.
Mrs. Bustos. Yes.
Mr. James. The increased fee is to prepare for
infrastructure investment in the inland waterway system over
the next 10 years. I know we have a balance in there right now,
and I do know that the navigation industry heartily agreed to
the 29 cents. I can't honestly say what they think about the
additional fee. I haven't talked to them about that.
But that is why we have asked to put on that additional
fee, to try to build up a coffer so that when we do get the
money through the regular funding process, we can move out on
these antiquated locks and dams.
Mrs. Bustos. Lieutenant General, anything you would like
to----
Mr. James. It wouldn't be my way of doing things, those
trust funds. But that is the way they are.
General Semonite. I think the Secretary has got it, ma'am.
Mrs. Bustos. OK. Now, is there an economic analysis that
you could provide that would evaluate the impact of a user fee
on the commercial barge industry to help them understand, to
help us understand what that would do to the cost of goods
being shipped along our rivers?
Mr. James. I haven't seen anything like that in writing.
The staff will look at that, and if I can find something, I
will sure get it to you.
Mrs. Bustos. OK, that would be helpful. We would just like
to have a deeper understanding of what that would look like, if
you don't mind.
Mr. James. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Bustos. With my remaining 1 minute and 20 seconds, so
we have an $8.7 billion backlog of inland waterway projects. So
when the President gave a speech about our locks and dams last
summer, on the Ohio River I had hoped to see a plan for real
investment in infrastructure.
Unfortunately, there hasn't been additional Federal
investment in the locks and dams plan. And with no new starts
included in the budget, and so many of our locks and dams far
past their design life, as we have just brought up, what is the
administration's plan for addressing the need to upgrade our
locks and dams? If you could get into that, either one of you.
Mr. James. Ma'am, I can't address that at this time. I
guess I would say I don't know the position right now. That is
basically a pretty deep policy position, and honestly, I
haven't been here long enough to get into that.
If I can determine that, I will get to you with it as soon
as possible.
Mrs. Bustos. OK. And we would love to have a deeper
conversation after you have had a chance to get settled in a
little bit. And Lieutenant General, is there anything that you
might be able to offer on that?
General Semonite. I would just say, ma'am, the most
important thing we can do is, from an engineering perspective,
make sure that Congress and the administration understand the
risk if, in fact, you don't invest in infrastructure.
Mrs. Bustos. That is a great point. That is a great point.
All right. I am out of time, and I just want to thank you
both for answering my questions. I appreciate it.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you. We are going to go to
the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massie.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to note
that my colleagues have asked a lot of dam questions today, but
nobody has asked the dam question I care about.
I wanted to ask about Olmsted and lock 53. The whole series
of dams works together, and so, even though this project is not
in my district, it matters to everybody, really, in the eastern
part of the country. We had some intermittent problems with
lock 53. And so everybody is anxiously awaiting seeing Olmsted
come online, at least enough to ameliorate the issues at lock
53.
Could you tell us where we are on the schedule of seeing
that?
General Semonite. Sir, we are doing great on Olmsted. It
will all be done this summer. At some point we want to invite
everybody out there. We will have some type of a ceremony and
be able to make sure that we recognize that.
I think, just because you brought it up, this is where, if
you do things in a deliberate manner with full, efficient
funding, then we can get things done the right way. So this is
where we had the capability, did it in a period of time. I am
sure everybody would like to have gone faster. There are other
locks or dams right now that we are dribbling money at, which,
instead of doing it in an efficient way, which could be 3 or 4
years, we are doing it over 15 or 20 years. And as a result, it
just gets to be very, very inefficient, and very, very
expensive.
But Olmsted is a success story of how to be able to
effectively fund a project.
Mr. Massie. Well, we can ring the bell when it is working.
I think we have had a few times in Congress--not that
particular project--where we celebrate a victory too early. But
when it is working, I will be glad to help cut the ribbon.
Until it is working, don't bother inviting me to the ribbon
cutting.
Mr. James, welcome on board. Congratulations on your
nomination. I was looking through your history here and I saw
that you are an alumnus of University of Kentucky.
Congratulations. That is not my alma mater, but we are awfully
proud of it in Kentucky.
Mr. James. Well, we all couldn't get in there, sir.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Massie. Yes. Some of us had to settle for MIT.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Massie. I wanted to ask you about the President's
initiative here, following up on Mrs. Bustos's questions and
concerns. And I know you have only been in the hot seat for a
few weeks, but some of us were left sort of scratching our head
more at what the proposal for the user fees didn't say than
what it did say.
