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

87–431 PDF 2014

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET: 

ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES FOR THE U.S. 

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

(113–62) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 2, 2014 

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 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida 

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 

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 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

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 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBER OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Janice Hahn, of California ............................................................................. 46 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy ................................................................................................ 48 

Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick ................................................................. 59 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

request to submit to the record a letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District, summarizing GLMRIS comments, March 21, 2014, 

signed by the following U.S. Senators: Mark Kirk and Daniel Coats, and 

the following U.S. Representatives: Peter J. Roskam, Daniel Lipinski, Larry 

Bucshon, Andre ́ Carson, William L. Enyart, Rodney Davis, Randy Hultgren, 

John Shimkus, Adam Kinzinger, Cheri Bustos, Aaron Schock, Jackie 

Walorski, Marlin A. Stutzman, Todd Rokita, Susan W. Brooks, Luke 

Messer, and Todd C. Young ................................................................................ 22 

Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), responses to questions for the record from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas ..................................... 57 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Jeffrey D. Shoaf, senior executive director, Government Affairs, The Associated General Contractors of America, letter to Hon. Bob Gibbs, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, and Hon. Timothy H. Bishop, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, April 1, 2014 ...... 66 

Jesse Thompson, chairman, Navajo County Board of Supervisors, written 

testimony .............................................................................................................. 68 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 87431.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 87431.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 87431.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 87431.004
(1) 

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET: ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES FOR THE 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES

AND ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m. in Room 

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

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GIBBS. Welcome. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and 

Environment of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will come to order. At this time I would like to welcome our 

newest member, David Jolly from Florida. Welcome to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. 

Let’s see, let’s see, we don’t have any—OK. First of all, I want 

to ask unanimous consent that the hearing record be kept open for 

30 days after this hearing in order to accept other submissions of 

written testimony for the hearing record. 

[No response.] 

Mr. GIBBS. Hearing no objection, so ordered. I am going to turn 

it over to the chairman of the full Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure, Congressman Bill Shuster, for an opening 

statement. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. And 

welcome to Secretary Darcy and General Bostick. Thanks for being 

here today. 

First, I wanted to touch on something that happened last week. 

The Obama administration released a proposed rule that would 

dramatically expand Federal jurisdiction over the waters and wet 

areas of the United States. This is yet another example of a disturbing pattern of an imperial Presidency that seeks to use brute 

force and executive action, while ignoring Congress. 

Unilaterally broadening the scope of the Clean Water Act and 

the Government’s reach into everyday lives will have adverse effects on all of us. It will impact the Nation’s economy, threaten 

jobs, and invite costly litigation, restrict the rights of landowners, 

States, and local governments, and make decisions about their 

land. This massive Federal jurisdiction grab was the subject of 

failed legislation in the 110th and the 111th Congress. Strong bipartisan opposition prevented those bills from moving forward. 

2 

Defeated in Congress, now the Obama administration is trying to 

achieve this Federal power expansion through a rulemaking. This 

proposed rule supposedly aims to clarify which water bodies are 

subject to Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. But I 

am extremely concerned there are serious flaws in this process. 

Twice, the Supreme Court has told the agencies that there are limits to Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, and that 

they had gone too far in asserting their authority. Now, the administration has taken those Supreme Court rulings and cherry-picked 

discreet language from them in an attempt to gain expanded authority over new waters, rather than heeding the directive of the 

Court. 

It is the responsibility of the Congress, not the administration, 

to define the scope of jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Regulation of the Nation’s waters must be done in a manner that is responsible and protects the environment without unnecessary and 

costly expansion of the Federal Government. We cannot continue to 

protect our waters with unreasonable and burdensome regulations 

on our small business, farmers, and families. 

So, again, it is of great concern, and this committee will hold aggressive oversight in seeing what the agencies are up to, and stopping them, quite frankly. Because, as I mentioned, it failed twice 

in the Democratic-controlled Congress, with bipartisan support, 

and two Supreme Court rulings said that they didn’t have the ability to do this. 

Again, I appreciate the Secretary being here, and the general, 

getting their views and priorities from the agencies. With the Corps 

of Engineers, what you are doing, you play a valuable role in the 

Nation, promoting waterborne transportation and appropriate flood 

protection. But the message should be clear; America does not 

properly maintain and modernize its most efficient means of transportation. And this, in the end, will lose us economic advantage in 

the global market, so it will cost us jobs. 

The administration once again is delivering a proposed budget 

that cuts necessary investment in the Nation’s water infrastructure 

by 20 percent, and it is clear there is a disconnect between the administration and what we need to do in America. 

Again, I look forward to hearing from both of you today, and look 

forward to continuing to working with you as we face these difficult 

problems in America and transportation and water. Thank you, 

and I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Chairman. First of all, I would like to 

welcome Secretary Darcy, Army Corps Engineers Civil Works, and 

General Bostick, the chief engineer, and his folks behind him that 

we work closely with. 

Today, this hearing is about the President’s fiscal year 2015 

budget, 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. But once again, I feel like this is the old 

movie ‘‘Groundhog Day’’ for most of us on this committee. 

Many of the Army Corps of Engineers activities that we are examining today are true investments in America because they provide jobs and stimulate an economic return. For nearly two centuries, the civil works mission of the Corps have contributed to the 

3 

economic vitality of the Nation and have improved our quality of 

life. 

But, like ‘‘Groundhog Day,’’ this administration has again 

misprioritized the projects and programs of the Army Corps of Engineers. I believe the Congress and the administration must be 

supportive of programs that have a proven record of providing economic benefits. 

