U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–941 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–372 

THE 2016 WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT 

ACT—POLICIES AND PROJECTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 16, 2016 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 16, 2016 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 1 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 13 

WITNESSES 

Darcy, Jo-Ellen United States Assistant Secretary of The Army ........................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 18 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 21 

Senator Booker .......................................................................................... 22 

Bostick, Thomas P., Lieutenant General, Commanding General and Chief 

of Engineers .......................................................................................................... 24 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 36 

Senator Booker .......................................................................................... 39 

(1) 

THE 2016 WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT 

ACT—POLICIES AND PROJECTS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James Inhofe (chairman 

of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Inhofe, Boxer, Vitter, Barrasso, Capito, 

Boozman, Wicker, Fischer, Rounds, Sullivan, Carper, Cardin, 

Whitehouse, Merkley, and Gillibrand. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. All right, this meeting will come to order. Just 

before any of our people have to leave, let me just share, this is 

a big deal. This is the ultimate looking the gift horse in the mouth; 

when we are short of resources in the Corps and there are people 

willing to do things at their own expense, and we drag it out and 

make it difficult. So let me say that in a longer form. 

This is our second hearing on the 2016 WRDA. At our February 

10th hearing we heard about the importance of rebuilding America’s crumbling waterways and flood control infrastructure, and the 

national economic benefits that this infrastructure supports. 

Today we will hear from the Assistant Secretary of the Army, JoEllen Darcy, and the Chief of Engineers, Lieutenant General 

Bostick, about new water resources projects to improve the infrastructure and the Corps’ policies that can help or hinder the development of the project benefits. 

As I mentioned at our February 10th hearing, we are back on 

schedule to pass a WRDA bill every 2 years. This allows Congress 

to help meet the demands of navigation, flood control, ecosystems 

and restoration projects around the Country. Since we passed the 

last WRDA bill, that was June 2014, the Chief of Engineers has 

completed 22 reports recommending new water resources projects 

or changes to existing projects and has submitted these reports to 

Congress. We are considering these projects for the 2016 WRDA. 

All of them will provide significant benefits. 

In addition, under the new process established in WRDA 2014, 

our States and local governments have submitted 172 requests for 

studies that can lead to new water resources projects or modifications to existing projects. Of these, the Corps determined that 49 

2 

met the criteria set forth in WRDA. The Corps has sent those study 

requests to Congress and we are reviewing them. 

These projects and studies, if requested by a senator, will form 

the core of the 2016 WRDA, and the staff already has put together 

that base text. We also are reviewing the policy and programmatic 

issues that senators have brought to our attention. 

We all know that the Corps is operating under constrained budgets. At our February 10th hearing, we heard from witnesses, including Bob Portiss, my director of the Port of Catoosa in Oklahoma, that in some cases even the operational status of our navigable waterways can be at risk. That is why we want to make sure 

that you have the authority, you being the Corps, to accept money, 

goods and services from your non-Federal sponsors when they are 

willing to supplement your resources on a voluntary, non-reimbursable basis. 

It just blows my mind to think that is happening. We have such 

great things that we are behind on that we need to have done, and 

they are willing to come forth with their own resources to make 

this happen, and we say no or we stall them. That is the Government way. 

So I look forward to working with you, the Corps, and your staff 

to help draft language to achieve this goal. 

We also want to work with you and do more to encourage publicprivate partnerships. This can include private funded expansions of 

infrastructure to produce new and greater benefits, like expanding 

water supplies and energy production. 

If the private sector is willing to invest with the understanding 

that they can market what they create, in other words, if something doesn’t exist today and they make it exist, they should be entitled to do that. Under the current process, it seems like the Corps 

looks for ways to say no, and I want to work with you guys to encourage partnerships where the Corps is looking for ways to say 

yes. 

As you know, there is a lot of interest in the water supply issues. 

The Corps does not own water, but it currently manages about 9.8 

million acre feet of water that can be used for municipal water supply or irrigation purposes. In WRDA 2014, we required reports on 

how the Corps manages its reservoirs. One report was due last 

June and the other is due this coming June, but we haven’t seen 

any results from that yet. We want to work with you, the Corps, 

to help optimize the use of water that is already available, while 

meeting existing project purposes and honoring existing water 

rights. 

Like many States, Oklahoma has suffered in previous years due 

to drought. Yet, we have unused water in 12 lakes in Oklahoma. 

I want to work with you to ensure that this unused water can be 

repurposed for use in Oklahoma. It is important to Oklahoma that 

WRDA is one of many tools to enact policies which plan for meeting 

water supply demands in the future. 

The main thing I want to address, though, is what I mentioned 

early on. 

With that, I recognize Senator Boxer. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

3 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

This is our second hearing on the 2016 Water Resources Development Act or 

WRDA. At our February 10th hearing, we heard about the importance of rebuilding 

Americas’s crumbling waterways and flood control infrastructure and the national 

economic benefits that this infrastructure supports. 

Today we will hear from the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Jo-Ellen Darcy, and 

the Chief of Engineers, Lt. General Bostick, about new water resources projects to 

improve that infrastructure and the water resources projects to improve that infrastructure and the Corps’ policies that can help-or hinder-the delivery of project benefits. 

As I mentioned at our February 10th hearing, we are back on schedule to pass 

a Water Resources Development Act every two years. This allows Congress to help 

meet the demands for navigation, flood control and ecosystem restoration projects 

around the country. 

Since we passed the last WRDA in June 2014, the Chief of Engineers has completed 22 reports recommending new water resources projects or changes to existing 

projects and has submitted these reports to Congress. We are considering these 

projects for the 2016 WRDA. All of them will provide significant benefits. 

In addition, under the new process established in WRDA 2014, our States and 

local Governments have submitted 172 requests for studies that can lead to new 

water resources projects or modifications to existing projects. Of these, the Corps determined that 49 met the criteria set forth in WRDA. The Corps has sent those 

study requests to Congress and we are reviewing them. 

These projects and studies, if requested by a Senator, will form the core of the 

2016 WRDA and the staff already has put together that base text. We also are reviewing the policy and programmatic issues that Senators have brought to our attention. 

We all know that the Corps is operating under constrained budgets.At our February 10th hearing we heard from witnesses, including Bo Portiss the Director of 

the Port of Catoosa, that in some cases even the operational status of our navigable 

waterways can be at risk. That is why we want to make sure that you have the 

authority of accept money, goods and services from your non-federal sponsors when 

they are willing to supplement your resources on a voluntary, non-reimbursable 

basis. I look forward to working with you and your staff to help craft language to 

achieve this goal. 

We also want to work with you to do more to encourage public private partnerships. This can include privately funded expansion of infrastructure to produce new 

and greater benefits, like expanding water supplies or energy production. 

The private sector is willing to invest, with the understanding that they can market what they create. Under the current process it seems like the Corps look for 

ways to say ‘‘no.’’ I want to work with you to encourage partnerships where the 

Corps is looking for ways to say ‘‘yes.’’ 

As you know there is a lot of interest in water supply issues. The Corps does not 

own water, but it currently manages about 9.8 million acre feet of water that can 

be used for municipal water supply or irrigation purposes. In WRDA 2014, we required reports on how the Corps manages its reservoirs. One report was due last 

June and the other is due this June, but we have not seen any progress yet. 

we want to work with you to help optimize the use of water that is already available, while meeting existing project purposes and honoring existing water rights. 

Like many States, Oklahoma has suffered in previous years due to drought. Yet, 

we have unused water in 12 lakes in Oklahoma. I want to work with you to ensure 

that this unused water can be repurposed for use in Oklahoma. It is important to 

Oklahoma that WRDA is one of many tools to enact policies which plan for meeting 

water supply demands in the future. 

Senator Boxer and I are committed to working together to find solutions where 

we can. That is why I am confident that we move a bill through committee this 

Spring and pass a WRDA in 2016. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator Inhofe. 

I am very pleased to see Secretary Darcy here and Chief Bostick, 

and I just want to make a point. With the Country in a very contentious place and so much dividing us, this is an area this ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:11 Oct 21, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\20941.TXT VERN
4 

mittee can restore some hope and faith that we can work together. 

