U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

80–576 PDF 2014

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET: 

ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES FOR THE 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

(113–12) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 24, 2013 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas, 

Vice Chair 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

VACANCY 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

JANICE HAHN, California 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) ................. 7 

Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers .......................................................................................................... 7 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy ................................................................................................ 33 

Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick ................................................................. 41 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

Questions from Hon. Thomas Massie, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Kentucky, for Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of 

the Army (Civil Works) ........................................................................................ 40 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 80576.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 80576.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 80576.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 80576.004
(1) 

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2014 

BUDGET: ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES 

FOR THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m. in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs (Chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GIBBS. Good afternoon. At this time, the Subcommittee on 

Water Resources and Environment will come to order. 

Today we have a hearing on the administration’s budget. We 

have the Honorable Secretary Darcy, Army Civil Works, and General Bostick, head of the Army Corps of Engineers. 

I will start here with an opening statement and then I will turn 

it over to my ranking member. 

The President’s fiscal year 2014 budget is the administration’s 

priorities for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

I am a strong supporter of the efforts by Congress to control Federal spending. However, I feel like this is a belated Groundhog Day 

for most of us on the subcommittee. Many of the Army Corps of 

Engineers activities that we are examining today are true investments in America because they provide jobs and economic return. 

For nearly two centuries, the Civil Works mission of the Corps 

has contributed to the economic vitality of the Nation and improved 

our quality of life. 

Once again, like Groundhog Day, this administration has 

misprioritized the projects and programs of the Army Corps of Engineers. I believe we must be supportive of programs that have a 

proven record of providing economic benefits. 

The fiscal year 2014 budget request by the administration for the Corps of Engineers is $4.7 billion. This request is almost the exact 

same as was requested in previous budgets. 

In 2011, we had some of the worst flooding on record in this 

country. In 2012, we were struck by several major natural disasters. In either 2013 or 2015, it is likely the expanded Panama 

Canal will become operational. 

Yet the President has learned little by the recent experience of 

Superstorm Sandy, since his budget proposes investing only a little 

2 

over $25 million for construction of shore protection projects nationwide. 

In addition, he sends to Congress a budget that has an ecosystem 

restoration construction budget that is four times larger than its 

coastal navigation construction budget. 

The fiscal year 2014 budget is where we expected to find the 

funds to match the administration’s rhetoric on initiatives like the 

President’s export initiative or the President’s ‘‘We Can’t Wait’’ initiative. 

Instead, while the President is proposing $834 million out of the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for operation and maintenance activities in fiscal year 2014, just last year in fiscal year 2013, it is 

estimated the administration collected $1.85 billion in harbor maintenance taxes, paid by businesses for the purpose of maintaining 

America’s ports. 

This will not keep up with the growing demand on our ports to 

accommodate more and larger ships that will leave the Trust Fund 

with almost $9 billion in IOUs to the Nation’s ports at the end of 

the next fiscal year. 

This administration is not the first to shortchange America’s 

water transportation system. I find it irresponsible for any administration or for Congress itself to not fully spend the tax dollars collected for their intended purpose. 

I know we have to find savings, but savings can be found by 

slowing down work on some environmental restoration projects 

until the economy turns around. 

Instead, the President’s budget prioritizes these activities above 

navigation. The largest navigation expansion in the construction 

general account is less than $50 million. 

By comparison, the three largest ecosystem project expenditures 

in the construction general account are one project for more than 

$100 million and one project for almost $90 million, and one project 

for more than $70 million. 

Two of these multimillion-dollar ecosystem restoration activities 

are at the behest of other Federal agencies like the United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. 

While we in Congress understand the Corps of Engineers has to 

comply with the Endangered Species Act and other laws, every 

year the agency has to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on socalled environmental compliance activities at the whim of other 

Federal agencies with no end in sight. 

I think the Corps of Engineers needs to know when to say no. 

Budgets are about priorities. A priority of any administration 

should be to put the United States at a competitive advantage in 

world markets, but not one single coastal navigation project in the 

President’s budget will be completed construction in the next fiscal 

year. 

According to this budget, the coastal navigation system the Nation has today, which is the same coastal navigation system we had 

when the President took office, will be enough to keep the United 

States competitive when the Panama Canal expansion is complete. 

Many of us in Congress disagree. While the President’s export 

initiative and the ‘‘We Can’t Wait’’ initiative made some promises 

3 

to the public, unfortunately, many of us in Congress believe that 

the President’s budget does not deliver on these initiatives. 

Like Groundhog Day once again the President’s budget over 

promises and over delivers. 

I look forward to the testimony from our two witnesses today, 

and I recognize the ranking member, Mr. Bishop, for any statement 

he might have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

This budget hearing is very timely. We are considering a new 

water bill. We are dealing with issues that are being presented to 

us by stakeholders in a series of roundtables that Chairman Gibbs 

and Chairman Shuster have arranged. 

By the way, let me commend Chairman Shuster and Chairman 

Gibbs for hosting these roundtables. They have been very helpful 

and very informative. 

I have four slides that I just want to show. I think they really 

summarize the challenge that is before us. 

The first slide up, basically, this is a summary of what we have 

heard most frequently from the stakeholders, that the project is 

taking too long, it has been authorized for construction, but it is 

not being built. The other is the project is authorized for study but 

we are not moving it to the construction phase. 

We have a $60 billion backlog in authorized but unconstructed 

projects. We need to fully spend down the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund collections for their intended purposes, make sure the 

Fund addresses the needs of all ports, the inland waterways. 

The Trust Fund is broken and needs to be fixed, and the Olmsted 

Locks and Dam project is taking all of the money out of the Inland 

Waterways Trust Fund. 

That represents—at the risk of providing you with a CliffsNotes 

version of what has been a really good and extensive process—that 

represents a summary of what we hear most often. 

If we can go to the second slide. The second slide shows the line 

moving slightly up and to the right, inflation adjusted approps 

starting with fiscal year 2009. If we took fiscal year 2009 and simply adjusted it for inflation, in other words, whatever level of activity we had in fiscal year 2009, we would be able to continue that 

level of activity through fiscal year 2013 and beyond, simply by adjusting for inflation. 

The line going down to the right is actual enacted appropriations 

that this Congress has enacted. 

As the chairman said, President Obama is not the first President 

to request funding for the Army Corps that is inadequate. I would 

point out that the President’s request for fiscal year 2014 is higher 

than any request that President Bush put forward for the Army 

Corps. 

This is a problem, and the Congress, we are the ones that make 

the judgment with respect to what it is we are going to enact. We 

have consistently over those 4 fiscal years following fiscal year 

2009 provided the Corps with less than what they had in fiscal 

year 2009. 

4 

Let’s move to the third. This represents a pictorial summary of 

what would happen if we were to enact into law the budget resolution that passed the House of Representatives. 

The first bar is fiscal year 2013 approps. The second bar is fiscal 

year 2014 President’s request. The bars following the second bar 

are what the appropriation would be if we were to enact the House 

passed budget resolution as the 302(b) allocation level for the 

Corps. 

You will see that there is approximately a $600 million difference 

in fiscal year 2014 between what the President requested and what 

the House budget resolution would set as maximum Corps expenditures, and you will also see that it is not until fiscal year 2020 or 

even fiscal year 2021 that Corps expenditures, if we were to follow 

that, would reach what the President has requested in fiscal year 

2014. 

I think I just heard Chairman Gibbs say he considers the President’s request for fiscal year 2014 to be inadequate. I certainly consider it to be inadequate. 

If we were to follow the House budget resolution, we would not 

even get to that level until fiscal year 2021. 

The last slide. We have had several proposals made that we 

should, for example, spend down the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund. The blue bar on the left represents the fiscal year 2014 construction request for Corps accounts. 

If we were to enact the RAMP Act, that is to say fully spend 

down proceeds of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund without increasing the 302(b) allocation for the Corps, that would eat up 

some $850 million of Corps spending, presumably taken out of construction, because I am not quite sure where else you would take 

it from if you did not take it out of construction. 

If we were to then enact on top of that the Inland Waterway 

User Board proposal for how to fully fund the needs of the inland 

waterways system, which by the way, are serious needs that we 

can no longer ignore, then we would further erode the construction 

account, and then if we were to Federalize the Olmsted project, 

which is something that has been proposed, in other words, take 

Olmsted out of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, put it fully on 

the General Fund’s budget. 

If we were to do all those things, it would leave us with a construction account of around $250 million for the country. 

My point here is that all of these ‘‘solutions,’’ and I will put the 

word in quotes, are simply pushing around the problem unless we 

increase the total amount of funding that is available, and that is 

our job. That is the job that all of us in the Congress have to do. 

If we think these are important things to do, if we think operation and maintenance is important, if we think we have to make 

our ports Panamax ready, if we think it is unacceptable that we 

have locks and dams that have lived beyond their useful life span, 

if we think shore line protection is important, all the things we all 

say to one another, all the things we all do, we cannot keep going 

to the Corps and saying do more with less. 

Every Corps person I have ever asked what do you do with less, 

the response is you do less with less. That is just the reality. 

5 

I want to put those numbers out there so we all have them. I 

want to put the implications of these policy choices out there so we 

all have them. I hope that what we can engage in is a constructive 

discussion on how do we prioritize the Corps within the larger picture of the General Fund’s budget. 

I agree with the chairman, we have needs that we simply must 

address, but we are not going to address them if we keep driving 

down the 302(b) allocation for the Corps. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence and 

I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. At this time, I recognize the chairman of the Full 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Chairman Shuster, 

for any remarks he might have. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Chairman Gibbs. Thank 

you for holding this hearing today. It is an important hearing. It 

is always important to hear the priorities and the views of the 

agency that carries out an extremely important role in the water 

resource activities of our Nation. 