I don't think that the users of the inland waterways are
excited about paying a new fee after having voluntarily agreed
to an increase in the fee they pay. You know, one thing I would
like to note. The harbors and the inland waterways are similar
in that the recreational folks get a free ride, if you will.
But the inland waterways also have some other users, like the
hydroelectric dams and many municipal water supplies who
benefit from the inland waterways. So there is not a whole lot
of excitement for paying more fees from the one user that does
pay the fee.
But one thing that I did want to ask about before I run out
of time is P3s [public-private partnerships] were put forward
in the President's plan as a way to maybe facilitate more
investment in infrastructure. But a concern that I have and a
lot of folks share is who would the investors of these P3s be.
Would these be Wall Street banks, sovereign funds, foreign
national companies? And is it wise to let foreign countries
have ownership of such a strategic and important part of our
infrastructure that plays a role not just in transportation,
but also water supply?
I am going to ask you, Mr. James.
Mr. James. Well, I have a concern about those, as well. My
concern is that the areas of the country that don't have
buyers, whoever they are, to help furnish money for projects
may be left out under that scenario.
Now, the President, I was very happy to see that in his
proposal he has funding for rural America cut out of there as a
slice--a pretty good slice--of his proposed funding for the
infrastructure initiative.
So you know, to answer your question directly, I don't
think I can. I have no idea of the planning, that initiative
has not trickled down to my level. And so I really can't answer
your question.
Mr. Massie. Well, let me just close by thanking you,
General Semonite, for the attention to Olmsted. We are very
appreciative of the action that has been taken on that, and
understand that it requires funding to pay for it.
And Mr. James, I look forward to working with you, and just
ask that the users who are going to pay the fees be included in
the discussion about any alternate ways of paying those fees.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you. We can go to the
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member, for holding the hearing. And let me again acknowledge
and welcome our witnesses, and say that one of the President's
infrastructure legislative principles includes the Federal
divestiture of assets. And I understand that we are seeking new
and creative ways to fund infrastructure projects.
However, what we don't want is to sell off our assets to
simply the highest bidders, regardless of the entity's ability
to efficiently and effectively manage those assets for the
public good.
I am from Dallas, Texas. It is the inland part of the
State, where we have to build and supply our own water. And I
believe that the State and local governments are best equipped
to understand and utilize these assets that the Federal
Government is looking to divest itself from the responsibility.
But in this context of Federal divestiture, has the Corps
considered a right of first refusal for State and local
government entities?
Mr. James. On the particular projects, ma'am, no. I think
the way I have read what is out there at this time is that
State and local governments plus any other entity could get in
on that plan, as far as purchasing.
Ms. Johnson. Well, as this consideration goes forward, I
would like very much to get your commitment that you will first
consider the impact on local communities, because Texas relies
heavily on its inland waterways for the movement of goods and
throughout the gulf. In fact, just this week the Corps outlined
its plan to modernize the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway at the
Brazos River flood gates and the Colorado River locks.
However, the President's budget request proposes some
alarming changes to the Inland Waterway Trust Fund that could
impact the cost of goods for shipment along the inland system,
such as the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Even more alarming is
the President's push to privatize segments of the inland
waterways system.
I would like if you would elaborate on the rationale behind
this push to privatize certain projects along these inland
waterways, and then how it might impact existing projects such
as the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway project in Texas.
It is unique that an inland city is one of the largest
trade cities in the country. And so we depend a lot on
transporting by waterways, both the ports at Houston, as well
as Long Beach. And we have some real concerns about the
waterways and how they are being managed.
Mr. James. I understand and I sympathize with your
concerns. But at this time I would like to visit with you on
that as I get more information, due to the fact that I haven't
been here very long, and I apologize for that. But as I get the
information and digest the information, get some briefing on
the information, I would like to visit with you further on this
subject.
Ms. Johnson. OK. Well, thank you very much. We have had
great working relationships with the Corps. We want to continue
that. And I appreciate your willingness to get back with me.
In 2017, Hurricane Harvey brought the greatest amount of
waterfall ever recorded in the lower 48 States, due to a single
storm in Texas. In what ways does the President's budget
request help to not only meet our current water-related
infrastructure needs, but also to build these projects more
durably, because we know that resilience is going to be very
important for the future.