We proved it working together on the highway bill, we proved it 

before on WRDA bills, and I just want to say to my chairman how 

much I look forward to working with him and every member of this 

Committee on both sides on this particular bill; and there is nothing standing in our way. 

It is always easiest to do nothing, because there is always an excuse. But this Committee understands our responsibility, so I am 

very hopeful we can really have a strong WRDA bill. 

Now, the new WRDA bill will support critical projects around 

this Country. They include projects for needed flood damage reduction, coastal storm protection, port deepening, and ecosystem restoration projects. Every one of those categories means more jobs, 

better and cleaner environment; it means we are looking at the infrastructure and moving forward. 

And since our 2014 WRDA bill, which I was very proud to work 

with my colleague on, 22 chief’s reports related to projects in 17 

States have been completed. And I know we each care deeply about 

our own States and the Country, so I will mention a couple in my 

State, two longstanding California priorities, the Los Angeles 

River, and people don’t know we have a Los Angeles River, and it 

can rage; and the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline projects. 

Those have been concluded. 

Also, the Salton Sea, which is proving to be a major challenge 

to us. I won’t get into it today, but it is a body of water that was 

formed by basically agriculture, and it is a stopping off place for 

almost all the wildlife you can imagine coming through the Pacific 

Flyway. It is in great trouble and is drying, and as it dries the intensity of the smell goes all the way from the Salton Sea through 

Riverside County, San Bernardino and into Los Angeles. It is dangerous. We have to act on it and we have begun in this Committee 

to address it, and I am looking forward to addressing it again. 

Now, with all the droughts that we are suffering and the need 

to look at desal and the other things long-term because of climate 

change, we still have incredible flood problems that come from extreme weather. The Committee has been very helpful to us in our 

Sacramento area, which, as I have pointed out in the past, if there 

were to a Katrina-like event, it would make Katrina look nothing 

like we thought, it would make it look like that was really bad and 

terrible, but this is horrific. So we need to move. 

I will close with this. I want to thank my chairman and his staff 

for working so hard to address the Flint crisis. In a bipartisan way, 

he reached out to Republicans and Democrats, and we almost had 

it done. And I still don’t understand why we couldn’t get it done. 

I am not even going to go into it. A couple of members have serious 

problems. 

But we can’t turn away, as we do the Water Resources Development Act, it seems to me, from this crisis that is facing us now. 

So I am hoping we can work together. I know Senator Cardin has 

some measures to look at what we can do to help avoid another 

Flint. 

I want to show you the picture of the crisis, what the pipes look 

from the corrosion; and there is just no reason. We have anti-corrosion methods here, so there have to be ways to address this so that 

5 

we prevent the crisis and we prevent the horrible effects of lead, 

particularly in our children. And speaking of children, look at this 

beautiful picture of the children delivering drinking water to their 

communities. This should never ever, ever, ever happen again. 

So we have a chance. We never know, we can’t control when we 

are born, where we are, but we are here and it is now; and we 

know about Flint and we know it is happening in Mississippi, we 

know we have issues in Baltimore with the drinking water in the 

fountains, we know we have issues in Ohio right now. It is just beginning. So I am hoping, Mr. Chairman, that working together 

with both sides wanting to solve a problem we can do it. 

Let me just add one quick thing. The President’s hands were tied 

when the Governor of Michigan asked him to declare an emergency. He couldn’t do it because the Stafford Act doesn’t allow it, 

even though it does allow help for manmade disasters such as explosions or flooding that has to do with some negligence on a dam 

project, for example. 

So I wrote some legislation to allow the President, if asked by a 

Governor, to declare an emergency and move quicker, quicker, so 

you don’t have these little kids having to deliver water, so we have 

the ability to respond. I hope my colleagues will help me with that 

bill. And there may be a way to reference it in WRDA because we 

can’t do it directly in WRDA. 

But I am excited about what lies ahead for us. I think we can 

again prove, Mr. Chairman, that this Committee can start restoring the faith of the people in the process. 

Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. Move quicker. This 

is something we are going to try to get the Corps to do on a couple 

of areas. 

So, with that, we will start with Secretary Darcy. 

STATEMENT OF JO-ELLEN DARCY, UNITED STATES ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

Ms. DARCY. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe and distinguished 

members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today to discuss the policy issues and projects that 

the Committee expects to address in a Water Resources Development Act for 2016. 

The President is committed to investing in a 21st century infrastructure for America, including its water infrastructure, in order 

to strengthen the Nation’s economy and resilience, provide for public safety, and to restore the environment. We applaud the effort 

of passing a WRDA bill every 2 years. 

Over the past century, Federal, State, local, as well as Tribal 

governments have made enormous investments in new water infrastructure, including locks and dams, levees, and other improvements. However, we must also continue our dialog regarding responsible and sustainable ways to fund the operation and maintenance of our aging water infrastructure so that it can safely and 

reliably serve current, as well as future, generations. 

State, local, and Tribal governments are taking on greater roles 

in water resources investments. We look forward to discussing additional authorities that may be needed for innovative finance modVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:11 Oct 21, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\20941.TXT VERN
6 

els and partnerships with the private sector, and to working with 

the Committee to remove barriers so that we can continue progress 

in addressing the Nation’s needs. 

We also welcome any discussion regarding how we can 

sustainably support our inland waterway infrastructure over the 

medium-and the long-term, and look forward to working together 

with you on these solutions. 

Together with State, local, and Tribal communities, the Obama 

administration is working to develop and implement structural, as 

well as non-structural, approaches to water resources challenges to 

improve their resilience. The Federal Government needs to continue to provide technical, as well as planning, assistance to help 

prepare, adapt, as well as protect communities from the impacts of 

climate change. 

Recently, the Army submitted the 2016 Report to Congress on 

Future Water Resources Development in response to section 7001 

of WRRDA 2014. This annual report, Chief’s Reports, and Post Authorization Change Reports will help inform the decisionmaking of 

this Committee on a collection of new projects that can be considered for WRDA 2016. 

Our written testimony briefly describes the 13 Chief’s Reports 

that have completed executive branch review since WRRDA 2014, 

five of which completed executive branch review subsequent to submission of our annual report on the 1st of February. 

Since 1996, the Corps of Engineers has developed and implemented an Indian Affairs program. We have Tribal liaisons at 

Corps headquarters and at all 38 districts and 8 division offices. 

We have trained over 1,500 Federal agency staff and Tribal consultation processes, as well as establishing a Tribal Center of Expertise at our district in Albuquerque. 

In recent years we have made significant progress working with 

the Columbia River Basin Tribes on salmon and habitat issues, 

with Puget Sound Tribes on flood risk management and habitat 

restoration, and with Tribes regarding the transfer of lands, over 

30,000 of the Garrison Projects, to the Department of Interior in 

order to be held in trust for these Tribes. 

Something I wanted to bring to the attention of the Committee 

is that section 1002 of WRRDA 2014 repealed Section 905(b) of 

WRDA 1986, thereby eliminating recognizance studies and reports 

as a basis for, as well as a precursor to, feasibility studies. By repealing recognizance studies, we have inadvertently handicapped 

our Tribal partnerships. Recognizance studies were an aid to Tribes 

who had limited resources, and I am glad that our staffs will work 

together to try to resolve this issue in the coming WRDA bill. 

Also regarding our collaboration with Tribes, I wanted to announce the opening of the Corps’ fourth Veterans Curation Lab in 

Washington State on the Colville Reservation. The Corps’ Veterans 

Curation Program was started in 2009 with support from the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The program offers veterans the opportunity to learn tangible skills and gain experience 

by rehabilitating and preserving federally owned or administered 

archeological collections found at Corps projects. This program’s 

unique training for future employment has meant that 90 percent 

of the more than 250 graduates have gone on to find permanent 

7 

employment or returned to universities and colleges to continue 

their education. 

Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with you and appreciate the Committee’s support for the Nation’s water resources to 

strengthen the foundation for economic growth for our communities 

and for our environment, and I am really looking forward to working with you on WRDA for 2016. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Darcy follows:] 

8 


20941.001
9 


20941.002
10 


20941.003
11 


20941.004
12 


20941.005
13 


20941.006
14 


20941.007
15 


20941.008
16 


20941.009
17 


20941.010
18 


20941.015
19 


20941.016
20 


20941.017
21 


20941.018
22 


20941.019
23 


20941.020
24 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Secretary Darcy. 