General Bostick and Secretary Darcy, thanks for being here 

today. 

You do play an important role when it comes to our water infrastructure, and this transportation system we have, as everybody 

knows, is the least expensive and the safest way to move cargo 

throughout our country. 

When operating efficiently, the infrastructure can significantly 

lower the transportation costs, which can go up as much as 10 percent of the total cost of a product. 

I look at the cost to ships things around, and I have an example 

that I have been talking about for the last couple of months, or the 

last month, I should say, and it is the cost to U.S. soybean growers. 

To move 1 ton of soybeans from Davenport, Iowa, to Shanghai, 

China, costs in our system $85. When you move that same ton of 

soybeans, same distance, from Brazil, it costs $141. 

We have a significant competitive advantage, but when you look 

at what the Brazilians and the Chinese are doing in Brazil, they 

are investing upwards of $26 billion into their water infrastructure 

to be able to better compete against us. 

I think that sends a clear message that if we do not properly invest in maintenance and modernization of the most efficient means 

of transportation, we are going to lose that economic advantage. 

It is going to cost us jobs. It is going to cost us more to buy goods 

at the stores and markets. It is going to cost us in the world economy when the products we manufacture cost them more money to 

get into that world economy. 

This is an important subject. The President’s budget, as has been 

pointed out, previous Presidents, Republicans and Democrats alike, 

are proposing to not spend the full amount of the ‘‘user fee,’’ I call 

it, that you pay to use the ports of this country. 

The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund has only allocated $834 

million out of $1.8 billion that has been collected. Again, this practice continues to grow. 

On the last surface transportation bill, many colleagues on my 

side with my support tried to pass the RAMP Act, to try to make 

6 

sure that money is dedicated to the purpose for which those folks 

are paying into that Fund. 

One thing that was disconcerting is for months/years, we have 

been asking the question exactly where does that money go, that 

other $1 billion. 

Recently, the Senate Appropriations Committee sent a letter to 

the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. We found 

out that if that money were to go 100 percent to its intended purpose, it would require a significant cut at the Department of Energy. It is the old Washington shell game of we collect here, we are 

not going to spend it there, then we fund something else. 

It is very disconcerting to me and I know the folks that operate 

in those ports and harbors around this country. 

As the chart my colleague from New York showed, that would 

make a significant improvement. If we could spend that money, 

there would be significant improvements to our harbors and ports. 

Again, it is bad enough when the Corps puts hurdles up to 

projects, but in many instances, we found the White House and 

OMB are requiring studies and information that they really do not 

need to make informed decisions. They continue to throw those 

hurdles up. 

It is one of the things I have consistently heard in our series of 

roundtables we have had, that the endless studying and studying 

and studying and never actually getting finished to accomplish a 

project is really hurting us. It takes too long. It costs too much. 

We were at a roundtable about 2 weeks ago. If I did not know 

who was a Democrat and who was a Republican in the room, I 

would have thought we were all in the same party. 

We all were saying the same thing about the need to reform the 

Corps, look at new innovative ways to make it more efficient, and 

as we move forward, I am dedicated to trying to help the Corps improve what it does, look at things like bring in the private sector 

to help, whether it is funding or other innovative ideas they may 

bring to the table. 

Again, I really appreciate Chairman Gibbs and Ranking Member 

Bishop for their hard work on this issue. As we move forward in 

this Congress, again, as I said, I am dedicated to passing a water 

bill that I think is extremely important to the economy of the 

United States. 

Again, thank you very much. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Chairman. One housekeeping business. I 

ask unanimous consent that 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. 

Any objection? 

[No response.] 

Mr. GIBBS. Hearing no objection, so ordered. At this time, I welcome our witnesses. The first witness is the Honorable Secretary 

Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army, Civil Works. Welcome. The 

floor is yours. 

7 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS); AND LIEUTENANT 

GENERAL THOMAS P. BOSTICK, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. 

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

Ms. DARCY. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you 

for the opportunity today to present the President’s budget for the 

Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 

2014. 

I would like to summarize my statement and ask that my complete written statement be included in the record. 

The President’s 2014 budget provides $4.826 billion in gross discretionary appropriations for the Army Civil Works Program, offset 

by $100 million rescission of unobligated carryover from appropriations prior to fiscal year 2013. 

This is $95 million higher than the President’s 2013 budget for 

Civil Works. 

The budget also supports the restoration of certain sites contaminated as a result of the Nation’s early Atomic Weapons Development Program, emergency preparedness and training to respond to 

natural disasters, and recreation, environmental stewardship and 

water supply storage at existing projects owned or operated by the 

Corps. 

These investments will contribute to a stronger economy, improve reliability of waterborne transportation, reduce flood risks to 

businesses and homes, and support American jobs. 

The budget funds the completion of 3 flood risk management 

projects, 1 navigation project, 1 hydropower project, and 21 studies 

and designs. 

The Civil Works budget includes funding for 4 high-performing 

construction new starts, 10 new study starts in the investigations 

account, and 1 new activity in the operation and maintenance account. 

The budget includes the highest amount ever budgeted for use of 

receipts from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to maintain 

coastal channels and harbors. 

Inland waterway capital and investments in the construction account are funded at the maximum amount that is affordable within 

the projected Trust Fund revenue under existing law. 

The administration will continue to work with Congress and 

stakeholders to enact a mechanism to increase revenue for the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. 

The 2014 budget provides $392 million for dam and levee safety 

activities, which includes $41 million to continue the levee safety 

initiative. 

The budget provides $75 million for additional measures to support navigation on the Mississippi River in the current drought, 

which has been affecting the water levels on the river, if it continues into 2014. 

The budget provides continued funding for restoration of five of 

the Nation’s significant aquatic ecosystems, the California Bay 

Delta, the Chesapeake Bay, Everglades, the Great Lakes, and the 

gulf coast. 

8 

The Army continues to work to modernize the Civil Works Planning Program. Proposed changes are aimed at dramatically shortening the time as well as the costs for completion of 

preauthorization studies while retaining the quality of our analyses. The budget again this year includes $3 million for the Veterans 

Curation Program, which provides vocational rehabilitation and innovative training for wounded and disabled veterans while achieving historical preservation responsibilities for our ecological collections that are administered by the Corps of Engineers. 

In summary, the 2014 budget for the Army Corps Civil Works is 

a performance-based budget that supports continued progress on 

important water resources investments that will contribute to a 

stronger economy and continue progress on important water resources investments that will yield long-term returns for the Nation and its citizens. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I look forward 

to working with you in support of the President’s budget, and if I 

could take a few seconds, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize 

the woman who is sitting behind me, who probably has the biggest 

smile on her face. 

She is my Deputy for Management and Budget, Claudia 

Tornblom, she is retiring from Federal service this Friday after 34 

years. 

This is her last visit to Capitol Hill in that capacity. She has 

been an incredible asset to the Army Civil Works Program. I want 

to thank her for her service. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Secretary Darcy. Thank you for your service and good luck in your retirement. 

At this time I would like to welcome Lieutenant General Thomas 

Bostick. He is the Chief of Engineers at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Welcome, General. The floor is yours. 

General BOSTICK. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs, members of the 

subcommittee. I am honored to testify before the committee today 

along with the Honorable Jo-Ellen Darcy on the President’s fiscal 

year 2014 budget for the Civil Works Program of the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. 

This is my first time to testify before this subcommittee, and I 

look forward to working with each of you. 

I have been in command for nearly a year, and I want to touch 

briefly on the four campaign goals that we set for the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers starting last August. 

First, we must support the war fighter with our work in areas 

of operations of the combatant commands and on U.S. installations 

around the world. 

Second, we must transform Civil Works. We do this by modernizing our project planning process, enhancing the budget development process, and by using a smart infrastructure strategy to 

evaluate our portfolio of water resource projects, and finally, by improving our methods of delivery. 

Third, we must reduce disaster risks and continue to respond to 

natural disasters under the national response framework, as well 

as our ongoing efforts with flood risk mitigation. 

9 

Fourth, we must prepare for tomorrow, positioning our workforce 

and our processes for future challenges and focusing on research 

and development efforts that will help solve the greatest challenges 

that this Nation and our Army will face. 

In 2012, the Corps responded to several weather related events, 

including Hurricane Sandy, under the national response framework 

in support of FEMA. Drought was a significant challenge as we experienced extraordinarily low water on the middle Mississippi 

River. The great men and women of the Corps of Engineers worked 

tirelessly together with our State, local and industry partners to 

ensure that we could deliver on our many commitments. 

This country is experiencing even today some challenges as we 

face significant flooding in many parts of the Nation. It is through 

the efforts of our people and our partners at every level that we 

will continue to carry out the projects and programs included in the 

2014 budget. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask that you and other Members refer to my 

complete written testimony submitted to the committee for the specifics on the following areas: the summary of the budget, much of 

which Ms. Darcy outlined earlier. 

The investigation program, our construction program, operations 

and maintenance program, program for planning modernization efficiency and effectiveness of Corps operations, the value of the Civil 

Works Program to the Nation’s economy, research and development, and our support to the national defense. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. I 

look forward to your questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, General. I will start off with questions. 

Secretary Darcy, on July 19, 2012, the President released part of 

his ‘‘We Can’t Wait’’ initiative calling for the expedited actions at 

the Ports of New York, New Jersey, Charleston, Savannah, Jacksonville and Miami. 

As for the Port of New York and New Jersey project, according 

to the press release from the White House last Summer, it states 

that ‘‘The Corps expects to complete this $1.6 billion project in 

2014.’’ 