General Semonite. So, ma'am, let me take that. I think the
most important way is not necessarily in this year's budget,
but it is in the supplemental, the disaster supplemental that
was passed. We got $17.4 billion from Congress to be able to
invest. And there was a very specific lay-down of where that
money should go. But most of that money would go into the areas
that were affected by Harvey, Irma, and Maria.
So that is where we are really going to be able to look at
the resiliency. How do we come back in? So some of that--we
will have to look at studies, there are a lot of different
engineering solutions. But as we continue to put that portfolio
together, we will bring it back up and then make sure that
everybody is informed as to where that investment is going to
go.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I thank the gentlewoman from
Texas. We are going to go to the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Webster, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Lieutenant General, I have a question about the--there was
a backlog prevention provision in the last WRDA bill, and I
assumed that that would mean that there would be
deauthorizations of some sort. Is there an ongoing list? Are
you working on that? Is that happening?
General Semonite. Yes, sir. We have the list--I have got it
right here--of exactly where we are trying to deauthorize.
Also, some of this is where we are getting disposition to get
rid of things that we don't need any more. So we can----
Mr. Webster. Is there a dollar amount associated with that,
or an ongoing--or a dollar amount that----
General Semonite. I don't think it is that--I have got
dollar amounts for every single project. We can certainly lay
this out for you, exactly where you want to ask. But I have got
probably a 20-page list here of different items that are in
there.
Mr. Webster. Is it growing or is it done?
General Semonite. No, I think it is--there is a dollar
number. I am looking at a deauthorization list of $1.48
billion. And I think sometimes things get added, sometimes they
come out. I think it is probably continuing to get smaller. But
let me verify and come back with you on that.
Mr. Webster. Well, print it out before it gets smaller,
maybe we could stop the going down.
But is there a provision or anything to make a report to
Congress on those?
General Semonite. This is an annual list. I think we
provide it every single year. Some of this is where the
locals--the sponsor doesn't have the funds, or something
changes on the local side. So you authorize us to go on with a
project, but the conditions are not necessarily set to go.
So then they just hang on the list. And several people have
talked about the $95 billion. If there are places that are not
good investments, where we can make that list smaller, we
certainly want to do that.
Mr. Webster. Right. So you don't make a periodic list and
give it to the Congress?
General Semonite. It is my understanding we provide this
list every year.
Mr. Webster. You do.
General Semonite. And if you need to, I will make a
photocopy and get you the list in a couple days.
Mr. Webster. I would love to have it.
General Semonite. OK.
Mr. Webster. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Webster. I next go
to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Ms. Esty, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Esty. Well, thank you very much. Welcome, Mr.
Secretary, welcome and thank you, Lieutenant General. We
appreciate you being here all the way to the bitter end with
those of us that are left here today.
I wanted to let you know about and will certainly share
with your staff, John Katko, who is not able to be with us here
today, he and I co-led a group of 24 Democrats and 24
Republicans called the Problem Solvers Group with a study on
infrastructure. And water projects were an important part of
that. And one of those pieces was about the need for us to
adhere to taking dedicated funds--in this case the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund--and ensuring it is spent for the
purpose for which it is collected. This is important for
several reasons.
Number one, we actually have needs that are not being met.
And our failure to meet those needs in U.S. ports is leading to
a loss of business, to China and to Mexico, that endangers our
national security by having more overland traffic, in
particular coming up through Mexico, which leads, in my
district, to issues with opioids, illegal guns, and other
issues.
So it has a national security component when we don't
properly dredge our ports to a level that they can actually
accommodate these larger ships. So it has real-world
consequences, not just for the jobs which are important in
those districts, but it has national security and health
consequences for Americans. So I think we need to keep that in
mind.
And there is a broader question of the faith and trust of
the American people. You know, people are willing to pay for
gas tax and other things when they see their roads getting
fixed. Shippers are willing to accept these fees. But when they
don't see it being put to the use for which it is collected,
then that undermines the faith of the American people, and
their willingness to support the projects that you know are
needed and that we know are needed.
So I think it is very important, and I hope you will help
us be advocates for respecting what those funds are used for.