General BOSTICK. 

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL THOMAS P. BOSTICK, 

COMMANDING GENERAL AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS 

General BOSTICK. Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Boxer, and 

distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today with Secretary Darcy. 

I love the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and it has been my 

great honor to serve the Nation and the Army for nearly 38 years. 

As this may be my last hearing as Chief of Engineers, I want to 

thank you for great support for the Civil Works program. This 

Committee in particular has been essential to the progress we have 

made over the years. Also want to thank Secretary Darcy for her 

unending leadership and passion for this work. 

The details about the Chief’s Reports have been submitted to the 

Congress and are contained in my written statement. Today I 

would like to provide a brief update on the progress we have made 

with our four campaign goals and provide some of my perspectives 

on the very important water resources challenges that face our Nation. 

Our first goal is to support national security, and here we like 

to talk about the investment in Civil Works projects, not the costs. 

It is an investment in the work that we do and the risk reduction 

that these projects provide the American people. But it is also an 

investment in our people; and whether they serve in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, the United States, or in over 100 countries 

around the world, our people are making a difference. 

As part of Civil Works transformation, our second goal, we continue to improve and modernize the project planning process. Our 

planning modernization objective is to manage a risk-informed 

planning program that delivers timely, cost-effective, and highquality water resources investment recommendations. Since the inception of Civil Works transformation in 2008, 59 Chief’s Reports 

have been completed with recommendations for over $30 billion in 

water resources investments. 

During the first 4 years of Civil Works transformation, 19 Chief’s 

Reports were completed; in the last 4 years, the number is 40, 

more than doubling our progress. We are on schedule to complete 

another 12 reports by the end of the fiscal year. While we have 

made great progress, we can and must continue to improve. 

In our third campaign goal, reduce disaster risks, here the Corps 

continues to perform extremely well. We had historic floods in 

2011, 2015, and continuing this year; and because the systems performed as designed, many Americans did not even realize the magnitude of these floods. 

In addition to the fact that no one died in these events, the return on investment is $45 for every $1 invested in the Mississippi 

Rivers and tributary system. Approximately $234 billion of damages have been prevented. 

And despite all of these investments, our Nation’s infrastructure 

is aging. The American Society of Civil Engineers rates the Nation’s overall infrastructure at a D plus. The Corps is managing 

25 

over $225 billion worth of that infrastructure, and funding across 

the Federal Government remains very challenging. 

In order to complete the construction projects that we are cur- rently budgeting, we would require $19.7 billion additional. With 

construction funding at just over $1 billion per year, it would take 

nearly 20 years to complete our current work. As a Nation, we 

must continue to think creatively and innovatively about how we 

gain support beyond the Federal Government in the completion of 

these and future projects so that we can complete these projects in 

a more reasonable amount of time. 

Finally, our last goal is to prepare for tomorrow, and this is all 

about our people. In the nearly 4 years that I have been in command, I have traveled to all 43 districts and 9 divisions to see the 

vital work the Corps is doing at home and abroad. I remain convinced that we have an exceptionally skilled, talented, and loyal 

work force. I am very proud of the people who serve in the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers and our fellow teammates, including the 

military, civilian, local and Federal, and our contractors. As we 

have done for nearly 240 years, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

remains focused on engineering solutions for the Nation’s toughest 

challenges. 

Thank you for the opportunity today and I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Bostick follows:] 

26 


20941.001
27 


20941.002
28 


20941.003
29 


20941.004
30 


20941.005
31 


20941.006
32 


20941.007
33 


20941.008
34 


20941.009
35 


20941.010
36 


20941.011
37 


20941.012
38 


20941.013
39 


20941.014
40 

Senator INHOFE. Well, thank you, General. We have worked together for a long time. Let me applaud you for your public service 

and your sticking in when times have really gone tough in the past. 

So I appreciate the contributions that you have made very much. 

General BOSTICK. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. We are still on the early bird rule, I advise 

members on the right and the left. 

I have always been supportive of the Corps’ role in support our 

Nation’s critical infrastructure. However, when people want to 

work for you, as I said in my opening statement, and they want 

to make a contribution, it seems like the Corps is looking for ways, 

as I said in my opening statement, to say no instead of yes. An example, even if a pipeline project is covered by a nationwide Section 

10 permit and has an environmental assessment under NEPA, I 

understand that, and shows the project has no significant impact, 

it can still take months and months for the Corps to issue a separate Section 408. 

Now, I don’t want you to answer and take too long now, but for 

the record I want you to answer why do we need a Section 10 and 

then need a 408 permit in addition to that? 

Then, second, I have two things that came. This is a progress report. We have been waiting for this for months and months and 

months. This came from you today, the day that we are having a 

hearing. You are not granting these permits, you are saying, one 

of these is California, by the way, and one is Connecticut. The letter is to inform you that the Department of Army has initiated negotiations for accepting a contribution. Well, that still is not a permit, not accepting. Does it take us to hold a hearing in order to get 

this far? 

So I need have something. We will just do that for the record. 

Because what we are going to do, I want to hear the justification 

for the long period of time it takes. It might be that we will want 

to include some language, maybe not necessarily it could be freestanding, but language that says once you have a NEPA, once you 

have a Section 10, you have 2 months in order to come out with 

your decision. So keep in mind we are really serious about this. 

Now, the regulatory issues also create barriers to public-private 

partnerships. If a private company wants to work with you to increase water supplies or create energy that work involves a Corps 

project, I want you to look for solutions, not problems. If there is 

a legal barrier, I want to hear about it or this Committee wants 

to hear about it. So I would ask you would you do that? If you perceive, and it shouldn’t take a matter of days to determine whether 

or not there is going to be a legal problem, that we can start addressing that? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. I have an even bigger problem with 

your wetlands permitting program. In the Clean Water Act, Congress created an exemption for ordinary farming activity. Now, it 

made an exception to that that doesn’t apply to new activities. 

Now, new activities, we are talking about things such as damming up a river. I mean, something that is a total major change 

from what they originally had. But we have cases where they wanted to change from a rice crop to a tomato crop. Well, you considered 

41 

that a new activity and subjected them to what they would otherwise be exempt from on the Clean Water Act. 

To solve this problem, for 2 years in a row Congress has included 

language in your appropriation bills that says that you can’t require a permit for ordinary farming activities; no exceptions, no exclusions. Now, instead of following the direction from Congress in 

the appropriation bill, you issued guidance telling your staff to ignore the appropriations language and continue to regulating any 

farming activity you claim is new. 

Now, will you commit to us now in this meeting that you will follow the direction of Congress, specifically the Appropriations Committee, and language that is coming your way and stop trying to 

regulate ordinary farming, whether you think it is a new activity 

or not? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator Inhofe, I would like to directly deal with the 

instances where we have tried to regulate something as new under 

this provision. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, now, I have already given you one, where 

they are trying to change a crop from rice to tomatoes, and you 

consider that to be a new activity. Do you think in that case that 

is what the intent was when they put the new exclusion in? 

Ms. DARCY. No, the exclusion was for normal farming practices 

that were currently operational. A crop change, and, again, I would 

like to look at if the crop change required a permit, why it required 

a permit because, as you say, from where you say, that doesn’t look 

like a new activity; it is just a change in existing activity. 

Senator INHOFE. And I agree. I agree with that. But it was considered to be a new activity. 

Now, what I will do on that, I can cite a number of cases. There 

wouldn’t be time to do that this morning, but I am going to send 

these to you and I would like to get a response. Now, I mentioned 

earlier that we have been waiting for a response for quite some 

time, and this always seems to be a problem, so I am going to ask 

you to address that right away because I would like to know. 

I will give you specific cases and ask why you would consider 

that to be a new activity, and should that be new under the language that describes the exemption in the Clean Water Act. 

Ms. DARCY. OK. We will try to provide you with a prompt reply. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Darcy, in the past, WRDA bills were passed every couple of years, but since 2000 bills have only passed every 7 years. 