The fiscal year 2015 budget request by the administration for the 

Corps of Engineers is approximately $4.5 billion. This request is 

less than what was requested in previous budgets, and almost 20 

percent less than what was appropriated by this Congress for fiscal 

year 2014. 

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

country. In 2012, we were struck by several major natural disasters. And in 2015, it is likely an expanded Panama Canal will become operational. Yet, the President has learned little from the recent experiences of coastal storms since his budget proposes investing no funding for construction of shore protection projects nationwide. In addition, he sends to Congress a budget that has an ecosystem restoration construction budget that is three times larger 

than its coastal navigation construction budget. 

Fiscal year 2014 budget was where we expected to find funds to 

match the administration’s rhetoric on initiatives, like the President’s export initiative, or the President’s ‘‘We Can’t Wait’’ initiative. Since the funds are also absent in the fiscal year 2015, budget, perhaps we should call it the ‘‘We’re Still Waiting’’ initiative. 

Instead, while the President is proposing just over $915 million 

out of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for operation and maintenance activities in fiscal year 2015, just last year, in Fiscal 2014, 

it is estimated the administration collected $1.566 billion in the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund in taxes, paid by businesses for 

the purposes of maintaining America’s ports. This will not keep up 

with a growing demand on our ports to accommodate more and 

larger ships that will leave the—and will leave the trust fund with 

almost $10 billion in IOUs in 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, but I find it irresponsible for any administration, or for Congress itself, to not fully spend the tax dollars collected for their intended purposes. We got a little heckling 

there. I know we need to find savings, but savings could 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 

coastal navigation. The largest coastal navigation expenditure in 

the construction general account is less than $35 million in the 

Delaware River area. By comparison, the three largest ecosystem 

project expenditures in the construction general account are for one 

project for almost $70 million, and another project for $65.5 million, and one project for almost $50 million. And two of those 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. 

4 

I admire the good work the Corps of Engineers does related to 

the environmental restoration, but when our cities and towns are 

suffering from extraordinary flooding, and our farms and our factories are struggling to compete in the global marketplace, I believe 

we need to focus on missions that protect people and benefit the 

economy, and create jobs. 

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 it is time for the 

Corps of Engineers—needs to say enough is enough. 

Budgets are about priorities. A priority of any administration 

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

the world markets. According to this budget, the coastal navigation 

system the Nation—that the Nation has today, which is the same 

coastal navigation system we had when the President took office, 

will be—will it 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 ‘‘We Can’t Wait’’ initiative made some promises to 

the public, unfortunately, many of us in Congress believe the President’s budget does not deliver on these initiatives. Like the 

‘‘Groundhog Day,’’ once again, the President overpromises and 

underdelivers. 

Lastly, the President’s budget, proposed budget, for the Corps of 

Engineers strangles the planning budget for the new projects. The 

budget proposes a $45 million cut for studying new projects that 

are requested by local non-Federal project sponsors. The planning 

budget provides a tremendous value to the Nation by tailoring solutions to local needs, and is a direct link to the Army’s planning for 

war fighting and force protection. By eviscerating and planning— 

the planning budget, the President’s budget creates uncertainty for 

both the Army’s civil works and military missions. 

On top of this budget malpractice, the President last week released a proposed rule that will dramatically extend the reach of 

the Federal Government when it comes to regulating ponds, 

ditches, and other wet areas. This will restrict the rights of landowners, increase compliance costs for those trying to create jobs in 

this country, stifle investment in those same businesses, and create 

an imbalance in the State and Federal roles in carrying out the 

goals of the Clean Water Act. 

I am extremely concerned that this administration is once again 

trying to do an end-around Congress to expand Federal power 

under the Clean Water Act. 

I look forward to your testimony today, and assign my—yield my 

time to my ranking member, Mr. Bishop, for any comments he 

might care to make. 

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

you for scheduling this hearing on the Army Corps of Engineers 

budget for fiscal year 2015. I wish to welcome our two witnesses 

today, and thank them for their service to our country. 

Before I proceed, I want to personally thank you, Assistant Secretary Darcy, for your support in moving the Hurricane Sandy reVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:10 Nov 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\4-2-14~1\87431.TXT JEAN
5 

covery effort forward. As you know, the storm directly impacted 

Long Island and many of my constituents. All along the coast, 

beaches and dunes were obliterated, leaving thousands of people directly exposed to the full force of the Atlantic Ocean and future 

storms. Because of your leadership, we are now finally headed toward returning sand back to protect these beaches. I look forward 

to working with the Corps to see these projects through to completion. So, again, I thank you very much. 

I want to start off with a couple of specific statements about the 

budget, and then conclude with a comment about the recently released draft rule for the Waters of the United States. Despite the 

progress on Sandy, I am, for one—I am very disappointed in the 

administration’s fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Corps. The 

total funding for the Corps has decreased by almost 17 percent 

from fiscal year 2014 appropriated levels, and that is reflected in 

reductions in funding across the board in the construction, operation, and maintenance, and navigation, and Mississippi River accounts. It seems to me that we are well beyond the point of doing 

more with less. Rather, we are now at the point where we have to 

make difficult and very risky decisions on where we focus the 

Corps’ efforts. 

From an O&M perspective, this means decisions on which communities and populations are put at risk of increased damage from 

floods, storm surges, lost navigational ability, and loss of structures. I can appreciate the can-do attitude of the Corps, but we all 

have to agree that cutting the budget will result in real impacts to 

the mission and ability of the Corps to do its job. 