The President’s budget devotes approximately $49 million to this 

project in 2014. The President’s budget shows the Corps completing 

five construction projects in 2014, the Port of New York and New 

Jersey is not one of the projects forecasted to be completed. 

Can you explain why this project and others in the President’s 

‘‘We Can’t Wait’’ initiative will not be completed in 2014? 

Ms. DARCY. Chairman, I believe the schedule for completion has 

always been 2015. It is part of the ‘‘We Can’t Wait’’ initiative because it is being looked at with a number of other Federal agencies, 

which is one of the requirements for being part of that initiative. 

I believe the completion date is 2015. 

Mr. GIBBS. 2015? That is not what the press release said. They 

must have changed it, I guess. 

Ms. DARCY. I believe that we had it budgeted and scheduled for 

2015. I can go back and check that. 

Mr. GIBBS. I have the release here and it says the Corps expects 

to complete the $1.6 billion project in 2014. For the record, I guess. 

10 

Kind of a followup, the Port of Miami is another project included 

in the initiative. The same press release says the Corps expects to 

complete the deepening of the navigation channel by late 2012. 

Has the Corps carried out the deepening of the Miami channel? 

We were told the Port would be carrying out the project. 

What does the President’s fiscal year 2014 budget do for the Port 

of Miami? 

Ms. DARCY. The Port of Miami is in the President’s 2014 budget 

for an adjustment to the 902 limit. 

The State of Florida, who is our local sponsor and partner in this project, is going to be contributing $77 million of their own money 

in contributed funds to help meet the deepening of this Port. 

Mr. GIBBS. My understanding is it has been approved on the 902 

issue, but I think the Corps could have moved ahead up to the 902 

limit, could they not? 

Ms. DARCY. Chairman, we have to have the 902 limit enacted before we can enter into a project partnership agreement with a local 

sponsor. 

Mr. GIBBS. Can you also give the committee a status on the funding levels of work needed to finish the study of the Port of Charleston deepening project? 

Ms. DARCY. I will check the numbers but the Port of Charleston 

again is one of the ‘‘We Can’t Wait’’ initiatives; it has been part of 

our smart planning or 3×3×3 initiatives, where we were trying to 

get a handle on the studies that are out there. The Port of Charleston is in the President’s budget. I will check for what it is in 2014. 

As part of our smart planning effort, we have reduced 4 years off the study, and we have also found a way to save $8.2 million on 

this study through our smart planning initiative. 

Mr. GIBBS. Also, in the President’s budget that is concerning to 

me is he is budgeting $108 million for construction of coastal port 

projects, which is about a quarter of what is supposed to be spent 

on ecosystem restoration projects. 

Of the 11 navigation projects funded in the budget, how many of 

these will be completed in 2014? For instance, I see the Port of 

Oakland in the President’s budget is for $100,000. Will that 

$100,000 complete the project at the Port of Oakland? 

Can you comment on the massive discrepancy between investing on our infrastructure assets $108 million or 25 percent compared 

to the ecosystem restoration projects? 

Ms. DARCY. Chairman, if you look at the budget overall and if 

you look at the breakdown, about 39 percent of the President’s 

2014 budget is going to be for navigation, another 33 percent will 

be for flood risk reduction, and the remaining 30 percent is a combination of ecosystem restoration and regulatory programs. 

Mr. GIBBS. Excuse me. You are referring to the overall budget. 

We are just talking about the general construction budget. Is that 

correct? 

Ms. DARCY. That was your question, on the construction budget. 

We have budgeted one navigation project to completion in the 2014 

budget. I would have to ask staff which one that is. 

I am sorry, the rest of your question was about the comparison 

between ecosystem and navigation? 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. 

11 

Ms. DARCY. In putting the budget together, we look at all of the 

missions within the Corps of Engineers and priorities and the 

value to the Nation. Within ecosystem restoration, we have several 

projects that not only will help restore ecosystems but can also be 

job producers. 

Mr. GIBBS. When you look at funding priorities, first, invest in 

construction on tangible assets, whether it be locks and dams or 

ports versus eco restoration. 

Do you look at the economic benefits to compare what is the 

smartest investment? 

Ms. DARCY. We do performance-based budgeting. We look at 

what the return will be on the Federal investment on each of those 

projects. 

Within the ecosystem restoration program, there is not the same 

comparable cost-benefit analysis as is done for other kinds of 

projects because of the value—— 

Mr. GIBBS. I am out of time. Quickly, do you also factor in tangible assets, the age and possible failure, especially in the inland 

waterway system? Maybe we should be investing more there. The 

average age is 60-plus years, and we have likely, by the Corps’ own 

admission, failures that could be catastrophic. 

Ms. DARCY. Within each of those accounts, Chairman, we do that 

kind of analysis, what is the most urgent need, especially as it relates to safety and the economy. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Representative Bishop? 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank both 

of our panelists for their testimony. 

I want to stay on the issue of the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund and to some extent the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

The expected collections in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund this year are $1.758 billion. The President proposes transferring 

$890 million of that to the operation and maintenance account. 

This is roughly the historical average, a little over 50 percent of 

proceeds become expenditures. The last budget that President Bush 

submitted was a little over 50 percent, although I will point out 

that the last budget that President Clinton submitted spent down 

96 percent of the annual proceeds, or at least requested that 96 

percent be spent down. 

If we were to pass the RAMP Act, that does not give you $868 

million more to spend unless we increase the overall budget of the 

Corps. Is that correct? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, Congressman. 

Mr. BISHOP. If we were to pass the RAMP Act thereby mandating that the Corps spend $868 million more than it is contemplating spending in O&M, unless we increase the Corp budget, you 

will take that from some other place in the Corps? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, we would have to. 

Mr. BISHOP. The chart that I put up presumed that you would 

take it out of construction since that is the next largest account. 

Is that a reasonable presumption? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. What we are dealing with here is we are proposing 

a solution that not only does not solve the problem, it exacerbates 

the problem. Am I right about that? 

12 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. The same can be said if we were to Federalize Olmsted or if we were to have more General Fund expense 

come out of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. The answer is that either we increase the Corps 

budget or we cannibalize other elements of the energy and water 

appropriations bill by we either increase the 302(b) allocation for 

the Corps or we increase the 302(b) allocation for the energy and 

water budget. Right? 

Ms. DARCY. Correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. At least we all understand the problem. Again, I will 

say to my colleagues, we have to figure out how important it is to 

us to spend the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund proceeds for Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund related activities. Right? That is our 

job, not yours. 

Ms. DARCY. Correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. Let me move to another subject. It is my understanding that there are approximately 30 projects, and please correct me if I am wrong, for which known costs are either approaching or have exceeded their 902 limit. Is that about right? 

Ms. DARCY. I think it is about right; yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Can you (a) give us a brief explanation of what is 

happening that caused this 30 projects to exceed their originally 

budgeted expectation? 

Ms. DARCY. There are several reasons, also depending upon the 

projects. Sometimes it is because it is an older project and over 

time, the prices have escalated from the originally authorized 

project authorization. As you know, 902(b) means the authorized 

project costs have escalated to more than 20 percent of the originally authorized costs, and 902(b) requires us to come back to Congress and ask for an increase in that authorization. 

Thirty is too many. We need to be taking a look at our own way 

of doing our cost estimating. We have established a center of expertise in one of our districts out in Walla Walla, Washington, and 

they are going to be looking at all cost estimates for our projects 

in the future. 

We are also committed to notifying Congress well in advance of 

knowing we have a 902(b) allocation problem because it would need 

to be authorized and take an act of Congress to increase that authorization. 

We are also going to be doing what we call agency technical reviews earlier on in our 902(b) calculations. We are looking throughout the agency, both at the district level all the way up to headquarters, as to what the implication is going to be of this cost increase. 

Mr. BISHOP. Secretary Darcy, I am going to have to cut you off 

because we have 4 minutes left in a vote. 

I want to just ask—are we coming back. 

Mr. GIBBS. We are going to come back. Go ahead and ask. 

Mr. BISHOP. Real quick. The existence of the earmark ban complicates the process by which the Corps would return to us to ask 

for an increase in funding for these 30 some projects. Am I right 

about that? 

13 

If Congress were to authorize them, additional spending, that 

would be considered an earmark. Is that correct? 

Ms. DARCY. That is correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. We would be left in the unenviable position of having spent a considerable amount of Federal money to undertake a 

project but because of the earmark ban, which was designed allegedly to save money, we would wind up wasting money because we 

would not be able to complete the projects that had previously been 

authorized. Am I right about that? 

Ms. DARCY. That is correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Votes have been called. We have three votes. The first 

vote, there is 31⁄2 minutes still to go, 19 people have not voted yet. 

It will be about 3:00. There are two more 5-minute votes. 

We can try to reconvene here about 3:15 or 3:20, if you can indulge us. Thank you. 

We stand in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. GIBBS. We will call the subcommittee hearing back to order 

on the President’s priorities for the Corps of Engineers budget. 

We will probably have more Members straggling in here from the 

vote, but we will go to Mr. Hanna for questions he may have. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you both. I want to 

preface this by saying that I have had a very good experience with 

Commander Bale in Buffalo, while not productive, I regarded him 

as a honest player in this rather complicated process. 

I would like to talk about something that is not directly related 

to the issue at hand, the budget. I would like to raise an issue that 

I have. I represent Marcy, New York, and in my district, the Corps 

placed special conditions and subsequently denied a section 404 

permit for Mohawk Valley Economic Development Growth Enterprises, also known as EDGE, to construct a pad for a potential 

nano technology company, a multibillion-dollar company, to come 

in and build a manufacturing plant on several acres of marginal 

wetlands. 