You know, it was 2000, 2007, 2014. Has the time lag between 

WRDA bills affected the efficient and timely completion of projects? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, I think not having a bill every 2 years has 

adversely impacted our ability to plan, our ability, as well as the 

ability of our local sponsors. If a local sponsor knows that every 2 

years there is going to be an authorization bill, I think they can 

more easily plan for their investment, as well as a Federal Government investment. So I think if we are on a regular cycle for every 

2 years, I think it is in the best interest not only in our program 

implementation, but also for the local sponsors who are responsible 

for funding these projects. 

42 

Senator BOXER. I agree. 

General, it is great to see that 22 Chief’s Reports have been completed since the passage of WRRDA 2014. I am happy to see Chief’s 

Reports for two longstanding California priorities, Los Angeles 

River ecosystem restoration and the project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration in South San Francisco Bay. There 

are three other projects due to have been completed: storm damage 

reduction along the Encinitas Solano Beach shoreline, reconstruction improvement of levees in West Sacramento, and the American 

River common features flood protection project, which will improve 

levees around Sacramento. Could you give me the status of these 

outstanding reports, please, when you expect them to be completed? 

General BOSTICK. I would expect to sign those at the end of April 

of this year, assuming there are no issues; and currently it looks 

like they are moving along pretty well. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I am very glad to hear that. 

Secretary Darcy, in WRRDA 2014, Congress established a new 

innovative finance mechanism known as WIFIA, Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation. It is modeled after TIFIA, our program that is really leveraging funds in the transportation sector. 

WIFIA is a 5-year pilot program allowing the Corps and the EPA 

to provide direct loans and loan guarantees for construction of critical water infrastructure projects. The program requires little Federal investment because it greatly leverages every Federal dollar 

invested. 

This is kind of along the same line as my friend is discussing, 

the opportunity here to leverage a few Federal funds and bring in 

private funds and bring in other funds. EPA has begun implementation of its portion of the program and requested $20 million in 

the President’s Fiscal Year 2017 budget. 

Despite the focus in your testimony on the need for innovative 

financing, the Corps has not requested any funding for this program or issued any implementation guidance for the program. So 

what is the status of the Corps implementation of WIFIA and why 

is it the Corps is so far behind EPA in its implementation of the 

WIFIA program? 

Ms. DARCY. As you pointed out, EPA is currently beginning to 

implement the WIFIA program. We are still trying to develop it. 

The Corps of Engineers is not a granting agency; we are not a Federal credit assistance agency, as other agencies are, so it is a new 

way of doing business for us. We are a project-funded agency; we 

have local sponsors for all of our projects, we don’t do grants. So 

we are in the process of looking at how we could develop that and 

also looking at what EPA has done so far as to how we could either 

partner with them in a way to make the WIFIA program what I 

think the Congress has envisioned it to be. 

Senator BOXER. Well, let me just say when we work together to 

find an innovative way to move forward, we need you folks to be 

behind us, not to drag your feet. This is innovative. You should see 

what is going on on TIFIA. If you want some advice, call us, but 

don’t drag your feet, because we don’t have the funding that we 

would like to have. Senator Inhofe has been clear. So when you get 

43 

a chance to leverage funding, this could be 60 to 1, as I understand 

it, right? 

Senator INHOFE. Sixty to one. 

Senator BOXER. Sixty to one. And if you are sitting on it because, 

gee, we never did it before, well, there is a lot of things I haven’t 

done before. You have to step up. You have to step up, regardless, 

and get it going. So if you can’t get this thing moving, please call 

us. We will be glad to help. We will put together a little task force 

of Senator Inhofe’s staff and my staff and others to help you. 

Now, I talked about Salton Sea. This is an area that really upsets me because in WRDA 2007, to help battle the decline of the 

Sea, which I explained, if we let this go, you are going to have air 

quality problems not to be believed, all the way to LA, where we 

have millions and millions of people living. So in 2007 I worked 

with colleagues to authorize the Salton Sea restoration program. 

Funding for the program was twice included in the President’s 

budget request, but after Congress provided the Corps with its annual appropriations, funding was never allocated in the annual 

work plan of the Corps. Why has this program never received funding, despite it being a priority in the President’s budget? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, that study progress for Salton Sea, in our 

budgeting process in evaluating the possible outcomes from the 

studies, it has not competed well with the other studies that we 

have budgeted for. 

Senator BOXER. Well, why don’t we talk about that? It is hard 

for me to get that. If this thing goes south on us, we have a crisis 

of wildlife, because they stop at the Pacific Flyway. It is over for 

that species of birds. If this thing goes south on us, we have a situation where the air quality will be so poisoned that you will destroy 

three counties; and we have given you the ability to move. It is 

very frustrating, Secretary. 

Now, further, in 2014, WRRDA 2014 included a provision, section 

1011, that gives funding priority to ecosystem restoration projects 

that address and identify threat to public health, preserve ecosystems of national significance, preserve or restore habitats of importance for migratory birds. Now, the Salton Sea fits all three criteria. What else do you need to ensure that nationally significant 

ecosystems such as Salton Sea are prioritized? What else do I need 

to do here? 

And that’s the last question. 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, I think that we probably need to take another look at the impacts and also the merits of the Salton Sea 

study. I know the State has developed a plan for Salton Sea and 

I think that given not only the provisions of WRRDA that you cite, 

but the possible adverse impacts, including adverse impacts to public health, I understand in that part of the State, we will take another look at it. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. I appreciate it. I know it is so hard, 

but this is so many millions of people impacted. 

Senator INHOFE. All right, you are already two and a half minutes over. 

Senator BOXER. I know. Well, I won’t say one more word. 

Senator INHOFE. We have several people here. 

Senator BOXER. I won’t say one more word, I promise you. 

44 

Senator INHOFE. Oh, good. All right. 

Senator BOXER. I just want to close by this. The President has 

put it in the budget; WRRDA, in a bipartisan way, mentions it, and 

I just am so frustrated. But thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. And this is when we are getting along. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. We sure are. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, so there won’t be any confusion on the 

Democrat side, the early bird is going to have Cardin, Carper, and 

Whitehouse; and on the Republican side Vitter, Fischer, Capito, 

Rounds, Wicker, Sullivan, and Boozman. 

Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to you both for being here and for your work. As you 

both know, a key priority of mine in Louisiana is the Morganza to 

the Gulf flood and hurricane protection project, which has been 

fully authorized in the last WRDA, has received a positive cost-benefit ratio, but has not gotten any meaningful attention from the 

Corps, and I continue to be very concerned about that. 

General, back in mid–2012 we met in my office and you made an 

absolute commitment to me that you all would sharpen your pencil 

and refine the cost of that project to bring it down significantly. 

The goal was at least 20 percent. And that would be completed 

soon after the Chief’s Report, which arrived in mid–2013. We 

haven’t received any refined cost to bring that cost down so we can 

more effectively move forward, and that is 4 years, almost 4 years 

since that face-to-face conversation and commitment. Where is 

that? Where is that refined plan and lowered cost? 

General BOSTICK. I don’t have the refined plan on that. What we 

did do is we worked with the local stakeholders, folks that thought 

they could bring the cost down using different local methods. We 

considered those. We also re-looked at our analysis, and we don’t 

have a lower number at this time. 

Senator VITTER. I don’t want to cut you off, General, but I want 

to get the point. You do remember that conversation? 

General BOSTICK. I do remember the conversation. 

Senator VITTER. Do you remember the commitment? 

General BOSTICK. I remember the commitment. 

Senator VITTER. And you thought it was definitely possible to 

sharpen your pencil, lower the cost with others’ help, and the goal 

was at least 20 percent. Do you remember that? 

General BOSTICK. I don’t remember the exact figure. I do remember that we had a conversation and I said that we would re-look 

into everything that we could to see if there was a possibility to 

bring the cost down, because we thought at the price it was coming 

in it was not going to be fundable. 

Senator VITTER. You all have never come back to me with that 

analysis. Has that analysis been done? 

General BOSTICK. I will come back to you with what we have 

done. I do owe you that. 

Senator VITTER. OK. But you are saying you looked at it and you 

couldn’t lower it a penny? 

General BOSTICK. I am not saying that. I am saying I don’t know 

if it was lowered. I don’t have those details with me at this time, 

45 

but I will go back and find out exactly what we did, what steps we 

took, and where we ended up and provide that. 