As you are aware, we will hopefully soon conclude conference negotiations on the new Water Resources Development Act. We are 

confident that we will be able to provide the Corps with improved 

direction on how we, the Congress, would like the Corps to 

prioritize its activities, address working with non-Federal sponsors, 

and handle the harbor and inland waterways needs across the 

country. 

The latter issue of harbors and the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund is particularly important to me and many other Members on 

both sides of the aisle, whose districts depend on harbors. I will be 

releasing later today a letter to the Committee on Appropriations 

calling for the full utilization of the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund without—and I stress this—without diverting budgetary resources from other Corps construction or operation and maintenance programs. If there is one area that we have had consistent 

feedback on during the WRDA process, it is that Members, constituents, businesses, and communities want harbors and shipping 

channels into the harbors maintained to authorize widths and 

depths. But we don’t want these maintenance needs to come at the 

expense of other Corps mission areas and construction projects. We 

have to find a way to get more money back to the donor harbors 

and support the needs of small and mid-sized harbors. 

And I would say to my colleagues on this committee I am urging 

you to join me in signing this letter. This is an area where, in our 

WRDA markup and in previous hearings over the course of the last 

4 years on this subject, there has been near unanimity. It has not 

broken down along party lines. Republicans and Democrats agree 

6 

that we want more money out of the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund, but we do not want it to come at the expense of other accounts within the Corps. So, please, I urge you, join me in sending 

this letter to the appropriators, so that we, the Transportation and 

Infrastructure Committee, can speak with one voice on this issue 

that is important. Let us stop pointing fingers, and let us try to be 

part of the solution. 

The second area of concern is the decreased funding for both the 

investigations and the constructions account. The investigations account is being reduced by 36 percent, and the construction account 

by 32 percent from fiscal year 2014-enacted levels. As you know, 

in a no-earmark world, the only way projects are being moved forward is by the administration asking for them. In my opinion, the 

reductions in these two accounts in particular takes away the primary role by which projects are being identified and integrated into 

the Corps program. My concern is that the Corps is losing critical 

mass and support in respect to engineers and projects with a budget approach of this sort. 

Before concluding, I want to briefly address last week’s review of 

the Waters of the United States proposed rule. We have heard a 

lot of rhetoric about this being a regulatory overreach and regulation by fiat. For the record, when this administration proposed to 

clarify the scope of the Clean Water Act by a proposed guidance, 

which is the same manner—that is to say the same manner—used 

by previous administration, certain groups vehemently opposed it, 

and demanded a more formal rulemaking approach. 

In response to that call, the Corps and the EPA shifted gears, 

initiating what the public called for, a negotiated public rulemaking, one that has a mandatory public comment period before 

an agency can proceed further. Not surprisingly, many of the same 

concerned groups as before are now stating that the Government 

is overstepping its bounds. To be clear, the administration has 

stepped in only to alleviate the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the scope of the Clean Water Act that was a result of the 

Supreme Court’s decisions in 2001 and 2006. 

All parties, including developers, farmers, and resource managers would benefit from additional clarity on which waters are 

covered by the act and which waters are definitively not covered. 

This rulemaking effort is the response that people ask for. Perhaps, 

better than criticizing the public rulemaking process, we should 

allow it to move forward, and let decisions be made on science and 

on the feedback received. Let’s forget the hyperbole and the vitriolic comments, and let’s let the process work. 

Once again, I thank you, Assistant Secretary Darcy and General 

Bostick, for your work on behalf of our Nation’s waters, and I look 

forward to your testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. If other Members have an opening statement, they 

can submit them for the written record. 

And at this time I wanted to turn it over to Secretary Darcy for 

her opening statements. And if we can try to keep it within 5 minutes or so, because I want to allow plenty of time for Members to 

ask questions. 

So, welcome, Secretary Darcy. 

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. Thank you Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to present the President’s budget for the civil works program 

of the Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2015. I am Jo-Ellen 

Darcy, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, and I 

will summarize my statement and ask that my complete statement 

be included in the record. 

The budget for fiscal year 2015 for the civil works program provides a fiscally prudent and sound level of Federal investment in 

the Nation’s water resources. The President’s 2015 budget includes 

$4,561,000,000 in gross discretionary appropriations for the Army 

civil works program, offset by a $28 million cancellation of unobligated carry-in fiscal year 2015. A total of 9 construction projects— 

3 of them navigation, 4 flood risk management, and 2 aquatic ecosystem projects—28 studies, and 6 designs are funded to completion in the 2015 budget. 

Completed construction projects will result in immediate benefits 

to the Nation, and directly impact many local communities, as benefits are realized from the combined Federal and non-Federal investments. The civil works budget includes funding for 1 priority 

construction new start, and 10 new study starts in the investigations account, including the water resources priorities study, which 

will build upon and broaden the progress that is being made by the 

Corps in its North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study, which was 

funded under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act. 

At a funding level of $915 million, the budget provides, for the 

third consecutive year, the highest amount ever proposed in a 

President’s budget for work financed through the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to maintain coastal channels and for related 

work. The budget funds capital investments in the inland waterways, based on the estimated revenues to the Inland Waterways 

Trust Fund under current law. 

The budget also assumes enactment of the legislative proposal 

submitted to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction in 

2011, which would reform the laws governing the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. The administration’s proposal would generate an 

estimated $1.1 billion in additional revenue over 10 years, from the 

commercial users of these inland waterways. This amount reflects 

estimates of future capital investment for navigation on these waterways over the next decade, including an estimate adopted by the 

Inland Waterways Users Board. 

The proposal is needed to ensure that the revenue paid by commercial navigation users is sufficient to meet their share of the 

costs of capital investments in the inland waterways, which would 

enable a significant increase in funding for such investments in the 

future. 