The Corps denied the permit primarily on the grounds that the 

applicant could not specify with precise detail what the end footprint of the plant would be, although the applicant offered numerous, numerous times to mitigate those marginal wetlands, a few 

acres, four or five acres, some place else in the community, offered 

to do anything possible to get this permit for this potential nano 

technology plant in a very starved community in upstate New 

York, where I live, very economically deprived and in trouble. 

Quite naturally, this is a Catch 22, because without a shovel 

ready pad, the applicant could not compete with foreign companies 

to attract a manufacturer. Without a manufacturer in hand, the 

applicant could not give the details for the specifications of the 

final plant design to the Corps of Engineers. 

What we seem to have and what I am told is spreading to other 

districts, I have talked to other congressmen, is the Corps is halting economic development and holding up good paying jobs and 

growth and opportunity and transfer of jobs back into this country 

14 

over a brand new, new, I emphasize ‘‘new’’ interpretation of the 

Clean Water Act. 

You may be aware that Chairman Gibbs and this subcommittee 

has taken an interest in this case, and on April 12, requested that 

the Corps provide us with a complete administrative record for this 

project, as well as all communications between the Corps and the 

EPA on this matter. 

I trust the Corps will cooperate in this regard. 

The main question is section 404 does not require that the Corps 

cannot give a permit for speculative purposes, for growth purposes, 

for potential customers that we know are there and want to build, 

it does not require that they deny a permit without an end user 

or defined end user. 

The community was willing to and offered to define a maximum 

footprint to allow the Corps to analyze this with regard to the few 

acres of what I think are widely accepted as marginal wetlands. 

How does the Corps of Engineers expect to be a good servant to 

this country and to its constituents, to allow growth and opportunity, and speculation is part of what all that requires, if they are 

going to change their interpretation of this law to make it so very, 

very severe and difficult for a community that has spent tens of 

millions of dollars and 10 years of hard work and many, many trips 

abroad, how does the Corps view that? 

Frankly, I am happy to hear that I am wrong in my interpretation. 

Ms. Darcy? 

General BOSTICK. Congressman, I will start. The Corps of Engineers wants to work with all of our partners, both Federal and 

non-Federal, and certainly with the local communities, to try to 

help support them in their efforts. 

Under the Clean Water Act, our interpretation of the guidelines 

is we have to have a committed tenant. 

Mr. HANNA. This is a new interpretation. We have been able to 

find examples previously with other administrations that allowed 

this to happen. 

This is a severe crime against this community. I believe Commander Bale would have liked to see this problem go away and 

offer us a permit, this community a permit, but his hands were tied 

and I respect that, because of the interpretation that we cannot 

find in the Code that supports the allegation that we are speaking 

to. 

General BOSTICK. I think the guidelines provide that we review 

alternative sites and we look at what type of mitigation needs to 

occur. 

You brought up a point that you would be willing to show the 

maximum footprint that might be able to offset the designs. I did 

not realize that. I think the final design could in fact show you 

need less of a footprint. 

If we did look at a maximum footprint, I would have to go back 

to see if that is something allowable for us to grant the permit 

under those conditions. 

Mr. HANNA. What we believe is that the most Draconian and 

harsh approach was taken in this process. It has been appealed. As 

15 

I said, tens of millions of dollars from an otherwise very economically challenged community has gone into this. 

We still have no resolution. We have watched plants being built 

in other communities around the State and around the country. 

The idea that there is so little latitude, let’s say I am completely 

wrong and there is no latitude in the law, I just suggest to you that 

is also wrong, that the Corps of Engineers should broaden its horizons and its perspective, that if it is a very rigid set of rules and 

regulations that it is only allowed to follow, then following those 

does not further the benefit certainly for the community I am in 

and did not. 

General BOSTICK. I would be happy to take a look at it and we 

can follow up with you on whether from a legal perspective we 

have any ability to work outside the bounds that we have in this 

case. 

Mr. HANNA. Can I expect from you your full cooperation with the 

request for the administrative record? 

General BOSTICK. Yes. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you very much. No further questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. Let me thank our 

witnesses for being here. My question is to Assistant Secretary 

Darcy. 

I really am interested to know why the Dallas Floodway Extension Project is included in the rescission list when the project is 

ready to move forward. 

It seems unfair and unwarranted to include the Dallas Floodway 

Extension Project on the rescission list, especially since any delay 

with obligating the funds were due to lead contamination, not mismanagement, and certainly not because the funds are unneeded. 

It seems especially inappropriate to rescind these funds since 

they will be used to complete the wetlands portion of the project, 

which is a critical component of improving the flood protection to 

downtown Dallas, and providing safety for many of my constituents, and something that the administration claims is its priority. 

I am really having a difficult time reconciling what the administration says about its commitment to infrastructure and what the 

budget reflects. 

Could you please respond to that? I have a second question. 

Ms. DARCY. The project you are referring to, the Dallas Floodway 

Extension Project, is a project that we have not budgeted for, which 

is one of the reasons it is included on the rescission list in the 

budget. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. I am sorry? 

Ms. DARCY. We have never budgeted for that project, which is 

one of the reasons it is included on the general provisions rescission list in the President’s budget. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Could you give me a reason why? 

Ms. DARCY. Why it has never been budgeted? It has not competed well with the other projects within our entire portfolio. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. The other question is Joe Pool Lake sits 

partially within my district and the Trinity River Authority of 

Texas entered into a contract with the Corps in 1976 for 100 percent of the water supply. 

16 

Under the terms of the contract, the city of Cedar Hill elected not 

to activate that portion of the water supply and instead opted to 

defer the interest payments. The interest rate was set in 1976. It 

is very high in today’s standards. 

By this June, the accrued interest and principal due from the 

city of Cedar Hill is $68.9 million. In Texas, we have a desperate 

need for water, but when the city is being forced to pay such exorbitant rates, it makes the use of this water and probably others untenable. 

They visited me just recently and said they would never be able 

to come up with that money. 

I want to know with this population and the Ft. Worth/Dallas 

Metroplex, it is going to double in 50 years, it is the fastest growing area in the country now, so it makes the need for water more 

crucial, what authority does the Corps currently have to renegotiate these water supply contracts? 

I know it is not just this one. There are others. What other option may be available to communities in this situation? 

Can you provide a list of communities throughout the U.S. that 

are in similar situations where they have deferred payments with 

costs nearing millions? 

From what I am hearing, there are many communities that are 

similarly situated and would like to make payments to the Treasury but are unable under these present terms. 

If nothing happens here to renegotiate, they will never be able 

to use that water. 

Ms. DARCY. Congresswoman, the Secretary of the Army does not 

have the authority to reduce the balance, lower the interest rate, 

or allow return to the storage of the Government without payment 

or a penalty. 

The Secretary of the Army and the Corps of Engineers does not 

currently have the authority to do so, and I would be happy to provide a list to you about other communities who are finding themselves in a similar situation as yours. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. You need the authority given by Congress to do that? You have many locations that will never be able 

to pay this money. They are very small communities. Nobody is 

getting the money at this point. 

Ms. DARCY. If it was back in 1976, you are correct, the interest 

rate would be a lot higher than they could get today. It is unfortunate but currently we do not have the authority to do that renegotiation to lower the interest rate. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. You are aware there are a number of 

small municipalities around the country in that shape? 

Ms. DARCY. That are in the same situation; yes. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Mullin? 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for coming in 

today. I have some type of sympathy for you just for the simple fact 

that your hands are tied to a certain degree, and you have a tremendous responsibility ahead of you. 

There are still a lot of questions that I feel like the Corps could 

address without having to ask permission to do so. 

17 

I am from Oklahoma. We have one of the busiest if not the busiest and biggest inland water ports on the national waterway system. Yet for 4 hours every day, the locks to bring up our barges 

are being locked because they are saying less than 1,000 lockages 

are being used in our waterways. 

Back 2 or 3 years ago, I guess, there was a study done. A recommendation by the Corps was to save money, we are going to 

start closing these locks. If a lockage on inland waterways, which 

in the current system has fewer than 1,000, we are going to lock 

it. 

As of 2012 when this started, when you started the locks, the 

numbers were sufficiently higher than 1,000, because the data you 

are using is from 3 years ago, when the economy obviously was in 

bad shape. 

My question to you, ma’am, is when are you going to fix this 

problem? When are you going to look at the new data that is out 

and quit allowing a backlog that is setting at these lockages waiting to get through for 4 hours because you are using old data? 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman, you are correct, the data is from that 

long ago, and we just instituted this reduced levels of service this 

past year. 

What we are going to do every year, beginning this summer, is 

look at what the impact has been for this calendar year, or once 

the levels of service were reduced, looking at both the data from 

that year and as close as we can come to the most current data to 

evaluate whether the levels of service should be changed. 

You are correct that we are looking at 1,000 commercial lockages 

or more would get the increased levels of service. 

We were operating all of our locks and dams 24/7. 

Mr. MULLIN. The data is already in support of these 3, there are 

5 on the McClellan-Kerr waterway, but there are 3 in Oklahoma, 

and data is already there that all 5 are locking more than 1,000 

already. 

My question is why do we need more data? You already have it 

there. There is no more study that has to be done. The rule was 

fewer than 1,000 lockages, commercial lockages, and we are well 

over that number now. 

Ms. DARCY. We will reexamine those numbers. We were basing 

it on 1,000 or more commercial lockages. If it is demonstrated that 

1,000 or more commercial lockages are being locked on that facility, 

then they would be raised back to the initial level of service one. 

Mr. MULLIN. We can provide that information. My office can provide that information for you. What is the turn around time on 

this? 

Ms. DARCY. I would have to check with our district commander. 

We would be happy to look at it. 