Senator VITTER. Well, General, my impression is you all walked 

away from that and didn’t make a meaningful effort to sharpen 

your pencil, lower the cost, as promised. When can I expect a detailed response about how we are going to do that? 

General BOSTICK. We did make a concerted effort to try to bring 

the price down. I can’t tell you exactly when, but it will be before 

I depart. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Well, I would like to have a personal oneon-one meeting to walk through all of the different proposals that 

you received to lower the price and where we are on that. 

General BOSTICK. And we will do that. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. 

Now, consistent with that foot-dragging, the Administration put 

no budget request in for this crucial project. This is to protect a 

major part and heavily populated part of South Louisiana. This is 

a project that has $700 million of commitments in the next 5 years 

from the State and locals, got a positive cost-benefit analysis, fully 

authorized in the last WRDA. 

Madam Secretary, why was nothing put forward to help match that $700 million from the State and locals? 

Ms. DARCY. When considering all of the projects that would be 

included in the President’s budget, this was considered and was not 

selected as being one that could be included in this year’s 2017 

budget request. 

Senator VITTER. Well, I know that; I mean, I said that in the 

question. My question is given everything, including the State and 

local commitment and the cost-benefit, why that is so. I mean, this 

is a heavily populated area that is completely vulnerable. 

Ms. DARCY. I believe this would have been a new start in the 

2017 budget, and we only included one new start in the 2017 budget, and that was Mud Mountain Dam, which is a requirement of 

being able to comply with a biological opinion. 

Senator VITTER. So biology, namely, animals, trump people? 

Ms. DARCY. That is our responsibility, is to comply with the biological opinion. 

Senator VITTER. Well, just for the record, humans are animals 

too, so I hope we get equal footing in the future. 

Let me ask two things for the record, because my time is running 

out, or has run out. 

One is to re-ask the Chairman’s question about the complete laborious 408 permit process and, in particular, why a decision was 

reversed regarding Larose to Golden Meadow having no significant 

impact. That decision was reversed. Now it is supposed to have a 

significant impact and that is delaying that permitting even further. 

And, second, lots of folks in the maritime industry are very concerned with the Corps’ statement that the Brandon Road Lock and 

Dam in Joliet, Illinois could be closed for 30 days or more for emergency purposes. That would shut down major commerce in the 

whole heartland of the Country, and I would like clarification of 

what that means and what would be an emergency. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

46 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Chairman. 

And welcome to the witnesses. In Rhode Island, the Providence 

River goes up right next to Providence. Years ago it was an industrial waterfront; now residential uses and recreational uses have 

taken over and they are very welcome. 

But residue of the industrial waterfront still remains out in the 

public trust areas of the Providence River. The Army Corps has 

taken the position that it will only clear things that fall within a 

prescribed commercial channel, which has no commercial traffic, it 

is now a recreational area, and will not help us with removing the 

hazards and obstacles to recreational navigation that exist because 

they aren’t within this predefined commercial channel. 

So I would like to continue to work with you and see what we 

can do in this bill to make sure that you can provide help and support. There simply isn’t commercial traffic there any longer. What 

there is are things like community boating, which brings kids from 

neighborhoods that ordinarily would never see the oceans and see 

the water, and takes them out sailing, and they are now sailing 

around in an area, obviously they go outside this commercial channel into areas where these old rotten industrial era pilings remain 

a hazard to them and to their navigation. 

So I look forward to working with you on that. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, sir. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Very good. 

The second thing I wanted to mention is that when we last did 

WRDA, everybody worked very hard here on putting transparency 

requirements in for the Army Corps. The obvious reason for that 

is that the Army Corps requires that local participants have money 

ready to pay their share; and having to hang on to that money, not 

knowing when it is going to be called on, creates a lot of difficulties 

and nuisance for local governments and for local sponsors. 

So that was in 2014. You got out the guidance for the transparency section just in February, a couple weeks ago, so in the 

years that went by between when we passed the reauthorization 

with the transparency provision and the weeks ago that you got out 

the transparency guidance, have you taken other intermediate 

steps to try to improve the transparency that concerned this Committee? Or lack of transparency that concerned this Committee, to 

be specific. 

Ms. DARCY. We have been, in our collaboration with our local 

sponsors, I think also part of the provision that was envisioned in 

the last WRDA bill was to have us be in cooperation or consultation with the other Federal agencies earlier in the process so that 

we could collaborate with them and have it be a transparent process so that the local sponsor would know, through the planning 

process, what was going on and what possible impacts or impediments there might be with other Federal regulations. 

So we have been doing that within our planning process and 

looking forward to how we are going to develop these in a more 

transparent as well as inclusive process, so that we don’t come to 

the end of a study and find out that, oh, we should have talked to 

47 

NIMS before now because there is going to be an issue. So we are 

trying to do that earlier so that we avoid that kind of thing. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The last point that I want to raise I will 

ask you to take as a question for the record because I think it is 

going to take some research, but it is important enough to me that 

I wanted to ask the question live in the hearing, and that is that 

in the Army Corps’ Fiscal Year 2017 budget request there is a 

$1.214 billion flood and coastal storm damage reduction budget 

line. If you drill into that budget line, it appears that the amount 

requested for coastal projects is $10 million and the amount requested for inland projects is $1.204 billion, which would be more 

than 100 times as much. 

As a coastal State, and as one that is more likely to see more 

damage from sea level rise, warming seas, and all of that, I am 

concerned that there should be this discrepancy between coastal 

projects and inland projects. Now, maybe that is an accounting or 

terminological glitch of some kind, but I would like to get a full explanation of that discrepancy, and please feel free to take that as 

a question for the record, but an important one. 

Ms. DARCY. Right. And I think that once we do the drill-down 

and look at it, maybe part of it is terminology, as opposed to actual 

money on the coast and money in the rivers comparison, so we will 

provide you with that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Great. Thank you. 

I would note for my colleagues from coastal States that it is only 

one of many areas in which funding appears to disproportionately 

go upland and leave our coastal States I guess the opposite of high 

and dry would not be the right metaphor to use, but certainly underfunded relevant to upland uses. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Secretary Darcy, for being here today. As you 

may know, Section 5104 of the 2007 WRDA authorized the Lower 

Platte River Watershed Restoration Project, and this project has 

national, State, and local significance as it encompasses the final 

110 miles of the Platte River and it is a major tributary of the Missouri River. More importantly, the Lower Platte River Watershed 

serves as a critical drinking water source for Nebraska’s largest 

and fastest growing metropolitan areas. 

It is my understanding that a comprehensive study would enable 

local authorities to apply a systems approach to restoring degraded 

river and floodplain habitats, and other critical environmental resources to provide immediate and sustainable benefits for this river 

system. 

In your Fiscal Year 2017 budget request you propose to complete 

investigations of 12 studies, at a cost of $4.9 million. With these 

completions doesn’t that free up the Corps to initiate some new 

starts for studies in Fiscal Year 2018 and will you consider studies 

for watershed restoration projects as you are deciding what studies 

to initiate? 

Ms. DARCY. For 2018? Yes, indeed. 

Senator FISCHER. OK. That would be wonderful. And how is the 

Corps advancing watershed restoration planning in cooperation 

with local governments and also with States? 

48 

Ms. DARCY. We are undertaking some watershed studies, as opposed to project-specific studies, and I would have to get back to 

you on which ones we are currently funding and which ones we are 

in the process of completing. 

Senator FISCHER. OK, thank you. There is a new corrective floodplain mapping that is being done by FEMA, and it has placed the 

southern portion of Fremont, Nebraska, Village of Inglewood, and 

the Dodge County Industrial Park into the 100-year floodplain. 

None of this area was in the 100-year floodplain before the remapping by FEMA, and the changes that FEMA has made to existing 

levee freeboard requirements dictates that these levee upgrades be 

completed to provide protection from flooding much of Fremont. 

This project has been converted to a Corps general investigation project and $425,000 has been budgeted to complete the general investigation study report by September 30th of this year. However, 

it has come to my attention that last week the Corps informed local 

stakeholders that the study will be delayed until December 2017. 

Do you know the reason for the delay and what are the additional costs that are going to be associated with that delay? 

Ms. DARCY. I don’t know the delay or what the additional costs 

are, unless General Bostick does, but, if not, we can find out for 

you. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. 