The budget provides $398 million for dam and levee safety activities, including $38 million to continue the levee safety initiative, 

which involves an assessment of the conditions of our Federal levees. 

8 

In continued support of the President’s Veterans Job Corps, the 

budget includes $4.5 million to continue the veterans curation 

project, which provides vocational rehabilitation and innovative 

training for wounded and disabled veterans, while achieving historical preservation responsibilities for archeological collections administered by the Corps of Engineers. 

In summary, the 2015 budget for the Army civil works program 

is a performance-based budget that supports an appropriate level 

of funding for continued progress, with emphasis on those water resources investments that will yield high economic, environmental, 

and safety returns for the Nation and its citizens. These investments will contribute to a stronger economy; support waterborne 

transportation; reduce flood risks to businesses and homes; restore 

important ecosystems; provide low-cost, renewable hydropower; and 

deliver other benefits to the American people. 

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

to working with the committee in order to support the President’s 

budget. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Secretary Darcy. 

General Bostick, welcome. 

General BOSTICK. Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member Bishop, 

Chairman Shuster, and members of the subcommittee, I am honored to testify before your committee today, along with Secretary 

of the Army for Civil Works, the Honorable Jo-Ellen Darcy, on the 

President’s fiscal year 2015 budget for the civil works program, and 

the United States Army Corps of Engineers. 

I have been in command for nearly 2 years now, and I am extraordinarily proud of our people and the missions they accomplish 

each and every day. I would like to touch briefly on the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers campaign goals. 

First, we support the warfighter. We continue to work in more 

than 130 countries, using our civil works, military missions, and 

research and development expertise to support the Army’s service 

component and combatant commanders. We often find ourselves at 

the apex of defense, diplomacy, and development with our work. 

And, as such, the Corps of Engineers supports the national security 

of the United States. Also, within this goal, we are focused on sustainability and energy, as well as our support to our interagency 

partners, such as the Department of State, Department of Veterans 

Affairs, Department of Energy, and many others. 

Second, transform civil works. I have had the opportunity to 

speak to many stakeholder groups and elected officials about the 

state of the Nation’s water resources infrastructure and its shortfalls. The four elements of our civil works transformation strategy 

will help address some of these issues, and make us more efficient 

and effective. Those elements include: modernize the project planning process; enhance the budget development process through a 

systems-oriented approach and collaboration; evaluate the current 

and required portfolio of water resources projects through an infrastructure strategy to deliver solutions to water resources challenges; and, finally, to improve our methods of delivery to produce 

and deliver both products and services through water infrastructure and other water resource solutions. 

9 

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 management. The Sandy recovery work is progressing on schedule. More than 200 projects 

from Florida to Maine and into Ohio were adversely impacted by 

the storm. In 2013, the Corps successfully repaired many projects, 

and returned approximately 15 million cubic yards of sand to affected beaches. In 2014 the Corps is on track to remediate the remaining Sandy-impacted beaches, and we expect to place approximately 50 million cubic yards of sand on these beaches. 

The study team has been working with over 100 regional partners on the comprehensive study. The framework developed in this 

study looks at vulnerabilities across a large coastline, and identifies measures that could be used to mitigate future risk. It will include a full range of possible risk reduction strategies, from structural to nonstructural, and nature-based features. And it will provide regional partners with methods they can adjust to meet the 

demands within their specific communities. 

Fourth, prepare for tomorrow. This is about our people. Ensuring 

we have a pipeline of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics professionals, as well as a talent management plan for their 

growth and development. 

We are also focused on research and development efforts that 

will help solve some of the Nation’s toughest challenges. One great 

example is the sea-level rise tool first developed in use for our postSandy recovery efforts. The interagency team that developed this 

tool won the President’s Green Government Award last year. The 

calculator is now being utilized to analyze other vulnerable areas 

across the Nation. 

We are reviewing our internal operations and processes to ensure 

that, in a time of fiscal uncertainty and challenge, the Army Corps 

of Engineers is postured for future success. 

Lastly, we want to help our wounded warriors and soldiers transition into fulfilling civilian careers. I am proud that last year we 

had 140 Operation Warfighter interns in the Army Corps of Engineers, and assisted 120 wounded warriors in obtaining civilian 

jobs. 

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

complete written testimony submitted to the committee for the 

2015 budget specifics. I thank you for this opportunity, and look 

forward to your questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, General. At this time I turn it over to 

Chairman Shuster for any questions he may have. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Gibbs. Secretary Darcy 

and General Bostick, natural gas obviously has a tremendous opportunity for this Nation. In Pennsylvania alone, the Marcellus 

shale formation has produced 2.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas 

in 2012, and it is reinvigorating Pennsylvania’s economy. Unfortunately, bureaucratic red tape from the Corps of Engineers is preventing much of this production from going on in Pennsylvania, 

and getting to the market. 

Over a year ago, a single district office of the Corps of Engineers, 

the Baltimore office, made some new interpretations on how water 

resources crossing permits for natural gas pipelines were being reVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:10 Nov 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\4-2-14~1\87431.TXT JEAN
10 

viewed in Pennsylvania. The new interpretation is duplicative. It 

requires duplicative reviews and is significantly delaying the 

issuance of permits from fewer than 60 days to now several 

months, in some cases. 

Even worse, it is blatantly unfair to Pennsylvania. You are letting a single Corps office treat Pennsylvania differently than it 

does other States. I have been told over and over again there is no 

change. My understanding is the process is very different. Under 

the current process, the Corps now categorizes virtually all gas 

pipelines crossing projects as category three, requiring Corps review. Under the provision, most pipeline projects were categorized 

under category one, which only required State or DEP for review 

and approval. Today, over 90 percent of these pipeline projects are 

category three, causing significant delays, as I said. 