And so I just want to put that out there, because I think it is
broader than just the issue, the important issue, of us not
having adequately funded. It is also this question about the
trust of people from whom we collect fees. And if we don't do
that, we lose our ability to fund--pretty much all
infrastructure is funded on that basis. And when we underfund
some areas like the Highway Trust Fund and take out of the
general fund, and when we raid from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund to put into the general fund, we are undercutting
those core principles.
So I--that is really more of a statement than any question,
but I hope you know how seriously we take this, and I think
there is a growing number of Members on both sides of the
aisle, a lot of them in this committee, that are going to be
fierce about defending that, and want you to know that, and
your assistance in doing this, which I think has broader
implications for the United States.
I met yesterday with the National League of Cities, and
they were in Washington to meet with Members of Congress, but
also to launch and announce their commitment to a set of
principles around resilient infrastructure, several things that
are relevant for us in this room today.
Number one, their focus is on flooding. These are mayors of
big and small cities, Democrats and Republicans from all over
the country. And all of them are struggling with and worried
about flooding. They are worried about property loss, they are
worried about loss of life. And there are vigorous debates--
and, actually, Eddie Bernice Johnson and I, we're bouncing back
and forth between the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology and this committee, we can have the debates all day
long about whether there is climate change and what is causing
it, but you ask any mayor who is dealing with flooding, you ask
the mayor of Meriden, Connecticut, in my district, my next-door
city, they will say they don't care what the explanation is;
they know it is happening. And it floods out the middle of
their city, and has done it for decades, and it is getting
worse.
So I think it is going to be important. And they called on
the need for actual funding and said it cannot be--and several
of my colleagues have mentioned this. You know, Wall Street is
not going to pay to deal with flooding projects in Meriden,
Connecticut. And so I can tell you--and I will share with you
the big city and small city mayors across this country who are
looking to this committee, looking to the administration, and
looking to the Corps to help them with dealing with these
flooding problems, which have gotten worse because we haven't
dealt with them, and now we have climate issues such as 50
inches of rainfall falling in Houston.
The last piece to flag for you is the need to use new and
resilient materials and better planning processes. This is part
of what the National League of Cities called for, but it is
also part of our bipartisan proposal. So again I would like to
follow up, but I see my time is already expired. But you should
know there is intense interest at all levels of Government,
bipartisan, for incorporation of new materials, better
research, and better planning, so that we are making better use
of taxpayer dollars on all of these, and would like to work
closely with you.
And I see, Lieutenant General, you are nodding your head
vigorously, because you know this is something we need to fix
together.
Thank you, and I have nothing to yield back.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you. Let the record reflect
he was nodding his head vigorously, so----
[Laughter.]
Ms. Esty. Exactly, he was. Indeed, I wasn't just saying
that.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you. We are going to go to
the gentleman from South Carolina, who I want to thank for
hosting us on a good trip to Charleston to see what is going on
with the port over there.
Mr. Sanford, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sanford. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, since you bring up the
port in Charleston, I will speak on the port in Charleston.
As you all well know, it has kicked off the deepening
project. The chairman was kind enough to come down and give it
a direct look, and I appreciate his time in doing so.
As you furthermore know, it is the first project to go
through the SMART [Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Risk
Informed, Timely] planning process, and then, by extension, to
enter into the advanced project agreement. And inasmuch as the
administration has signaled its desire to move into more on the
way of public-private partnerships, and inasmuch as Charleston
has been rather innovative on that front, I would, one, be
curious at sort of a 30,000-foot level to get your take on what
is indeed being done to enhance the odds of more projects being
done, as was done in Charleston.
But two, there is a downside to what happened here. And if
you look at the benefit-cost ratio, in essence Charleston will
be penalized for the amount of State money that has gone into
the project.
And so, the formula, as you look at updating things, I
think needs to be updated so that other ports, whether it is--
well, not Georgia, but other places other than Georgia, are not
penalized in the process. Because if, in fairness, a local port
is able to work with leaders in the State and come up with
substantial funds, I don't think you want to be penalizing that
process as we try and expedite more throughput to get to the
$95 or $100 billion that is outstanding.
Thoughts on both of those fronts?
Mr. James. Since I am not really familiar with how
Charleston got from where it was to where it is, it is already
being constructed, I am going to turn that----
Mr. Sanford. Yes, sir?
General Semonite. So, sir, I was the division commander
when we started that process, and I was there 3 years. I was
down there last week when we did the first dig. A great
project.