Mr. MULLIN. Are you saying we could get this accomplished fairly quickly? This is directly a decision that you can make. This is 

not something that has to come through Congress. This is not 

something you have to ask permission for. 

Ms. DARCY. That is correct. 

General BOSTICK. This is something we can decide on. Our plan 

was to use the data we had and then come back a year after that, 

18 

make an assessment, and then with the new data at the end of the 

year, make the proper adjustments. 

I think the bigger issue is we have a lot of infrastructure out 

there and a lot of it is failing or is about to fail. We just do not 

have the money for O&M in order to maintain it. 

Mr. MULLIN. General, with that being said, that brings me to another question. We have three locks on the McClellan-Kerr system, 

like I said, and by your own admission, there is a 50/50 chance 

these could fail at any time, and we are talking about $100 million 

of backlog, of repairs needed to be done. Underneath the new budget, $98 million is going to just one 

project. Why are we not spreading that out? Why are we focusing 

on just one project when there are so many inland water ports that 

are so dependent on the infrastructure, that we are focusing on just 

one area? 

General BOSTICK. Again, we have talked about the projects. 

What we try to do is make sure that life safety comes first and 

then we focus on navigation, aquatic ecosystem restoration and 

flood risk management. Those are the three areas we look at. 

When you look inside the inland waterways, the top six rivers 

carry about 95 percent of the commercial cargo. They receive about 

70 percent plus of the funding. We have to take that remainder of 

the money and spread it out based on the priorities that we can 

see. The bottom line is there are much more requirements that we 

have than we have funding. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you. Ma’am, we will get that information to 

your office and I look forward to hearing from you. 

Ms. DARCY. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Frankel? 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to 

just give a shout out, Madam Secretary, to our district commander 

in Florida out of Jacksonville, Colonel Dodd. He and his staff have 

been very, very cooperative to work with. I want to thank you for 

that. 

First question is if this committee does not authorize specific 

projects in the upcoming water bill, what will drive the Army 

Corps work agenda in the future? 

Ms. DARCY. Congresswoman, we will continue to construct and 

operate and maintain the existing projects that we are responsible 

for now. If there are not any additional projects authorized, there 

are about 23 Chief’s Reports before Congress right now awaiting 

authorization, but if those projects do not get authorized, we will 

continue to hopefully complete and operate and maintain the 

projects that we have authorization to do. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you. I want to talk a little bit about Everglades restoration, which is very important to Floridians, and has 

always enjoyed bipartisan support. 

The comprehensive Everglades restoration plan, as you know, 

provides a framework and a guide to restore, protect and preserve 

the water resources in southern Florida, including the Everglades, 

and was approved in a water bill in 2000. 

I want to sort of answer a question that was asked about economic impact of these types of projects. A recent study by the EverVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:48 Nov 07, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\2013\4-24-1~1\80576.TXT JEAN
19 

glades Foundation shows a 4:1 return of an investment, because it 

is not just about making the environment look pretty, restoring the 

Everglades, it is improving our water quality, our fishing opportunities, our habitat, hunting, increasing real estate values, park visitation. 

There are a lot of economic factors of why we need to continue 

with these projects as well as life sustaining. It is our drinking 

water and natural habitat that live in the Everglades. 

My question to you is in doing this water bill, in order to continue the work of the Everglades restoration, do you need specific 

authorizations? 

Ms. DARCY. Congresswoman, there are, I believe, four projects 

awaiting authorization that impact the Everglades restoration. I 

would have to check my notes to see what they are. Four of them 

would need to be authorized soon in order to be able to complete, 

not complete, in order to continue the restoration efforts. Most of 

what is being proposed in the entire south Florida system is a system’s approach to the restoration so each of them are connected, 

and the four that are currently pending need to be authorized as 

soon as we can. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Does there have to be specific language identifying 

those particular projects? 

Ms. DARCY. In the authorization bill in 2000 that authorized the 

entire program, there was language that required a project implementation report for each of these projects, and that is what we 

have submitted through the Chief of Engineers and through the 

administration to the Congress. Yes, they need to be authorized. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Another quick—I do not know if this quick, but, 

first of all, thank you. I know we met last week if you remember 

because we were trying to get a Chief’s Report for Port Everglades. 

And one of the issues that we talked about was the economic model 

that is being used in order to do the evaluation. And I am wondering whether you have given any more thought to how you can 

share information so that—in a transparent way? 

Ms. DARCY. The district met with the local sponsor for the Port 

of Everglades study that you are referring to in order to try to do 

just that. The Harvard simulation model, which is what we are 

using to do the economic modeling for this project, has various inputs, both from Corps of Engineers data and also the local sponsors’ data input to help run the model. So we are trying to be able 

to share as much as we can, barring any legal or proprietary arrangements that we have with those who have provided that data 

to us in a way that we can be transparent, as well as share that 

information with the local sponsor so that we can get this economic 

model in sync and ready to go to support this Chief’s Report. 

Ms. FRANKEL. And very quickly, many of our local governments 

in south Florida have been waiting to receive millions of dollars 

owed to them for beach renourishment, how are we going to get our 

money? 

Ms. DARCY. I do not know if I have an answer to that one. You 

and I also spoke about the Sand Report. Is this related to the domestic sand burst? 

Ms. FRANKEL. Well, this has to do with the federally authorized 

cost share program. 

20 

Ms. DARCY. I am not quite sure which projects you are referring 

to unless they are all part of the beach renourishment projects on 

the coast? 

Ms. FRANKEL. There are many of them along the coast in south 

Florida. 

Ms. DARCY. Right, well, all of our beach renourishment projects 

are on a renourishment schedule because they are authorized. Most 

beach renourishment projects are authorized for a 50-year project 

life, and within that authorization, there is a renourishment cycle. 

Where the project sits, the tides and the little drift determines 

what the renourishment cycle will be. And each project can be renourished every year or every 10 years, depending again on the 

project’s location and its authorized purposes. 

We have been budgeting for renourishment projects so they 

should be able to continue hopefully at the rate that they had been 

authorized. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Massie? 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This question is for Ms. 

Darcy. In the decision, National Mining Association v. Jackson, the 

court ruled that the enhanced coordination procedures developed by 

the EPA to dictate or influence the terms of section 404 permits 

under the guise of coordinating with the Corps unlawfully changed 

the permitting process for section 404 coal mine permits under the 

Clean Water Act. And these unlawful policies, adopted more than 

3 years ago, created a permit moratorium, if you will, resulting in 

almost as many section 404 permit applications being withdrawn 

by applicants as issued by the Corps. How is the Corps ensuring 

that these permits are going to be issued in a timely manner and 

consistent with the court’s ruling? 

Ms. DARCY. I think the enhanced coordination procedure is what 

you are referring to, which was overruled by the courts. Since that 

ruling, we have been doing all that we can to do timely reviews of 

our 404 permits in compliance with the law. I do not, off the top 

of my head, have our current rate of review, but, again, it is all 

dependent upon whether we get all the information that we need 

upfront for that timely review. I will have to check with my staff, 

but I think it is between a 30- and 60-day review period depending 

upon the complexity of the permit. 

Mr. MASSIE. Since the ruling, have any permits been issued? 

Ms. DARCY. Since then? Yes. I can get you the number for the 

record if you would like. 

Mr. MASSIE. OK, thank you very much. Now, switching gears a 

little bit. Recognizing the desperate need for upkeep and investment in our inland waterways, the commercial carriers and users 

of these waterways have pretty much volunteered to help make a 

contribution to this, but the question is how will this user fee, if 

you will, be collected. So, there has been some discussion as to 

whether this would be collected as a lock fee or, as is currently the 

case, as a fuel tax, if you will. Can you talk to that? 

Ms. DARCY. Sure. Currently, there is the tax on diesel for the inland waterway users. The lockage fee that has been proposed by 

the President would be established. We have not elaborated on all 

the details of the fee, but we would like to be able to work with 

21 

our stakeholders, as well as this committee, to determine how that 

lockage fee would be assessed and collected. 

I think part of it is just what exactly would the mechanism be 

for the collection? Would it be at each lockage site? Would it be 

some cumulative accounting that would be collected at the end of 

a year? Those details have not been established. 

Mr. MASSIE. Let me ask this then, wouldn’t that create—creating 

another fee when there already is a mechanism for collecting a 

user fee, creating that new fee, wouldn’t that create another level 

of bureaucracy and some inefficiency and also a disproportionate 

burden on users on one portion of the inland waterway versus another? 

Ms. DARCY. Well, again, those are the kinds of questions that we 

need to work out and get some input on because we don’t want to 

create additional bureaucracy or an additional administrative expense. So maybe it would make sense to collect the lockage fee in 

the same way that we currently collect the tax, although the tax 

is, as I say, on the fuel that each barge owner and each transporter 

pays. 

Mr. MASSIE. In your opinion or professional opinion, do you think 

it could affect users disproportionately on the inland waterways if 

it were collected as a lock fee versus a fuel tax? 

Ms. DARCY. Well, again, it would not be in the same proportion 

as the tax because the tax is on the amount of fuel you use. This 

would be on the numbers of times you lock into a lock. So those 

users who lock in more would be paying a larger fee than those 

who use different portions of the inland waterway system. Where 

you don’t have as many locks or as many lockages per trip, would 

be paying less. 

Mr. MASSIE. Would it be easier just to use the existing structure 

than to create a new bureaucracy, if you will? 

Ms. DARCY. Well, the existing structure is the diesel tax, and this 

would be a different fee. It would not be a tax on the commodity 

that they are purchasing. So, it would be a different structure but 

maybe there is a way that we could develop it so that it would not 

create the duplication that you might be considering would be as 

a result of this. 