How can you tell me there is no change in the interpretation? 

And we continue to hear that from the Baltimore district, but it 

just, to me, seems like there has been a significant change. And we 

believe it is singling out Pennsylvania. 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman, within Pennsylvania, you have a general permit with the Corps of Engineers. In the last year or so— 

about 85 percent of the permits have been done by the State of 

Pennsylvania. The other 15 percent are ones that require Corps review. 

In the last year, we have also opened a new Corps district office 

in Tioga, Pennsylvania, that, I think, is dealing more specifically 

with some of these new requests. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Those are nice words, but that is not what we are 

hearing from the producers in Pennsylvania. And we are going to 

absolutely nail down the numbers that we are getting and present 

them to you. Because, again, I disagree that is happening. 

When you look at the pipeline projects that are in other States 

that follow the nationwide permit 12, Pennsylvania is treated differently. And I have a chart here that has one, two, three, four, 

five, six, seven—seven States on it, and only Pennsylvania has impacts added for general permitting review. These other seven 

States do not. And how come they have water, they have mountains, they have the same situation going on, and Pennsylvania— 

and I have heard over and over—Arkansas, for instance, I talk to 

folks from Arkansas, they are drilling, and they say, ‘‘We don’t 

have a problem.’’ It is just in Pennsylvania. 

And again, it just seems to me it is coming out of the Baltimore 

district office. So something that—again, my gas producers are telling me over and over again these things are occurring. And, as I 

said, I show a chart here. Pennsylvania is in a different category 

than the rest of these States. It is something we have to get to the 

bottom to. 

Again, we are now getting our producers to get the facts, and we 

want to make sure you come in, you can sit down, and you can 

have your day and refute what they are saying. But, again, it is 

having a significant negative impact in Pennsylvania. And, again, 

it is not fair, and we want to make sure we get this resolved. 

Ms. DARCY. We would be happy to work with you on that, Congressman. I am not quite sure which other States you are referring 

to, but some States don’t have the same general permit agreement 

11 

that Pennsylvania does. Some of them are operating, as you mentioned, under the—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, it is 404 general permitting, and it is the nationwide permit 12. Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Ohio, 

West Virginia, are all under those same provisions, I am told, and 

they don’t have to go through any of the process Pennsylvania does, 

or less of a process, I should say, than Pennsylvania. 

So, I have got this, I will provide it to you. But, again, we look 

to follow up. And, again, I am going to bring the experts in from 

my State that know far more than I do that can sit down with your 

folks and figure this out. Because, again, if Pennsylvania is not allowed to produce, it is going to damage, obviously, Pennsylvania’s 

economy, it is going to damage jobs, it is going to damage the Nation. And right now we have an opportunity in the world to make 

sure we are producing gas and getting our gas overseas so we can 

stop what Russia is trying to do, and this is one way that we can 

use it as a lever to stop that. 

So, again, we will be talking to you, and I am going to make sure 

we provide this to you. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Mr. Bishop? 

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

our witnesses. 

I want to—before—I have a couple questions I want to ask about 

the Clean Water Act proposed rulemaking, but I just want to just 

put on the record two things. 

One is that, while we are here right now, the House Budget 

Committee is marking up a resolution, budget resolution, that 

would cut domestic discretionary spending by $791 billion over the 

next 10 years from the post-sequestration baseline. Now, that is 

where the Corps’ money comes from, the domestic discretionary account. And it is inconceivable that if we were to ever put into law 

a $791 billion cut to domestic discretionary spending from post-sequestration levels, that somehow the Corps would be held harmless. It is inconceivable. 

And so, what I am going to urge all of us to do, both sides of the 

aisle, is let’s not point fingers. Let’s not blame the President or the 

Corps for budget allotments that are insufficient—we all agree they 

are insufficient—but then turn around and vote for a budget resolution that would make those budget allotments which are insufficient look like a day at the beach. It is just not—it is not consistent, it is not helpful, it is not productive. 

And, at the same time, if we are serious about what we have all 

said, virtually all of us, about the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, 

then let’s sign my letter, let’s sign Congresswoman Hahn’s letter, 

let’s put some pressure on the appropriators to do what we collectively, as a T&I Committee, think we should do. I urge us to do 

that. We have been, I think, a model of nonpartisanship in the way 

we have approached this issue. Let’s continue that by approaching 

the appropriators with a formal request. End of sermon; I am 

sorry. 

Waters of the United States. The import of the SWANCC and 

Rapanos rulings, as I understand it, is that in order for a water 

to be regulated under the Clean Water Act, that body of water had 

to maintain a nexus to a navigable body of water. Is that correct? 

12 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. And is it correct that the proposed rulemaking that 

the Corps and the EPA released lives entirely within that definition? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, it does. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. 

Ms. DARCY. It also provides a definition of significant nexus that 

is out for public comment. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Thank you. Is there any body of water that was 

not regulated by the Clean Water Act in the 30 years that the act 

existed, pre-Rapanos, pre-SWANCC, that is now—would now be 

subject to Clean Water Act regulation, based on the new proposed 

rule? 

Ms. DARCY. No, Congressman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. And the whole notion of rulemaking is 

one that has routinely been engaged in to define the act. Is that 

correct? 

Ms. DARCY. That is correct, sir. Also, Rapanos requested that the 

agencies do a rulemaking in order to clarify. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. And the rule—is it correct that the existing exemption for prior converted farmland, and the existing exemption 

for wastewater treatment systems, those exemptions were created 

by rulemaking? Is that correct? 