I think what the Corps has done--and I don't think you
heard the beginning of my statement, but we have proposed a lot
of different options to the administration on how to look at
benefit-cost ratio. There is another formula called remaining
benefit-cost ratio. Some of these have got to be justified
every single year.
So we are trying to propose some good, innovative solutions
to try to both incentivize people to be able to step up and put
money in. But at the same time we have got to be cautious
because, as the Secretary said, there are some areas where you
might not find someone with those funds. You don't want to
necessarily penalize somebody else. So how do we find that
balance? And those are some of the things the Corps is looking
at recommending back to the administration.
Mr. Sanford. Could you expand on that, though? I mean, in
other words, because that gray area that we are talking about
between, well, you don't want to penalize entities or places
that wouldn't necessarily have those funds, but you do want to
reward places that are innovative that do provide those funds.
That gray area is ultimately what we are getting at,
because, I mean, one could argue South Carolina is a relatively
poor State, compared to a State like, let's say, Connecticut,
on a per capita basis. They mustered pretty deep to come up
with a couple hundred million and change, the number that they
came up with.
I mean it could be arguable that South Carolina is--again,
on a per capita basis, relative to the rest of the Nation, not
as well off. And therefore, they didn't have the money, but
they came up with it because they said it is an absolute
priority. How do we better, again, reward States or entities
that do so?
General Semonite. So I will keep this very short, sir, but
the bottom line is, on the benefit-cost ratio, if in fact
somebody puts additional funds in above their share, then in
fact, should the Federal Government approve that those dollars
should come off of the Federal share, to a degree.
And then you can recalculate that particular one. That is
not the way the current system works. Especially with not
necessarily OMB, but as to how is it scored, as it goes through
its way in the process.
Mr. Sanford. So, indirectly, it hurts a place like
Charleston, currently.
General Semonite. These are things we are trying to
recommend; some solutions on how to do this in an effort to be
able to solicit the more incentivized funds coming in. I think
it is right in line with where the administration is trying to
go.
As several people have said, we can't afford $95 billion of
projects, so how do you find other people to bring that money
to the table, and then incentivize them to do that?
Mr. Sanford. And I would just close it out with I think
that Charleston, at least to a degree, shows the way there. And
I would just hope that, as we move forward with the project,
that Charleston is not again penalized for what it did, in
terms of local equity on that front.
With that I would yield back, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sanford.
And I want to give a shout-out to Mr. Woodall for accommodating
some complexity in the schedule. Thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary--excuse me--Mr. Secretary, General, as you
know, this hearing is related to the six Chief's Reports and
the PACR [Post-Authorization Change Report] that had been
issued since our last WRDA bill, the one enacted in 2016. Could
you just briefly discuss any opposition to the Chief's Reports,
the PACR that have been issued? Any concerns that have been
raised?
General Semonite. Sir, I personally signed all those,
Chairman. I don't know of any specific issues. In any type of a
project there are going to be different opinions, especially
maybe an environmental opinion or perhaps different ways that
they should have been formulated. But I think those are very,
very solid projects, which are good investments to the Nation.
I want to continue to also let you know that, between now
and June--if, in fact, June is a potential cut-off--I expect to
sign five more. And I also expect to be able to bring two more
PACRs in. And we will give you that list, so you have that. In
total----
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Please.
General Semonite [continuing]. For the rest of the fiscal
year, we see 11 more Chief's Reports coming. So it depends on
when the cut-off is, Chairman, of when you have got to be able
to do that. But we are trying to get those as fast as we can.
But I see 11 more this fiscal year, 5 by the end of June. There
are some disposition studies, as well, we are going to owe you.
So that way we can take some things off the books.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Great, thank you. And this isn't a
leading question. Is it appropriate to say that the non-Federal
sponsors in all cases of the six plus the PACR are on board
with the reports?
General Semonite. Exactly right, Chairman.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Great, thank you. General, we also
have some projects that are moving through the process under
the section 203 authority. Could you lay out sort of how you
see that evolving, and how that would be incorporated into the
authorization process?
General Semonite. I will try to do this quickly. We can
give you more detail. We think there is merit in the section
203. A good example is the State of Florida right now wants to
be able to push a section 203 on an Everglades project.
Initially, we went through with generic guidance to try to hit
all section 203s. And unfortunately, just one size doesn't fit
all. And we couldn't do it that way.