General, do you happen to know? 

General BOSTICK. I do not know, but we can find that out fairly 

quickly. 

Senator FISCHER. If you could get back to me on that, I would 

appreciate it. I would also hope that the Administration can assure 

us that timelines for these investigation studies are going to be 

fairly concrete so that we are able to look at projects and how they 

are budgeted also in the future. It really complicates the budgeting 

process when there is over a year difference in the time period. 

Ms. DARCY. One thing I might offer, Senator, is that the Corps 

began and then the Committee, back in 2014, during the WRRDA 

bill, instituted this three-by-three-by-three planning process for us, 

which means $3 million, 3 years to complete. So that helps the 

planning horizon for a local sponsor and the Federal Government 

as to what we are going to budget for in that 3-year process; and 

there is a waiver provision, but we are trying to stick by the threeby-three-by-three so everyone knows what is to be expected in a 3- 

year planning process. 

Senator FISCHER. OK. But it will be helpful, as you know, these 

projects are very important for the health and safety of the citizens 

that live in that area, and we want to make sure that they can be 

completed and also completed with really an appropriate amount 

of resources being expended on them, and not see an increase because of delays. 

Also, Secretary Darcy, on September 30th of this last year, you 

testified before a subcommittee here, the Fisheries, Water, and 

Wildlife Subcommittee, on the Corps’ participation in developing a 

new definition for waters of the U.S., and I would note that I submitted questions for the record and I have yet to receive a response 

to those questions. At the hearing, I asked you how the final rule 

defines a roadside ditch. We haven’t heard from you. You replied 

49 

that you were going to check. Did you check on that and do you 

possibly have a reply for me at the hearing today? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, I believe we got the answers to the questions for the record to the Committee late, but was it yesterday? 

Yesterday. 

Senator FISCHER. OK. I understand all of us are busy, but I 

would certainly hope we could get responses in a more timely manner, and not just before you are going to show up before the Committee for a hearing. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Fischer. 

I am going to ask unanimous consent that I put a letter in, because it does reference what we are talking about, WIFIA, from the 

American Chemistry Council concerning what is referred to as the 

Stabenow-Inhofe Amendment. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

50 


20941.025
51 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all for coming to testify. I wanted to start by noting how important dredging is and the maintenance of jetties to 

the coast of Oregon. Since I have been here in the Senate, I have 

been advocating for a set-aside for small port dredging. We have, 

for example, the Port of Bandon in Oregon, which has 300 substantial vessels each year, 23,000 volume-related trips. 

So you have these small ports along the coast that have significant economies based on crab, shrimp, salmon, ground fish, sport 

fishing, whale watching, et cetera. I just wanted to raise that and 

encourage the Corps of Engineers to understand and maintain a 

commitment to keeping these economies functional through the jetties in good shape and the dredging on an ongoing basis. 

I don’t know if there are any comments that you want to share 

about that. 

General BOSTICK. We also agree with the importance of these 

emerging harbors, and the Fiscal Year 2017 budget includes 10 

percent of the funding, about $95 million, for these small harbors. 

Senator MERKLEY. And I very much appreciate that. And I must 

say our small ports are now in much, much better shape than they 

were just a few years ago thanks to that set-aside for the small 

ports. 

I do a lot of town halls in Oregon, I think the count is now about 

270. There is tremendous concern through the Columbia Gorge 

about the shipment of both oil cars that have explosive potential 

and also about coal, coal dust, so on and so forth. There are these 

various projects planned for being able to export coal overseas and 

these projects raise the prospect of unit trains that would run 

through our towns, obstruct one side of the town from the other on 

a regular basis, leave coal dust. 

People are also very, very concerned about the environmental 

footprint, at a time when we now understand that 80 percent of the 

proven fossil fuels in the world, the reserves, have to stay in the 

ground if we are going to save this planet. 

So Senator Wyden and I wrote a letter, which I will resubmit for 

the record, with the consent of the Committee. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

52 


20941.021
53 


20941.022
54 


20941.023
55 


20941.024
56 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much. 

Saying that, when we look at the environmental review for a coal 

project, it has to take the full perspective into account: What is the 

impact of the dust on the communities? What is the impact of the 

trains splitting the community in half for long periods each day? 

What is the impact of burning this coal on our broader objectives 

to be stewards of the planet for our children and our grandchildren? And we were very disappointed that the Army Corps of 

Engineers basically said, we are not interested in those issues. 

Now we have gone through a period where the President has 

said we are going to suspend leases of our citizen-owned coal to 

study exactly this issue, exactly this issue that Senator Wyden and 

I were raising. Is the Corps rethinking the narrowness of its view 

of the world in light of the events of the last few years? 

General BOSTICK. I would say that, in general, we certainly take 

a broader perspective. I am not sure of the specifics about the examples that you raise, but when we work on any of these projects 

we are working with all the local stakeholders, taking in the interests of a wide variety of groups and trying to make the best decision in the interest of the locals and the government. So there is 

not a view that we are not interested or we are not concerned 

about these types of environmental issues. 

Senator MERKLEY. So I will just say in this case the Corps basically said the only thing we are interested in is the impact of putting pilings in the water. And I believe I can quote the Acting Chief 

of Regulatory Affairs said, the activities of concern to the public, 

such as rail traffic, shipping coal outside the United States, and 

burning of the coal are outside of our control and responsibility. 

We were asking for a programmatic environmental assessment to 

take this understanding this broader view of these impacts on the 

local communities and on the broader world, not just the impact of 

putting the pilings in the ground. I just would encourage continue 

to rethink this, because these projects have very profound impact 

both on the path of what is shipped in and the effect of what is 

shipped out. 

Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Merkley. 

Senator Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, let me just say to both of our witnesses thank you very 

much for your service. General Bostick, we most certainly appreciate the extended time that you have spent in service to our Country. We appreciate that. Thank you. 

Assistant Secretary Darcy, Section 4003 of the 2014 WRRDA bill 

authorized the Corps to coordinate with various Government agencies to create a soil moisture and snow pack monitoring network 

in the Upper Missouri River Basin and maintain high elevation 

snow pack monitoring sites. That was after the flood of 2011. However, in a 2015 report, the Government Accountability Office found 

that the Federal agencies have made very limited progress implementing the monitoring program. 

What is the status of the soil moisture and snow pack monitoring 

program? Do you know what that is? If you don’t have it, I would 

ask for that to be returned on the record, please. 

57 

Ms. DARCY. I am aware of that provision, but I don’t know what 

the status of the report is, so I would like to be able to get back 

to you with that information. 

Senator ROUNDS. OK, fine. If it is as we have indicated here, 

which is not gone very far, would the Corps consider taking the 

role as the lead agency to implement the program? 

Ms. DARCY. Did you say the local? 

Senator ROUNDS. If it has not gone very far, if we are not getting 

any place, would the Corps consider taking the lead role in implementing the program? 

Ms. DARCY. I think we would definitely consider it. 

Senator ROUNDS. OK. In 2008, Secretary Darcy, you issued a real 

eState guidance policy, Letter No. 26. The directive required municipal and industrial water users from the Missouri River main 

steam reservoirs to acquire a water storage contract from the Corps 

prior to the Corps issuing an access easement for pumping water. 

The access easements are needed for all South Dakota water users 

of the Missouri River, to include municipal, industrial, and temporary use for short-term projects for which State permits had already been issued. The Corps’ unwillingness to issue access easements affects South Dakotans’ ability to manage the public’s ability 

to use water from the Missouri River. 

Do you plan to continue denying access easements to South Dakotans seeking to use water from the Missouri River? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, I think this is in response to granting easements. I think this happened in 2009. What we are currently doing 

is we are looking at the Flood Control Act, as well as the Water 

Supply Act to try to come up with, and this is within DOD review 

at the moment, to do a water supply rulemaking so that we can 

clarify what exactly the requirements are for either getting an 

easement or a contract for municipal industrial water supply at 

Corps of Engineers facilities. 