Ms. DARCY. That is correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. Not legislation? 

Ms. DARCY. That is correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Do the existing farmland exemptions that existed in Clean Water Act and, in effect, have been protected by 

SWANCC and Rapanos, do those exemptions remain within the 

proposed rulemaking that you are putting forward? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, they do for farming, silviculture, and ranching. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, thank you. Secretary Darcy, well, first of all, I 

want a statement—talk about prioritizing spending, and the President’s budget, in my opening statement, I talk about how much is 

going for eco-restoration and not for the construction projects. 

And in regard to my ranking member’s comment about baseline 

spending and post-sequester, I don’t want anybody to get the idea 

that there is not—there is less money from the previous years in 

the total budget apparatus that is being set up, because it is baseline, it is after sequester now, we are past the cuts, it is actually 

still growing funds, just not getting—it is not posing as much 

growth as we have posed in—baseline. 

Secretary Darcy, the 10 largest ports that—authorized today, if 

Congress were to enact the President’s budget, of those 10 largest 

ports, how many of them would be at their authorized dimensions 

by the end of fiscal year 2015? 

Ms. DARCY. Well—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, first of all, how many aren’t? Or, you know, out 

of 10, how many are not authorized, and how many would be if we 

enacted this budget? 

Ms. DARCY. This budget plans for the operation and maintenance 

dredging for about 59 of the highest use commercial harbors in the 

13 

country. However, they would not be fully dredged to their authorized width and depth. I think it is one-third of the time they would 

be. 

General BOSTICK. Right. They are dredged to half their authorized width one-third of the time. 

Mr. GIBBS. A third of the time? 

General BOSTICK. A third of the time they are dredged to half 

their authorized width. 

Mr. GIBBS. But of the 10—but I think that is counting all the 59 

largest. But the 10 largest ports, the—— 

General BOSTICK. That is counting—— 

Mr. GIBBS [continuing]. Ones, how many of those are at their 

depths, you know, required depths, now? Do we know? 

General BOSTICK. I don’t know that. We would have to—— 

Mr. GIBBS. I think it is probably two, but I am just kind of guessing. 

Ms. DARCY. Two? Well, I was—— 

General BOSTICK. Some of those are naturally—— 

Mr. GIBBS. What is that? 

General BOSTICK. Some of those are naturally dredged at that 

depth, but—— 

Mr. GIBBS. But I am getting—I guess I am not hearing that, if 

we enact the President’s budget, that we are going to—you know, 

those 10 largest ports for our import and our exports, our economy, 

will be there at the depths they need to be, especially the Panama 

Canal coming online. 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman, we will get you that—— 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

Ms. DARCY [continuing]. List of the 10, and—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Next—— 

Ms. DARCY [continuing]. What they would be. 

Mr. GIBBS. Next question. Secretary Darcy, you talk about President’s budget, for the second time, proposes an $80 million fee for 

vessels on the inland waterway system. And you mentioned that in 

your opening statement, but you didn’t say where the $80 million 

is coming from, other than the vessels. So what—mechanically, 

what or how would—is it lock fees, or what is it? 

Ms. DARCY. It would be a user fee, it wouldn’t be a lockage fee. 

That was something that was contemplated awhile back. This 

would be a user fee. And the exact specifics are still in development, but it would be a user fee on the transport through the lock 

by the particular vessel. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. On the—regarding the Clean Water Act and the 

proposed rule, I know there is a—be a 90-day comment period. 

What other things are scheduled, the remaining steps in the rulemaking process? You know, what—— 

Ms. DARCY. Well, there is, as you mentioned, a 90-day public 

comment period. After that public comment period is concluded, the 

agencies will address those public comments before any rule is 

final. 

We are also currently awaiting the EPA Science Advisory Board 

recommendations—— 

14 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, OK, that is what I wanted to get to, and I am 

glad you brought that up, because that was my next question, 

about the science report. 

And, you know, we talk about the need for this to bring clarity. 

And it seems like, to me, the Corps and the EPA kind of got the 

cart ahead of the horse here, because the science report is—the assessment is not done, and you already put out the rule for comment. Wouldn’t it makes sense to see what the connectivity report, 

science report, says first? 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman, the connectivity report—science report—is out there, as well. It is currently being reviewed by the 

Science Advisory Board, which was made up of a number of professionals in related areas. The science report was produced within 

EPA, and then now it is being reviewed by the Science Advisory 

Board. We put it out at the same time. We will not finalize a rule 

until the connectivity report has been concluded and the results 

prepared by the Science Advisory Board. 

Mr. GIBBS. I know you already answered questions about possible exemptions, agricultural exemptions and others. When I look 

at the rule, I get nervous because you talk about the—some things 

we looked at case by case, you talk about the nexus issue and tributaries, you can redefine tributaries. I think some people could interpret it that it is possible that ditches could be included in this. 

And I have had some farmers already ask me how about if they 

are crossing with their equipment, say 28 percent nitrogen fertilizer, across a swail, you know, would that become a regulations— 

you know, it seems mission creep. But I am really concerned about 

that. 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman, when we proposed the rule last week, 

at the same time we also published an interpretive rule with EPA, 

and we, the Army Corps of Engineers, entered into a memorandum 

of understanding with U.S. Department of Agriculture and EPA in 

order to make it clear what was exempt. And we went to the 

silviculture, farming, and ranching practices that I mentioned earlier, in addition to those farming practices that have come on board 

since the passage of the Clean Water Act that are now considered 

existing farming practices. Some of them help to improve conservation, some of them help to improve water quality, and we have a 

list of those 52—I think it is 53—practices that would continue to 

be exempt. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. My time has expired, but we will do another 

round. Got more questions. 