So now we have very specific guidance. We want to be able
to partner with whatever that entity is that is going to do the
section 203. Because, at the end of the day, we want to make
sure this is a good investment for the taxpayers, so then we
are coaching and mentoring to a degree that entity to be able
to continue to bring that section 203 back in. And we think
that is working very aggressively. We are doing as much as we
can possibly do to be able to make sure that the integrity and
the engineering is in that section 203. Then the Secretary gets
it, he will make those decisions, and then we will continue to
support that.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Great, thank you. And in addition
to Florida, General, I want to highlight the fact that there is
actually one in Louisiana----
General Semonite. I have heard of one there, yes, sir.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana [continuing]. That I have
particular interest in, the Houma Navigation Canal, among
others. And that is one of those projects that you and I have
discussed, and I have discussed it with your predecessor and
his predecessor and his predecessor and his predecessor and his
predecessor.
Suffice to say the timeline is unacceptable. So that
deepening project is--or the lack of deepening project, the
lack of urgency there, is resulting in us losing business not
to Texas and Mississippi, but losing business to Asia, to South
Korea, to China and other countries, having real impacts on
real economic activity, real jobs, real people right here in
America. And so I want to highlight that.
And look, I had the chance to meet with you and Secretary
James on a regular basis, and we are going to continue doing
that. So rather than burning all my time, I am going to say one
more time I think that the timeline for our water resource
projects are completely unacceptable. I think the ratio of
getting $1 to $2 billion in construction for a $100 billion
program is ridiculous.
I am going to remind you that we have seen, under the Obama
administration, we have seen under the Trump administration
where your mission is being carried out by other agencies
because you are being circumvented by, again, by the Obama
administration, by the Trump administration, and I think that
goes back to the lack of efficiency in delivering some of these
projects.
And most importantly, these projects aren't luxuries. These
projects, in many cases, mean life or death. Fifteen hundred of
my fellow citizens died in Louisiana as a result of Hurricane
Katrina. Fifteen hundred. I am never going to forget that,
never. And I am not ever going to stop pushing you all to
deliver these projects more efficiently.
With that, I am going to yield to the gentleman from
Georgia to take over the chair. I have got to run over to
Secretary Zinke, but I wanted to thank you both very much for
being here. I appreciate it.
And Chairman Woodall is going to finish this thing up.
Mr. Woodall [presiding]. Making time for one last
questioner. Secretary James, we have not gotten a chance to
meet before. I am Rob Woodall from Georgia, and I want the
first words that you hear from me to be words of appreciation.
They might not define our relationship forever going forward,
but I wanted to define our relationship on day one.
Lake Lanier, down in the great State of Georgia is in my
district. And about the turn of the century--because you all
were responsible for all the docks there on Lake Lanier, you
put out guidance to say don't put your dishwashers out there on
your dock, don't put the old ratty sofa out there, don't store
a rotting lawnmower on your dock. I don't know what you were
thinking about your good friends from Georgia there when you
put out that guidance. But among the items on that list were no
security cameras on your dock, no doubt with a nod towards
privacy of folks who were on the lake.
Well, we have had a spate of crime and vandalism, theft
there on the lake, and we shared that with your local folks
about a year ago today. It took them about 3 months to go
through the public comment process, a visit with folks about
how to make that better, and then rescind that prohibition on
security cameras on docks so that our land owners, property
owners, could feel safe and secure. I want to thank you for
that. We have heard a lot about delays here today. I want you
to know when I brought that concern to you you moved quickly,
efficiently, brought everybody to the table, and came out with
something that we can be enthusiastic about as a community.
Thank you. Thank you for that.
I also want to be able to define our relationship--I know
you said you hadn't had a chance to focus a lot on ports in
your first 4 weeks, so I can tell you everything you need to
know about ports. It begins with Savannah and all comes down
from there.
The Savannah Harbor expansion project this committee
authorized in 2014. It is the largest single container terminal
in the country. It has been the fastest growing for the last
decade. And in fact, our benefit-cost ratio has been rising
throughout this time. It was 5.5 when we started, 7.3 today.
Chairman Graves has worked with us on that, Chairman Shuster
has worked with us on that. Certainly you have worked with us,
as a Corps, and we are grateful for that.