Senator ROUNDS. The Missouri River runs right to the middle of 

South Dakota. The city of Pierre sits on the Missouri River, below 

the Oahe Dam. Main stem system. They would like to be able to 

get some water out, pump it out so they can use it in irrigating the 

parks and so forth, and peer. We need access across Corps land to 

get to the water to do it. It is not a question of whether or not the 

water is available to them; it is a matter of getting access across 

Corps land. It is a Corps right-of-way. It seems to me that it is 

being a little bit obstinate not to be able to work with a municipality to get an easement just to get a pump in the water to get 

the water out that is below a dam; it is not even in part of the storage of the river. 

Ms. DARCY. Has the city of Pierre been denied an easement? 

Senator ROUNDS. Yes. 

Ms. DARCY. Then—— 

Senator ROUNDS. Would you get back to me and let me know? 

Ms. DARCY. I was going to say I would definitely want to look 

into the details of that. 

Senator ROUNDS. I would appreciate that. Thank you. 

Assistant Secretary Darcy, in 2014 the WRRDA bill required the 

Corps to waive proposed water charges for contracted surplus 

water identified in surplus water reports. Can you tell me the staVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:11 Oct 21, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\20941.TXT VERN
58 

tus of the surplus water studies you have undertaken and what 

you believe will result from the studies? 

Ms. DARCY. Currently, I think of the five reservoirs on the Missouri we have had reallocation study reports that are currently at 

the headquarters. As I mentioned before in my response about the 

water supply rulemaking, we are hoping that the water supply 

rulemaking will clarify again what the contractual, as well as the 

financial responsibilities are for contracting with that water and 

what reallocations there are available in those reservoirs, because 

in order to reallocate, we need to make sure that the water there 

is available for other purposes, including municipal and industrial 

water supply. 

Senator ROUNDS. Is the plan to charge an administrative fee for 

storing the water to those individuals who would gain access to it? 

Ms. DARCY. In the rule that currently is underway is going to be 

put out for public review and comment, and the law says that there 

has to be a reasonable cost associated with that, and we are looking for public comment and what an interpretation of a reasonable 

cost would be over time. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, one last just to clarify. I indicated that the city 

of Pierre has been denied. I am not sure if they have been denied 

or they simply have not received a response, so I will clarify that. 

But I would really appreciate finding out why it is that tough to 

get that done. 

Ms. DARCY. OK. 

Senator ROUNDS. OK, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Rounds. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Darcy, nice to see you. Everyone whose neighborhood, 

whose businesses have not been flooded by the Little Mill Creek in 

Northern Delaware this year, last year, they send their best and 

their thanks. 

General Bostick, very nice to see you. How many years of service? 

General BOSTICK. Thirty-eight, sir. 

Senator CARPER. Thirty-eight. That is a pretty remarkable 

record. And on behalf of everyone in this Country who you have 

served for those years, continue to serve, I just want to thank you 

for an extraordinary life of service. 

I want to start off. You were very nice to spend some time on 

the phone with me earlier this week, and if I could, I just want to 

go back to this commission, one of these basin commissions around 

the Country. You know better than me our Delaware River Basin 

Commission is one; another is the InterState Commission of the 

Potomac River Basin; a third is the Susquehanna River Basin 

Commission. Despite a reiteration and a clarification of congressional intent in WRRDA I think in 2014, the Army Corps of Engineers did not provide funding, as you know, in either 2015 or in 

2016. In fact, the Delaware River Basin Commission in our part of 

the world has not received funding, I think, for 19 of the last 20 

years. 

59 

Delaware is the only State that fully funds its share into the 

commission. Pennsylvania, I think, New York, and New Jersey 

fund some, but not all. 

Just think back on our conversation. Could you just again tell me 

the status of what we think are fairly clear congressional directives 

for the Army Corps to budget and to allocate funds to the three 

river basin commissions and why it has not happened, and what 

we might be able to do about it? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, within our budget we have a program that 

is called Planning Assistance to States, and within that program 

it is envisioned that the activities of the river commissions would 

qualify for that funding. However, activities of the commission 

would need to be cost shared from 50 percent of the Federal input 

as well as 50 percent from the river commission. So if we can identify activities specific to the operation of the commission, we would 

be able to use that funding source if, again, we could find the cost 

share 50 percent from the commission itself. 

Senator CARPER. OK. About how much money would we be talking about, do you know? 

Ms. DARCY. I don’t know. The entire line item for Planning Assistance to States is $2.3 million. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thank you. 

As you know, the 2014 version of WRRDA further requires that 

if the secretary does not allocate funds for a given year, the secretary shall submit a notice explaining, describing why funds were 

not allocated, and, to my knowledge, no report has been provided. 

I would just ask if you could tell us why that report was not provided to Congress. 

Ms. DARCY. The report wasn’t provided because I think it is 

viewed that within this Planning Assistance to States funding 

stream that there would be the ability to fund some of the river 

commissions. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. 

We talked a bit about the most recent storm that has come up 

the Atlantic Coast. I described we always compare to a storm that 

occurred in 1962. I was not in Delaware at the time, I was a kid 

I think somewhere, but whenever we talk about damages to the 

beaches in Maryland, Delaware, north, they talk about the storm 

of 1962. 

We had a bad storm a couple of weeks ago, about a month or two 

ago, a lot of snow in many places, including here, but we had huge 

winds. We had sustained winds of 50 knots and up to as much as 

60, 70 knots, which is a nor’easter. It did a whole lot of damage. 

The good news is it did not damage, did not destroy our beach communities from Fenwick Island up to Lewes. Rehoboth Beach was 

saved, Dewey, Bethany, because of the work by the Army Corps of 

Engineers. 

I should just stop here and say we value very deeply our relationship with the Army Corps of Engineers, Region 3, Philadelphia, 

and also in Baltimore. They are wonderful people there, civilian 

and military. We love working with them. They are so responsive 

and thoughtful, and very creative, very creative. So we are grateful 

for that. 

60 

But we are in a situation where we need to restore the dunes 

that have protected and saved these beach communities, including 

one that you have spent some time in, as have I, in our lives. But 

I just want to ask do you think it might be possible to direct a portion of the remaining emergency funds from Superstorm Sandy disaster appropriations legislation toward the Corps’ flood control and 

coastal emergency account perhaps through an amendment to 

WRDA later this spring? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, we are currently evaluating the damages 

from that storm and looking to our FCC&E account for what might 

be available there to be able to repair that damage. The appropriations bill for Sandy money is pretty specific that the damages have 

to have been caused by Superstorm Sandy, so I am not optimistic 

that we would be able to use those funds without some kind of legislative direction. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Just one last quick question. In terms of 

the remaining funds from Superstorm Sandy that have not been 

obligated or used, would you just refresh my memory as to how 

much that is? I am thinking $5.4 billion, half of which has been 

used, half which has not been obligated, but I may be mistaken. 

General Bostick, do you know? 

General BOSTICK. We have used about a billion out of the five 

billion. Most of the larger projects are yet to come. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

General BOSTICK. They are authorized, but not constructed 

projects. 

Senator CARPER. OK. OK. 

Well, let’s continue to have this conversation. Thank you very 

much. Thanks for joining us today. And thank you both for your 

service. Good to see you. 

Ms. DARCY. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Secretary Darcy, so much for your service and being here with us 

today. We appreciate you. 

Arkansas and neighboring States in our area share underground 

aquifers, and this is really of tremendous importance in the sense 

of homes, factories, farms, all of those depend on these aquifers. 

Sadly, after centuries of use, they are being depleted. The problem 

is your folks, other people tell us that when they get to a certain 

level they start to collapse and then they won’t regenerate themselves under any circumstances. So we certainly don’t want to get 

in that situation. In fact, I think that the Corps has described it 

as being catastrophic if that were to occur, with a multi-billion dollar negative impact. So the question is, what do we do about that? 

And, to your credit, the Corps has two great projects there, and 

all of this deals with water scarcity, which is a huge problem. 

When you ask futurists what is going to be the problem in the future, it is water and energy. Everybody agrees with that, I think. 

Again, the question is, how do you fund these projects? It has been 

a real problem. We spend about $200 million between the State 

and the Feds in doing this. I guess the question is the path forVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:11 Oct 21, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\20941.TXT VERN
61 

ward. And the problem is, they drag on, then the cost structure increases to the point it is hard to keep up with inflation. 

So I guess the question is, how do we finance things like that? 