But Ms. Edwards? Yes, we move pretty quick here. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. I didn’t think I was next, I thought— 

I just arrived, so I apologize. 

Well, thank you very much. I just have one potential concern 

with the proposed rule that the EPA and Army Corps are bringing 

certainty to various sectors of our economy that has been asking 

EPA for a rule to address the regulatory status. But the proposal 

is very important, as you know, the State of Maryland, since we 

have the fourth longest coastline in the continental United States. 

I think people find that hard to believe, given how small our State 

is. The Chesapeake Bay and several of its tributaries, including the 

Anacostia, which runs through my district, the Potomac, and SevVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:10 Nov 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\4-2-14~1\87431.TXT JEAN
15 

ern Rivers that all flow through the Fourth Congressional District, 

and the shoreline of the Chesapeake and its title tributaries actually stretch over 2,000 miles, with thousands of miles of streams, 

rivers, and acres of wetlands. 

So, I wonder if you could tell me about the proposals that you 

have, in terms of the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay for protection of health, and the health of the watershed. And also, if you 

could, talk to me about the progress of the projects along the Anacostia River. There have been several proposals over a period of 

time, and it feels like if we could just really jump in there, we have 

some great potential with also restoring the Anacostia. 

Ms. DARCY. I will start with the Chesapeake Bay. As you know, 

the Chesapeake Bay is one of the ecosystems of national significance that we have been looking at, in addition to all of our other 

Federal partners. Our current expenditure for Chesapeake Bay—I 

am looking at my staff behind me—I don’t have it at the tip of my 

fingers, what it is for—but I will get that to you before we leave 

here, for that Chesapeake Bay restoration. I know we are doing 

oyster restoration in the bay. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Right. 

Ms. DARCY. I think that was budgeted at $5 million, but—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. That is right. 

Ms. DARCY [continuing]. I would have to check that. And it has 

been very successful throughout the bay. Actually, I was able to see 

how some of it was being implemented in the Norfolk District in 

that very southern part of the coastline. 

As far as the Anacostia River, we have undertaken a comprehensive study with a number of local communities, the city of Washington, as well as Montgomery County and Howard County, in putting together an Anacostia study for restoration of that river, 

and—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Prince George’s County, too, right? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thanks. 

Ms. DARCY. I used to live in Maryland, I am trying to go up the 

coast. It has been very successful. And part of that was a combination of not only the Corps study, but each of the local communities 

looking at what it is they could do within their own authorities, as 

far as restoration and cleanup, including things like stormwater 

runoff, or different kinds of conservation, as well as recycling in 

each of those jurisdictions. The study is in the 2015 budget; we 

have funded this particular study to completion, so it should be finished in 2015. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And so then, how—you know, after the study is 

completed, I guess the people who live along those—along the rivers, and particularly the Anacostia, wonder. After the study is completed—and this has been a long process for them—then what? 

And how soon? 

Ms. DARCY. After the study is completed, the recommendations 

in the study, which have all been sort of agreed to within the communities, the implementation will happen. Whether it is projectspecific for a city, or whether it is a county, if a particular project 

is recommended, we would find cost-share sponsors in order to 

move forward with those activities. 

16 

Ms. EDWARDS. OK. 

Ms. DARCY. I don’t have the specifics of what those projects are, 

but I can provide those to you for the record. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, we should maybe follow up with that. 

Ms. DARCY. OK. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And then, lastly, I wonder—although it is not in 

my district, it is of great concern to all Marylanders, and that is 

what is happening with the Baltimore Harbor and the operations 

and maintenance work that is going on there. And if you could, describe that a bit and give us a sense of the progress, and then the 

budget allocation. 

Ms. DARCY. OK. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Which has increased this year, I understand. 

Ms. DARCY. I think our O&M budget for Baltimore did increase 

this year. I am going to ask Amy to get you the exact number. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And how is the—I mean budget has increased. 

What is the progress? 

Ms. DARCY. In the Baltimore Harbor? I think we have had significant progress there. It is one of our showcase ports on the east 

coast, because it is at 50-foot depth already. There is lots of competition for additional depths in other places, but Baltimore is already at 50, so that is a good news story. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Great, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Crawford? 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Secretary Darcy and General Bostick for being here today. 

Secretary Darcy, I represent the First District of Arkansas, and 

we refer to it as the east coast of Arkansas. I have about 600-plus 

river miles of the Mississippi River, among other rivers in the district. And, as you know, the shallow draft ports located on the Mississippi River didn’t receive adequate funds for dredging. In order 

for us to have a successful river system, it is critical that all those 

ports are in working order. We consider those ports the on-ramp 

to the super-highway that is the Mississippi River. And I commend 

you for including the dredging projects in your work plan for this 

year. 

I have been working with many of my colleagues to ensure that 

the current WRDA bill contains a mechanism so that Congress can 

provide regular funding to dredge those additional ports. Madam 

Secretary, with the important role that these ports play in our 

country’s economy, what is the reason the administration has not 

made their maintenance a higher priority in their budget? 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman, when we do the budgeting for the operation and maintenance of our ports and inland waterways, we 

focus on the highest commercial use. And those are the ones that 

we referenced earlier. So the lower use ports don’t get as much as 

the ports that have higher commercial use. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. I would only offer that we try to balance it. We 

talk about the top 59 carrying 90 percent of the cargo. And of all 

of the money that is allocated, 70 percent of the money goes to 

those top 59 that carry 90 percent. And we don’t give them 90 percent, which one might think is parallel, in terms of the amount we 

would offer, so that we can provide funds to the moderate and low 

commercial-use ports. So it is not—and even in terms of the perVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:10 Nov 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\4-2-14~1\87431.TXT JEAN
17 

centage of what they provide, but it is an understanding that we 

do have to do exactly as you say. 