We fronted the project dollars out of Georgia. We put up
the State match first, spent that money first, as we were going
through the process: $266 million. We have also decided to put
in an additional $35 million, going to bump up that required
match by about 15 percent more, because this is so important,
not just to us as a State, to us as a region, I would argue to
us, as a country. But for a project that is due in 2021, we are
having a tough time getting the money out of the
administration; $49 million was in the President's request.
I just want to put that on your radar screen. We are going
to have to start having that conversation about how to be
better partners with you. We once had the ability to get
together as a committee, decide what our priorities were, and
put that money in the Corps budget so that you all wouldn't
have to come to folks whose constitutional responsibility is to
appropriate funds and get fussed at for why we are not
appropriating funds fast enough.
But my question to you there, now that you know that the
premier port project in the country is the Port of Savannah,
and it has only been allocated $49 million in the President's
budget request, do you anticipate some more flexibility to
dedicate dollars to ports, to projects that are on a short
build frame with a high benefit-cost ratio?
Mr. James. Sir, I can't answer that question right now.
Mr. Woodall. Well, if you didn't have a yes, I didn't want
you to answer it anyway.
Mr. James. Oh, I----
Mr. Woodall. That was the only answer I was going to be
excited about. So thank you for deferring.
We need to find a way to take that off of our disagreement
list and put it on our working together list. There is not a
single constituency represented in the committee that is served
by rising costs that come from delayed funding. I know we can
crack that nut together, and I look forward to working with you
on that.
My last question also involves Lake Lanier. We, as you all
know, have been working through a water resources challenge
there in Metropolitan Atlanta. I only represent two counties.
One of them is Forsyth County, on which the lake sits, and the
county water supply is brought in through an intake that
belongs to the city. The county has an allocation, but the city
brings in the water through a city intake. So we are having
that conversation now about how to get a county intake into
Lake Lanier to access a county allocation of water. The dollar
values of taxpayer savings vary, depending on who you talk to.
But because we have been involved in litigation in Lake
Lanier for so long, water control manuals notwithstanding, we
recognize folks have not been in the permitting-handing-out
business, what guidance can you give to me, just because we
have a little privacy here in the committee room today, about
the process for getting a county intake, a right of way
approved for a county intake for what will be a county
allocation of water that the State of Georgia requests?
General Semonite. So, sir, I was a division commander down
in Atlanta for 3 years. I know Lanier inside and out. And this
is normally something that we can facilitate relatively
straightforwardly. We have to do a special type of a permit,
probably a section 408, but we have streamlined those, and we
have to go through that. There is clearly a cost issue to work
out.
I think the challenge we are going to have here goes back
to the litigation and to be able to make sure we talk about the
water supply impact. And you know all of the details of the
different parties that are in that litigation.
So if, in fact, we think we are cleared to go green on
that, then I think that is probably a relatively
straightforward process. If in fact it goes back to now whether
it is not so much the pipe, then the question is the water
supply component. If, in fact, that is somehow wrapped back
into an additional draw on Lake Lanier that is not in the water
control manual--it is those kind of mechanics we have got to
work out.
I am not aware of exactly where we are at on that
particular one, but Colonel Griffin is our district commander--
I am sorry, Mobile is the district the service is at. I will
make sure that Colonel DeLapp comes and talks to you where we
can and walk you through that.
We want to help facilitate, wherever we can, counties to be
able to do this in a more streamlined process.
Mr. Woodall. I appreciate that, General. And finally, we
are wonderful stewards of water resources in our part of the
world. In fact, we have a $1 billion water treatment plant that
sits there on Lake Lanier. We even pump water up over the
Continental Divide, Mr. Secretary, in order to get it back into
a basin that is in need.
We don't get much credit for return flows these days, and
much, of course, is a generous term I am using. We don't--there
is no incentive today to be a good actor in that basin. And I
know that is true of other places across the country. How it is
we can work together to make sure we are incentivizing good
behavior, no matter how many dollars we have, if we are using
those dollars to maximize efficiency, I know we will all be
better served. And so I look forward to working with you in
your new capacity, and continuing to work with General Semonite
on the return flow issue. I thank you, Mr. Secretary.
The gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
my sliding in at the very last second, but my previous
committee took all of 2 hours for me to get to my point in it,
so I appreciate everybody's indulgence and the rest of the
members of the committee here, and importantly, our witnesses,
too. So thank you.
A very important issue in my district--I am not sure if Mr.