Mr. MASSIE. OK, thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Just for a point of clarification, Secretary Darcy. You 

referred to it as a ‘‘lockage fee,’’ I believe in the President’s budget 

request, he refers to it as a ‘‘vessel fee,’’ which I think could be a 

different animal because, you know, a lockage fee would be a 

charge every time a vessel goes through the lock. A vessel fee could 

be something different where you charge a license to be on the system. 

Ms. DARCY. Right, or you could charge per barge or as you say 

per vessel as opposed to per lockage—per barge as opposed to each 

time you go into the lockage fee. 

Mr. GIBBS. So, what is the administration requesting, a vessel 

fee or a lockage fee? 

Ms. DARCY. I think we are open to either. 

Mr. GIBBS. Open? 

Ms. DARCY. We are open to finding out which would be the best 

use and create the best revenue source for it. 

22 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

Ms. DARCY. We are not locked in, no pun intended. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Kirkpatrick? 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Assistant Secretary Darcy, you know I represent the city of Flagstaff. I sent you 

a letter in February of this year about the Rio de Flag project. For 

the past 20 years, that has been a major priority of the city of Flagstaff. We have had 15 major floods, large floods, since 1888. And 

another flood would affect half the population of a town of 65,000. 

I just want to quantify some of the economic damages and have 

that in the record. Another single flood would cause damage to approximately 1,500 structures valued at $450 million. A single large 

flood event would cause an estimated $93 million in economic damages to the area. On the other hand, completion of the Rio de Flag 

project would result in an estimated $100 million in economic development to the community. This project really is the lifeblood of 

the community. 

The Federal Government has spent more than $24 million to 

date. The city of Flagstaff has kicked in more than $14 million. At 

this rate, it will take us 20 years to complete this project. So my 

question is when will the Corps commit significant resources to this 

project to ensure that this city and its citizens and businesses will 

not be at risk for another catastrophic flood? 

Ms. DARCY. Congresswoman, I do not believe that this project 

was budgeted for in the President’s 2014 budget, so at this time I 

cannot make a commitment as to when it would be budgeted. 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. That is very disappointing. In my letter to you, 

I asked—I requested $3.9 million just to keep the project going. 

And I think it is so important not only to the community, but we 

do not want to waste taxpayer dollars that have already been spent 

on this project. So I hope that it will continue to be a top priority 

of the Corps and the administration. 

My second question goes to another project in my district, the 

lower Santa Cruz. The lower Santa Cruz River has a long history 

of severe floods that can destroy everything in its path during 

heavy rains. The Army Corps’ own report states, ‘‘Today, with the 

area’s rapid growth and river flow changes, damage from a major 

flood could devastate the entire region and cost billions of dollars 

in damage. Before the Army Corps can move on this project, a reconnaissance study must be completed at the cost of $100,000 in 

Federal funds.’’ Can you use fiscal year 2013 work plan funds? 

And, if not, can you use fiscal year 2014 monies in your budget to 

fund the reconnaissance study? 

Ms. DARCY. We cannot use 2013 work plan money because it was 

not in the 2012 budget; we cannot budget for anything in the 2013 

that was not funded in 2012. 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. Well, what about 2014? Using the work plan 

funds for that in the 2014 budget? 

Ms. DARCY. Well, the President’s budget for 2014 does not include funding this project. We will have to decide whether we get 

a 2014 work plan or not. If we are operating under a continuing 

resolution, which we have done for the past 3 years, then we would 

develop a work plan for spending in 2014. But in the past, we have 

23 

been directed not to fund anything in that work plan that was not 

funded in the previous work plan. 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. So, basically, I have to report back to this community there is not going to be any funding for several years for 

this very important major project? 

Ms. DARCY. Unfortunately, it is not in the 2014 budget. 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. OK, thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. I am going to rotate back and forth a little bit with myself, me and myself some time. Secretary Darcy, I 

want to—in light of yesterday’s U.S. Court of Appeals, District of 

Columbia, court decision on the revocation of the 404 permit that 

was done 3 years after the Army Corps issued the permit, and my 

understanding is on that permit that the Army Corps issued, there 

was no violations of the permit. There wasn’t a problem. I believe 

last Congress in our testimony we heard—we had reports from the 

State of West Virginia, the EPA did not support the U.S. EPA’s actions. The Army Corps admitted there were no issues with the permit in violations or anything like that. 

Questions come to mind that is really concerning to me is a business entity goes through the long process, in this case it was a 

number of years, and get their permit and start the operation. And 

3 years later, the U.S. EPA revoked the permit, which I believe 

really is the first time in American history that ever happened. 

What is the value of getting a permit from the Corps with that 

threat? 

And then, secondly, what did the Corps do in your capacity to 

stand up, you know, to uphold the Corps decision to grant the permit? Did the Corps make any arguments in support of the actions 

of the Corps? 

Ms. DARCY. I am familiar with the court case, Chairman. And because the Corps of Engineers is, in the State of West Virginia, currently under litigation on this same permit. I cannot comment. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. OK, so I guess I will see if I can rephrase that 

question. So there wasn’t—I guess I am at a loss here what to say. 

The question would be during—was there consultation before the 

permit was revoked in 2010 between the Corps and the EPA? Can 

you comment on what consultation might have happened when I 

assume the Corps got word that the EPA was considering doing the 

revocation, was there any consultation previous to revocation? 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman, unfortunately because—— 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

Ms. DARCY [continuing]. Of the situation, and because this case 

has been remanded, it means it is still ongoing—it has been remanded back to the circuit court, and then our ongoing litigation. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, OK, let me ask—let us forget about that then. 

Let’s ask more of a hypothetical in the future. What would your 

role as assistant secretary of Army Civil Works do if an issue 

where you issued a permit, and things were going along fine in the 

operation of the entity that has the permit, what would be your 

role as the Corps to argue the case or not argue the case to defend 

the actions of the Corps, what would be your response to the EPA? 

Ms. DARCY. We would defend the issuance of a Department of 

the Army permit. A Department of the Army permit goes through 

any number of consultations from the beginning to the end, and 

24 

once it is issued, I think that we would defend it. It is under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, I think it is section T that is the 

veto authority for the EPA. 

Mr. GIBBS. Is there any thoughts of—or maybe you have already 

done it, having some guidelines set up, some kind of a framework 

that the Corps and the EPA would work instead of just an ad hoc 

policy? 

Ms. DARCY. If we issue a permit and EPA has issue with that 

permit, and wants to use their veto authority, the Department of 

Justice is sort of the arbitrator in that situation for us. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, would you concur with me that we should do everything possible because of the value of the permit, these companies, these entities, expend a lot of dollars to go through the environment studies and all the things they need to do, create a lot of 

jobs, to make sure that the value of that permit really has something behind it. So you would go on record saying that the Corps 

would defend that permit, especially if there is no violation of the 

permit? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, want to make that clear. Mr. Garamendi, go 

ahead. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. 

Thank you for your appearance here. I think we have heard virtually all of us that we want more. We want something done. I am 

going to join in that, but I want to thank you for the work that 

has been done. I want to thank you for the work that you have 

done on saving these people’s lives in floods and responding to 

those floods. You and the men and women of the Army Corps of 

Engineers have done an exceptional job over the years. 

I suspect that a lot of the problem that we have heard from various—from us and others comes not so much from the Corps but 

rather from us, from the appropriations, or lack of them, from our 

desire not to do earmarks puts the Corps in a very, very difficult 

situation. 

Ranking Member Bishop laid out very well the conundrum that 

we all face. It is a conundrum that you are being held accountable 

for but it is really our responsibility. We have not made the appropriate—we have not made the appropriations. We have not analyzed projects that should be discontinued and put them aside. We 

have let projects continue on. So I think the problem really lays 

here, but you are being held accountable. And I do not think that 

is right. 

I do want to thank the Corps for what you are proposing, and 

what you have done in my district and the surrounding areas. You 

are moving very quickly on the Sutter Buttes levee project, a 40- 

mile critical levee project in Sutter County. We thank you for getting that done and moving it expeditiously. 

You have provided in the President’s budget, and I hope that we 

keep it in, money for the Yuba River fish passage, a critical issue, 

as well as money for the Yuba River Basin. I thank you for that. 

Even the children’s center at Beale Air Force built ahead of time 

and below cost by the Corps of Engineers, we thank you for that. 

We know you are going to do some drudging at the Port of Stockton. We thank you for that continuing. On the American River, a 

25 

huge project that is going to protect the second most at-risk city in 

the Nation, Sacramento. And I know you are moving forward on 

the Chief’s Report for the Natomas. We thank you for that. And little Hamilton City, which is clearly going to be flooded the next 

time the Sacramento River rises, you have proposed money for 

that. And we thank you for that. 

And I would simply say that for the rest of the issues, I suspect 

that if we gave the Corps the money it needed for all that we have 

asked, you would get it done on time. 

I want to also bring to your attention something you are doing 

already, and I would like you to continue to do this, it is your 

3×3×3 program. I think it can work. I think if there is a flaw in 

it such that you do not have the money to complete the third 3, 

and once again that comes back to us. We will talk about other 

things along the way. We have got the Bay Delta, a huge issue, 

and I know that you are engaged there with the Bay Delta studies 

and the levees, thousands of miles of levees in my district. 

I look forward to working with you on this. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Hahn, do you have a question? 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member 

Bishop. There is certainly more attention now than ever has been 

I think on the idea of spending the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund fully for the purpose that it was intended. And I know in my 

bipartisan PORTS Caucus, this issue is really, really coming to the 

forefront. So, ports are now coming to the forefront of our—of the 

dialogue here. The President even mentioned the need to modernize and keep our ports competitive. 