We are in a situation how with WIFIA where existing public-private partnerships are helpful, but they just don’t really help with 

these big projects like that. So what we would like to do is come 

up with another option, and I guess the question is, for you and 

really for the Committee going forward, do you have any advice? 

What can we do to make it such that these projects that we all 

agree are valuable, in the best interest of the public? 

And in these particular cases I think they are great demonstration projects as to what we need to be doing in other parts of the 

Country, again, to eliminate some of the problems that California 

has had, other States. As we look forward, I think that because of 

the fact that we have these unusual weather patterns and things, 

that it is going to become more and more of a problem. 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, I think one of the things we need to do, 

which was alluded to by some of the other members, as well as the 

Committee recognized 2 years ago, was that alternative financing 

is something that we need to take a serious look at and use our 

imagination, as well as looking to private capital markets to help 

with some of this financing. Because we are going to need that in 

order to sustain those kinds of projects, as well as some of our own 

infrastructure projects in addition. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Right. And as far as these types of projects, 

that is something that you, as the Chairman, support? 

Ms. DARCY. These kinds of alternative financing projects? Yes. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Well, alternative financing and then, again, 

these water scarcity projects. We are in a situation now where we 

are experiencing troubles that we haven’t had in the past as far as 

significant, well, we have had these problems in the past. Again, 

the question of how do you actually deal with them. 

Ms. DARCY. Well, because they are water resources development 

projects, so they are ones that not only do we have to recognize 

what our responsibility is for floods, but also for not enough water. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Right. Very good. 

General BOSTICK. And one of the things I would like to say on 

this is I think there hasn’t been a real national dialog and direction 

that we have been given in the Corps or the Nation in how we 

want to address water scarcity and water supply and water distribution. These are generally not areas that the Corps is focused 

on, but it is a national issue, and there is no entity that is taking 

it on. 

So every State, such as yourself, is taking this on, and we have 

to decide whether we want to do it at a national level. In China 

they are moving 50,000 swimming pools a day from the south to 

the north in a gravity-fed channel over 1,800 kilometers to take 

care of their water issues. I am not saying it is the right solution, 

but I am saying they and other countries are looking at us in trying to figure out what we are going to do. That is an example, 

Bayou Meto and Grand Prairie, but we have very few examples of 

what we are trying to do. 

Senator BOOZMAN. And you are right, it is a good example. The 

other thing why it is natural for you all to come into play, I think, 

62 

is, like in our case, this is a multi-State problem. It is something 

that you are going to have to have cooperation among the States, 

and nobody is better to kind of pull all that together, even though 

it is very, very difficult, particularly with water issues. But in the 

sense of preventing water issues, I think that the Corps is playing 

a big role, but probably needs to play a greater role. 

Thank you all, and thank you, sir, very much for your service. 

We very much appreciate you and all you represent. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Assistant Secretary Darcy, we are now roughly three and a half 

years after Superstorm Sandy ravaged the northeast, and I know 

that the New York district is very committed to building the necessary flood protection along our coast, but we find ourselves now 

coming up on yet another hurricane season where large numbers 

of my constituents are left unprotected. In particular, the South 

Shore, Staten Island is expected to take several more years to complete, as is the Rockaway and Jamaica Bay in New York City 

Coastal Storm Reformulation Project. 

Now, while I understand these projects are very large, complex, 

and cannot be studied and designed overnight, are there statutory 

changes that could be made to help the Corps move more expeditiously through projects like these, which literally could mean the 

difference between life and death for millions of people in New 

York should another storm like Sandy hit our shores? 

And, related, we just heard Senator Carper ask you about why 

the money is not spent; and you know Congress, if the money is 

not spent, they spend it somewhere else. So that, of course, raised 

very serious red flags for me because these projects need to be completed. 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, I think your question is are there any impediments that we are finding that are keeping us from going more 

quickly, and I think the answer is no, but I am going to ask General Bostick if he has any additional views. 

General BOSTICK. These are just long-term planning efforts. We 

had some initial issues, I think, with real eState and rights and 

easeways and those sort of things, but generally the States are 

working with us to resolve those local issues and we are working 

with them to move the projects forward. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. OK. Is funding or resources an issue for 

why these projects move slowly? And, if so, should we create more 

opportunities to leverage financing from other sources or expedite 

priority projects to facilitate it? I mean, is there anything that is 

standing in the way of these projects getting done? 

General BOSTICK. I really have to come back to you on some of 

the specific details that the divisions and the districts may be facing. In general terms, they are not things that I believe we need 

from Congress in that we have the funding that we need. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. So I would like from both of you a letter to 

this Committee saying that you intend to use the funds that have 

been appropriated and authorized to do these projects, and that 

they take a long time and that you intend to do this because I want 

63 

these funds to not be somehow targeted for other uses. And please 

address it to the full Committee. 

General BOSTICK. We will do that. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. 

Assistant Secretary Darcy, as you know, the Army Corps is currently working on a dredge material management plan for the disposal of dredge materials into Long Island Sound. I share the concerns of many of my constituents who do not want to see the environmental quality of the Sound negatively impacted by the project. 

Long Island Sound is an estuary of national significance, and both 

the Federal and government of New York State have spent significant resources to clean up the polluted waters of the Sound. 

Specifically, I am extremely concerned that the Army Corps has 

not done a full enough evaluation of alternatives to open water 

dumping in the Sound. The New York State Department and Department of Environmental Conservation have both expressed concerns with the Corps approach, and I was disappointed by the 

Corps’ refusal of New York State’s request to extend the comment 

period to allow additional analysis by the State and other stakeholders. 

Will you commit to working with my office and New York State 

to ensure that the Army Corps will not propose disposal sites that 

in any way would negatively impact the environmental quality of 

the Sound? And as the mission of the Army Corps has evolved over 

the years to place a greater focus on environmental restoration, 

could you comment on whether the long-term environmental costs 

and benefits should be more fully factored into the analysis of the 

various options for where dredge material should be disposed? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, the disposal of the dredge materials is 

something that we take very seriously, especially how it will impact the environment. One of the things we have been looking at 

much more in recent years is the beneficial use of dredge materials 

and how that can be used either for upland disposal or wetland creation or other kinds of things, as opposed to open water disposal 

or other things. 

So we are looking at it not only for an environmental benefit perspective, but also from a cost perspective as well. And we do consider all environmental laws when we make a determination as to 

what is the best disposal option for our dredge materials. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. OK. And then, last, I was very grateful that 

the Army Corps included funding in Fiscal Year 2017 budget for 

the design phase of the Cano Martin Pena environmental restoration project in San Juan, Puerto Rico. I visited the site with Senator Blumenthal in January 2015 and I can’t stress enough how 

critical this project is for protecting public health for children who 

are literally wading in water that has not only refuse, but open 

sewage; and the risk to their health is so severe. So can you just 

provide me quickly with a status update on the project and what 

the Corps timeline is for preconstruction engineering and design 

phase? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, I visited the project three times, it was one 

of the first places I visited when I first took this job, and was 

moved by what I believe our moral imperative is to make this 

project a reality. We have provided funding, as you say, in the 2016 

64 

work plan, as well as the 2017 budget for preconstruction engineering and design. The report is on its way to my office that I need 

to sign off on in order for this to go forward. I am expecting that 

within the month, so it is moving along. 

We have had a great cooperative relationship with ENLACE, 

who is the local sponsor on the ground in Puerto Rico, as well as 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Environmental Protection Agency, because there is the possibility of hazardous materials 

there and we have worked jointly with them in order to deal with 

that so that we can move this forward. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to submit for the 

record one question about the Wallkill River in Orange County that 

you can submit by letter. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. 

Without any further Senators here, we will excuse our panel and 

thank both of you very much for staying with us and particularly 

the service that you have offered, General Bostick. It is exemplary. 

Ms. DARCY. Senator Inhofe, may I just indulge the Committee for 

1 second? I want to thank General Bostick for his service. He has 

been at my side for the last 4 years of this journey, and I couldn’t 

have asked for anyone with more integrity and more commitment 

to the program and projects of the Army Corps of Engineers, and 

his retirement is, in my view, a loss to the Army and the Country. 

Thank you. 

General BOSTICK. Thank you very much, Secretary Darcy. 

Senator INHOFE. I would agree with that. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m. the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