Garamendi was in here earlier to provide--OK, very good, I am
sure he did. On the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency, a
project in the Yuba-Sutter area of northern California on the
Feather River, which--all the issues emanate from the Oroville
Dam above there, which we don't probably have to recount much
of the history of that with the crisis a year ago on the
spillway there.
So it all ties together. What we are talking about here on
that project--again, to quickly review this--it is a 41-mile
levee project that 36 miles out of the 41 have already been
completed with basically zero cost to the Federal Government.
What we need is a rapid new start to complete the last 5 miles.
The Federal Government originally was obligated for up to
$689 million at cost. They have pruned the price down, due to
the good works at the local level and self-funding from a
measure that the locals paid for on that. So we are down again
to the last 5 miles. Locals are tapped out on the dollars. And
so they are looking for that new start with only $49 million
left to complete the final 5 miles of the 41-mile project,
which--again, the original cost would have been $689 million
and taken longer, and has been pruned down to $376 million,
with the local work.
So, if the designation can be made and given and the money
transferred, at least just partially this year, but with the
commitment to 2 years, we can be done--one and done, right? In
2019. And I know the administration is looking for that, the
administration, in its infrastructure, has been looking for
that strong local participation.
We have already front-loaded that with this project,
stronger than, I think, the numbers that are even proposed in
the ratios that the administration is talking about. So this
would be, I think, a prime trophy moment for the administration
and importantly, the folks that are living near to this
program.
Again, it is still vulnerable to floods, because the levees
are weak. There is a lot of material in between the levees, as
a result of that washout of the spillway above at Oroville Dam.
So this would be a great partnership with Army Corps. As
you know, the Army Corps helped pay for 20 percent of Oroville
Dam originally, and owns the top 50 feet of airspace there for
flood control purposes. So it is all tied together.
And what I am asking for our gentlemen here, can we receive
this designation, get this new start this year, as well as have
a fight for the funding to keep the progress of the work going
through the December 2019 completion?
General Semonite. Sir, let me talk from the Corps'
perspective, and I will let the Secretary jump in.
We, first of all, look at this project, really, as a model.
You have done a great job out there, just like you said, taking
a massive amount of demand off the Federal Government here. We,
from the Corps perspective, would think that this would compete
very, very well in a fiscal year 2018 workplan. The Secretary
is going to be the one who is going to have to rubberstamp that
up through OMB to be able to get our workplan approved. But we
are looking at, I think, a total of $75 million, of which the
Federal share is about $50 million.
So this is something to do that would be able to get this
done, get those 4 miles complete. And I do think it is
something that the Federal Government is getting a pretty good
deal on this. And if we can help in any way, recommend the
administration get this funded, I think this would be a pretty
good investment.
I will let the Secretary jump in, if need be.
Mr. LaMalfa. I appreciate it.
Mr. James. I don't have anything to add to that, other than
the fact that it will be eligible for the 2018 workplan. And
with its history, it would probably be real eligible.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK, thank you. And both of you understand that
the locals are tapped out on the property assessments and on
that, and they have really carried it a long way. And you see
that and understand it. I appreciate it.
So, besides that, with, you know, the work that has been
done and paying for it so far, what other things could the
locals be doing to help make the case in front of you or for
you, other than myself and Mr. Garamendi here in this committee
and leading up to this point? What else could they be saying or
doing?
General Semonite. I don't think we need anything, sir. The
colonels that are out there that understand this, we have been
briefed on this several times. If there is something, we will
certainly come back. But everything we have put in the
workplan, I mean, we feel very, very solid on the engineering,
the requirement back to the Nation, the justification of it. So
I think where we are at, I think we have everything we need
right now.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Thank you for that. Again, I hate to be
the guy that pesters and pesters and such. I don't know how
that works, squeaky wheel in Government--or, as my father
always told me, ``Well, he only asked one time.'' You know how
that goes. But I know how it works a little more in the
Government.
But I do appreciate your attention to it and your listening
to us here today, and I think this will, again, be a great
success for all of us. So I look forward to inviting you out to
a levee either now or in December 2019. So thank you all.
Mr. Woodall. Gentlemen, I want to thank you both for--not
just for being here, but for answering the call of public
service. It seems like in this day and age, fewer and fewer
folks are willing to answer that call, but the Nation depends
on it. And I want to thank you both for what you do. It has
been incredibly valuable for all of us on the committee.
And unless any other Members have a concern, the committee
stands adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]