I mean when we really talk about the economy and the jobs, it 

really does come down to our ports being dredged, maintained and 

modernized, and yet we do know that we are spending so little of 

the HMT. We are glad to see that the administration is proposing 

to increase the spending to I guess the highest level yet at $890 

million, but that is still only half of what the Harbor Maintenance 

Tax is collecting. And it is collecting it for the express purpose of 

maintaining our harbors. The American Association of Port Authorities suggests that full channel dimensions are available less 

than 35 percent of the time. So, I think that is a real problem as 

we move forward with the Panama Canal coming online, keeping 

our ports in this country competitive. 

So, every time I suggest that we spend the Harbor Maintenance, 

which by the way has a $9 billion surplus right now, every time 

I suggest spending it for the intended purposes for which it is collected or returning the tax to the ports where it was collected, I get 

pushed back. And what I usually hear is, ‘‘Well, if you actually 

spend that money for dredging our harbors, maintaining our harbors, actually spend it on what it is intended to be used for, all 

these other projects that the Corps has will have to be suspended, 

put aside, not done.’’ Can you explain to me why that is? 

Ms. DARCY. Congresswoman, because there is a cap to our budg- et, I mean the President’s request is $4.8 billion for this fiscal year. 

If we take the $890 million in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, 

which is appropriated out of that Trust Fund by the Congress, and 

if we were to say we are going to double that, we are going to use 

26 

it all, then we are still only at $4.8 billion. So that money has to 

come from someplace else. So that additional $890 million would 

have to come from other projects. 

Earlier, Congressman Bishop was talking about the fact that that would delete our construction budget probably only down $200 

million that we could spend on construction. We are capped at $4.8 

billion for our overall budget. 

Ms. HAHN. So if that—if your budget, if the cap was lifted? 

Ms. DARCY. If 302B allocations, both within the energy and 

water appropriations bill were changed or within the Army Corps 

of Engineers, that would be a way to increase the spending from 

the Trust Fund. 

Ms. HAHN. And say that we—that happened, and we lifted the 

cap, and we actually—Congress agreed to spend the entire Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund back where it is meant to be spent in its 

ports and harbors, could the Corps actually—or maybe I should ask 

how long would it take for the Corps to bring up all of our Nation’s 

ports to their authorized deepening level? 

Ms. DARCY. Oh, I would just be speculating. I might defer to the 

Chief on this, but it depends again if we are talking $2 billion a 

year. 

Ms. HAHN. Yes. 

Ms. DARCY. Let us say $2 billion a year; I think it would take us, at a $2 billion a year expenditure rate, at least 5 years to get 

to that authorized level. 

Ms. HAHN. And how many jobs do you think would be created 

if we actually got all of our harbors up to speed? 

Ms. DARCY. I do not know. I would have to do a calculation as 

to the increased numbers and the availability of dredges and what 

per—— 

Ms. HAHN. I would like you to get that back. 

Ms. DARCY. OK. 

Ms. HAHN. I would like to see it. I think that is really how we 

should talk more in this country when we talk about these kinds 

of appropriations, what it actually means to job creation, as well 

as global competitiveness. So, I do think that this is an issue that 

we are probably—we are pushing I think probably more than any 

Congress ever has before, so get ready. 

Ms. DARCY. OK. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Napolitano. I struggle with your 

name, sorry. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Just try Grace. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is 

good to see you, Secretary Darcy and General Bostick. Look forward to working with you. I have got to tell you both that both 

your former directors in the area, my area, we worked with them 

for years, Colonel Mangus and Colonel Troy. And they are both excellent. Not only my staff but all my entities and others are really 

very much in agreement that they are very easy to work with and 

very responsive to the needs of the communities that we all serve. 

So I wanted to thank you for them. 

As you are aware, Santa Fe Dam is in my area, and it is a very, 

very critical part of the flood control and water conservation. One 

of the biggest problems is sediment buildup because you get all the 

sediment coming off the mountain range. And the ability to remove 

27 

that requires the Corps to look at its policy to market the sediment 

instead of giving it away, like many of the other flood control agencies do, and they get rid of it real easily, very quickly to be able 

to be ready for the next storm. It is a major bureaucratic burden, 

and we want to be able to work with you. How can we speed up 

the process? Does it require an act of Congress? Is it something we 

can put into WRDA? What can we do to be able to effectively speed 

up the process to be able to capture more rainwater since we are 

in a drought condition? Yes? 

General BOSTICK. I am not sure I am tracking with the question, 

Congresswoman. I thought you were talking about the sediment 

and whether we can dredge more. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right, the Santa Fe Dam is in my area, and 

they have apparently looked to the Corps to request the ability to 

move that. And apparently the Corps policy requires you to market 

the sediment instead of giving it away. Well, it is a major bureaucratic burden for them to act quickly and efficiently, value the sediment and get rid of it, while other local control agencies are able 

to give it away without having to go through a bureaucratic maze. 

How can we expedite that? Does it require us to be able to include 

it in WRDA or what can we do so that we can effectively dredge 

those areas, remove that sediment and allow for more capture of 

storm water? 

General BOSTICK. I think I am going to have to follow up, Congresswoman. I really do not have the answer to that specific issue. 

Ms. DARCY. But I agree with the Chief. I think that kind of valuing in the market of sediment would have to compete with some 

of the other missions that we have similar to that in the area. But 

I think we do need to follow up because I am not aware of the marketing component that you are referring to. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, this was brought up to me by some of 

the L.A. County folks. And then there was an issue—and I understand this is taken care of, but I am not quite sure. The Water Replenishment District offered to help pay for the Whittier Narrows 

Study to upgrade the leak study in the dam. And they offered to 

help pay for the study, and we could not get the Corps or anybody 

to accept the money to be able to get it done. And it was listed as 

a top priority, yet to this day I do not think the study has been 

finished because of the money. And we were able to get some funding, but they were willing to help pay for the study. And we could 

not find anybody to accept the money. 

Ms. DARCY. We do have authority to accept contributed funds, 

but I believe we have to have a project partnership agreement with 

a local sponsor before we can accept those contributed funds. But 

in this particular case, Congresswoman, I will look into it because 

it just seems as though that makes sense. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, it would have expedited the ability for 

them to be able to work, and the Replenishment District would 

have had more potential of putting recharge. 

With EP’s direction to pursue an integrated watershed approach 

for water resource planning, local agencies are looking for using a 

multibenefit regional water resource project, projects, plural. They 

would integrate a variety of water management objectives, including storm water quality improvement, increased storm water capVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:48 Nov 07, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\2013\4-24-1~1\80576.TXT JEAN
28 

ture to enhance local supplies and increased recreation with enhancing habitat. Because there is such a value in water, we have 

the North and South fights over water, and the drought situation, 

we are looking to see how we can help get the Corps’ help to contribute to such projects? 

Ms. DARCY. Congresswoman, we are currently looking at doing 

something just like that; we are doing our watershed budgeting. 

Actually, we have got a couple of pilots right now that hopefully 

we are going to be able to include and propose in the 2015 budget 

that would do watershed budgeting, which would incorporate many 

of those concepts and how we would budget for our future project. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I look forward to working with you, and being 

able to clarify and expedite any of these that we may. If it requires 

congressional approval, then we need to know so we can begin the 

process. 

One last question, Mr. Chair. It requires the new fees that are 

being imposed on the county parks department, the Los Angeles 

Department of Parks and Recreation has an 836 acre facility, and 

apparently there is a concession agreement with the Corps. And 

they are requesting based on a letter of January 11th of 2012 to 

be able to pay for analyzing concession—review and analyzing concession agreements. Is that something new? When was that put 

into effect, and can we get more information? I do not need your 

answer now, but I will talk to you about it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. GIBBS. I will yield to myself a couple more questions. General Bostick, first of all, I would like to thank you and General 

Walsh for expediting the rock pillar destruction and the dredging 

there on Cairo, Illinois, on the Mississippi to keep that openness 

pass several months. And I know in my local farm elevator in my 

local community was paying attention to that, so I know the agricultural community and other shippers are really appreciative of 

that, to get that expedited and get that job—keeping that part of 

the river open. 

General BOSTICK. Thank you, Chairman. I will pass that on to 

the troops. They reacted fairly well when we got support from 

throughout Washington down to the local level, so we appreciate it. 

Mr. GIBBS. That is great. I know you are able to expedite the 

contracts, and do all that you needed to do, so things cannot happen until we determine to get them to go, I think. 

General Bostick, the President’s budget requests a change in the 

cost of the Olmsted Locks and Dam project. It increases it approximately $3.1 billion. How much of that cost increase can be spent— 

will be spent on salaries and administrative costs at the district 

level? Do you have any idea? 

General BOSTICK. Chairman, could you say the specific project 

again? 

Mr. GIBBS. The Olmsted Locks and Dam project that the President—it has been, you know, there has been a lot of cost overruns 

there. It has been a project that has gone on now for nearly 30 

years, and it has been up to $3.1 billion, which is several times the 

original appropriation. My question is how much of that cost and 

the overruns in the future is being allocated to salaries and adminVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:48 Nov 07, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\2013\4-24-1~1\80576.TXT JEAN
29 

istrative costs at the district level, which would be the Louisville 

District? 

General BOSTICK. I do not have the specific number, Mr. Chairman, but I could follow up with you on that. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, appreciate that. Also, due to schedule and cost 

overruns I mentioned at the Olmsted lock, the Olmsted Locks and 

Dam project is being built to replace the very aging locks, 52 and 

53. How much of this funding increase for Olmsted is going to rehabilitate locks 52 and 53? And when do you think those—the 

major rehabilitations will occur? 

General BOSTICK. What I would say, Mr. Chairman, for Olmsted 

to move forward, we need a 902 fix. If it does not move forward, 

then we will continue to do the work that we are doing to maintain 

locks 52 and 53. 

Mr. GIBBS. I fully understand that. I am going to get to the 902 

in a second, but my question is what are we allocating towards 

locks 52 and 53 because my understanding is they need to stay 

operational? We are going to invest money because we are probably 

what, 8 or so years away of completing the Olmsted Project? And 

so I am wondering is the $3.1 billion, is that part of the allocation 

for Olmsted to facilitate the rehabilitation of locks 52 and 53 or is 

that in addition? 

General BOSTICK. That cost is just for Olmsted. The maintenance 

of locks 52 and 53 is separate, and I would have to get that figure 

for you. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, OK, I appreciate that. Also, the 902 fixes that 

will be needed in 2013, how many 902 fixes are there for this fiscal 

year 2013 and also for fiscal year 2014? 

General BOSTICK. I think the total is about 30, but I would have 

to follow up. It is roughly about 30. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes, we would like to have a list of that, and then 

also I think the amount, the dollar amount since we are working 

on the WRDA bill. I think in order to put all this together, we have 

to get a handle on that. 

Also, in WRDA 2007, Congress authorized the Corps to utilize 

independent peer review for some of its projects. How long do these 

reviews typically take, and how much do they typically cost on 

these peer reviews? Any idea on that? 

General BOSTICK. It really depends on the size of the project, the 

magnitude and the level of difficulty. I really cannot put a number 

on it that would be a typical number or a cost. We try to work 

these as rapidly as we can, and it just varies between projects. 

Mr. GIBBS. Secretary Darcy, I think you want to comment? 

Ms. DARCY. Well, I believe our report to Congress last year was 

on how we had implemented since 2007. We had spent about $8.2 

million on I believe it was 29 independent external peer reviews. 

And, as the General said, it varies from project to project but that 

is just a broad brush look at what has happened since 2007. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. General, also the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund for fiscal year 2013, salaries and administrative costs and 

overhead, you probably will not be able to answer this today but 

hopefully you can get back to us about the money that is generated 

in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, how much of it is allocated 

for administrative costs and overhead and also for fiscal year 2014? 

30 

General BOSTICK. I will follow up with you on that. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Another question, Secretary Darcy, the Inland 

Waterways Users Board, those appointments have not been made 

by Secretary Hagel, Department of Defense. Can you give us an update of when we could expect those appointments? 

Ms. DARCY. Sure. The charter has been renewed. We got that 

word at the beginning of this week, and we are awaiting the selection of the members. We have been in contact with the Secretary 

of Defense’s office, and I am hoping that within the next couple of 

weeks, we will be able to get those appointments made. 

Mr. GIBBS. I think it is important that we have that in place, at 

least it is a good sounding board, communications back and forth 

in the Corps and the stakeholders, and hopefully we can make 

things work a little better. 

Mr. Bishop? 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate very 

much this hearing, and I appreciate very much the testimony of 

our witnesses. And I want to echo what Mr. Garamendi says. I 

want to thank the Corps for the work you do under—at times in 

pretty trying circumstances. So, thank you very much. 

At the risk of being irreverent, my summary of both this hearing 

and the current state of affairs with respect to the Corps is we 

have met the enemy and it is us. And the ‘‘us’’ in this case is the 

Congress. We are constantly asking you to do more, constantly 

wringing our hands that you are not doing more or doing the 

things we want you to do, and yet we are giving you less. We are 

proposing phantom solutions to real world problems. The earmark 

ban prevents you from going forward on the 23 Chief’s Reports that 

are completed for which we have expended taxpayer money. The 

earmark ban prevents you from acting on the 30-some projects for 

which we have hit the $902 cap for which we have spent a great 

deal of taxpayer money. So, I just very much hope we now have 

a very clear understanding of what we need to do. 

And, again, I want to thank Chairman Gibbs and Chairman Shuster for these listening sessions, and these stakeholder sessions. I 

think they have been enormously valuable. We know what we need 

to do in terms of the work that needs to get done, but we also now 

know what we need to do as a Congress if we really want to see 

it get done. 

So, I very much hope that—this committee has always had a 

very clear, bipartisan problem-solving approach, and I hope we can 

summon that approach in this circumstance to see to it that we 

give the Corps the resources that it needs to have in order to get 

the work done that we all agree has to get done. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, Mr. Garamendi, you have another question? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. In my earlier comments, I had intended not 

only to thank Secretary Darcy but also General Bostick and the 

men and women in your organization, particularly Colonel Leedy 

out in California and Sacramento. It is a pleasure to work with him 

and his staff there. 

I would like to hear from you, perhaps in writing on a subsequent meeting, how we could change the systems, some of which 

are law, some of which are procedures that have been practiced for 

31 

some time by the Corps, to be more quick, eliminating unnecessary 

steps and other elements that slow down the process. I know that 

much of that is, again, here. It is our authorization and our appropriation process, and the lack of continuity that I talked about before. 

But I think we—I would like to engage in a discussion with the 

Corps about how we could change, perhaps the 3 by 3 effort is a 

way of accomplishing that. If so, further detail on how to make that 

more than just an experiment but make it a reality. And your perspectives on our work, on how our processes make it difficult, and 

in some cases impossible, for you to carry out your tasks. So, I will 

put that out there, and then look forward to a detailed discussion 

about that. 

Ms. DARCY. I think that would be a great conversation to have, 

Congressman. 

General BOSTICK. And thank you for the compliment on Colonel 

Leedy, he and his team are doing a great job and many other commanders and civilians at all levels answering the call to duty. But 

we look forward to having that discussion as well. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. In that regard, I recall the flood of 1986 in California. And the colonel at the time, who I despair I cannot recall 

his name, came to the community of Walnut Grove where I lived 

where we had a flood underway, and we said, ‘‘Well, if we could 

build this short levee, about a quarter-mile levee, we could save the 

city,’’—‘‘the town,’’ not hardly a city. And he said, ‘‘Let me see.’’ He 

went back, took out his book and said, ‘‘Here is the section, what 

do we need to do?’’ And he had called two contractors who happened to be nearby. He said, ‘‘Gentlemen, I want to bid. I want to 

raise this levee 5 feet, and I want it done in 1 week. Give me a 

bid.’’ And so the two contractors went off to one side. ‘‘No, no, you 

over there and you over there.’’ They came back with a bid on the 

back of an envelope. He took the low bid. Then the two contractors 

got together, and they did it. And they saved this small town. 

I appreciate the Corps. Thank you. 

General BOSTICK. Thank you. 

Ms. DARCY. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. I just wanted to make a couple of closing 

remarks. As we work on the Water Resources Development Act, as 

we have kindly referred to as WRDA, as this committee and the 

full committee with Chairman Shuster, as was referenced to earlier 

today, we have held a lot of listening sessions with the stakeholders and roundtables. And the common theme, and I think 

Ranking Member Bishop mentioned some of it, we know there 

needs to be more additional resources, but we also know there are 

some things we can do on the cost side. And one thing that has 

come up a lot is all the studies that you are required to do. And 

then study and study and study it some more. 

So, hopefully, I think this WRDA bill, it will be heavy on the policy side where we can hopefully do some reforms to lower the cost, 

to streamline the projects, to be a little more efficient, and improve 

the process so we do not have so many cost delays. Because when 

you have delays, it adds to the cost, as we all know. And also 

things that we can do, working with local sponsors, how we can do 

it better. 

32 

It just amazes me. I have had the mayor of the city of Miami, 

Florida, in my office here a few weeks ago, and they are ready to 

do their project down there. They are getting ready for the—the 

bigger ships coming through the Panama Canal, but they cannot 

move forward without the authorization. So things we can do. 

Also, a frustration I think to a lot of us is we look at the President’s budget, and I mentioned it in my opening statement, his export initiative, it is a great initiative; we can’t wait initiative, great 

initiative. But we need to make sure that we are making those capital investments in those assets that due to the economic return, 

to grow our economy, keep us competitive in the global economy. 

And I know we have environment issues, and we have to address 

them, but when we are looking at more than four times on the construction budget for equal restoration projects and not going to 

grow those aging assets, that is concerning because if we fall behind—continue to fall behind and lose this battle with our foreign 

competition, there will be less dollars in the big picture for everything. And it is so important that we make these investments in 

our physical assets and our ports. 

So, I just want to leave it at that, and we look forward to working for you—working with you, and also give my thanks to all the 

people at the Army Corps for all the work that they do. Sometimes 

it is very technical work, and can be dangerous work at some 

times. But they are dedicated. I meet with the colonels from the 

districts and the other generals of the regions, and we all got the 

same thing we want to get done, make sure that we get the economy growing and create the jobs. And our maritime transportation 

system and flood control is where it needs to be, and that is what 

the American people expect. 

Thanks for being here today, Secretary and General. And this 

concludes this hearing of the subcommittee. 

[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

33 


Insert offset folio 5 here 80576.005
34 


Insert offset folio 6 here 80576.006
35 


Insert offset folio 7 here 80576.007
36 


Insert offset folio 8 here 80576.008
37 


Insert offset folio 9 here 80576.009
38 


Insert offset folio 10 here 80576.010
39 


Insert offset folio 11 here 80576.011
40 


Insert offset folio 12 here 80576.012
41 


Insert offset folio 13 here 80576.013
42 


Insert offset folio 14 here 80576.014
43 


Insert offset folio 15 here 80576.015
44 


Insert offset folio 16 here 80576.016
45 


Insert offset folio 17 here 80576.017
46 


Insert offset folio 18 here 80576.018
47 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 19 here 80576.019