Thank you, yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Garamendi? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This hearing started 

out with a discussion on the overall budget. The ranking member, 

Mr. Bishop, correctly pointed out that this is a problem that we 

have created. This House and the Senate have put together the sequestration. And the proposed budget that is now before the House 

from the Majority party is an extraordinary decrease in the discretionary funds, which will have a direct impact on what the Army 

Corps of Engineers is able to do within the United States. And so, 

we should be paying very, very close attention to what we, the 

House of Representatives and the Senate, are doing to the Corps 

projects. 

Having said that, I do want to focus on a couple of other issues 

that are there. First of all, I want to thank Ms. Darcy and the general for the work that you are doing on trying to push forward 

projects very quickly. Your 3 × 3 is actually working, and we see 

it in our area, in the Sacramento Valley, projects that once took 

years—I mean multiple years, decades—are now being moved forward very quickly. I hope you continue that work. You can comment, if you would, at the end of my discussion here. 

Also, I want to thank you for the ecosystem restoration projects, 

which are more than ecosystem. These are actual construction 

projects that are life-saving. The Hamilton City Project is one that 

is now underway. It is ecosystem, in that it sets back the Sacramento River levee, creating a habitat and flood protection for a 

small community, Hamilton City. Thank you very much for pushing that forward under the ecosystem umbrella. 

Also, the Yuba River Project is an ecosystem project. It is extremely important. And, again, it is on your agenda, and I thank 

the Corps and Ms. Darcy for having pushed that forward. 

There are other things that are going on, all good. The Corps is 

able to move projects forward. The Sutter Buttes Project, 40 miles 

of levee improvement, perhaps as many as 200,000 people will be 

safer as that project moves forward. And I thank you for moving 

that forward. 

The Natomas Project, perhaps the most dangerous after—most 

dangerous city, Sacramento—after New Orleans, and maybe now 

the most dangerous, you have moved that project forward. We 

thank you for that. 

There are other things that are out there, and I would like to call 

the attention of the committee to an issue that we dealt with in 

the 1990s for all of the recreation programs that are conducted by 

the Federal Government. The National Parks, the Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, all of these agencies provide 

significant recreational opportunities for Americans and visitors 

from overseas. 

In the 1990s, we allowed those organizations to use the fees collected at the recreation sites to enhance the recreation opportunities and visitor opportunities for everything, national parks, and 

the like. Somehow we left out the Corps of Engineers. And the 

Corps of Engineers recreation fees go back to the general fund. And 

18 

then we have to appropriate money for enhancements of the recreational programs that the Corps of Engineers runs. 

We ought to do away with that. We ought to let the Corps keep 

the recreation fees, avoiding the appropriation process, which 

starves the Corps of Engineers recreation programs. I think this is 

something in all of our districts we should pay attention to. 

Now, I don’t know why it was there in the 1990s, I was at the 

Department, and I wasn’t really paying attention to the Corps, I 

suppose, and it got left out. 

All in all, I want to compliment the Corps for moving forward. 

We will take up the Waters of the U.S. at another hearing. But 

right now you have done well by my district, and I appreciate it. 

Thank you. 

Ms. DARCY. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Webster? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Yield back my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. Mr. Webster? 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Darcy, if a 

port wants to do a deepening project on their own under section 

204 of WRDA from 1986, and then have the Corps take the responsibility of maintenance and operation, how does the Corps define 

‘‘prior to construction’’? Is it a—when a contract is advertised, or 

is it when the contract is awarded, or is it when the dredge actually drops a bucket into the water? 

Ms. DARCY. When the contract is awarded, sir. 

Mr. WEBSTER. What types of determinations does the Corps have 

to make prior to agreeing to assume that operation and maintenance responsibilities of a locally constructed navigation project? 

Ms. DARCY. In order to assume the maintenance? 

Mr. WEBSTER. Yes. 

Ms. DARCY. We just have to assure that the project has been developed and constructed according to the Corps regulations. And, 

after that, the O&M, under section 204, a request has to come to 

my office, and then the assumption of O&M would be granted. 

Mr. WEBSTER. I have one other question. Well, I see Ms. Frankel 

here, so I will ask about the JAXPORT, Jacksonville Port, in Florida. There is a deepening study that is being done. Could you give 

me kind of the progress on that, and possibly what the current 

timeline looks like? 

Ms. DARCY. For Jacksonville? 

Mr. WEBSTER. Yes. 

Ms. DARCY. It has already gone through the Civil Works Review 

Board, which is one of the last steps it goes to before it has to go 

to the Chief of Engineers for a final signature. And I believe 

JAXPORT is on schedule for this month. Yes, this month. 

Mr. WEBSTER. General, could you elaborate on that? Is that true? 

General BOSTICK. We have some more interagency work to do, 

Congressman, but we believe by the end of this month we will have 

it up to my office. And, assuming everything is straight, I will sign 

it. By the time it reaches my office, it is in pretty good shape. 

Mr. WEBSTER. OK. Thank you very much. Yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have four 

questions that I would like to submit to get the answers at a later 

19 

time, because I have got to run to another meeting. But let me 

thank the Corps of Engineers for their representation today. 

With the continued drought throughout the western United 

States, it is more important than ever that the Federal agencies 

work together to assist States and local communities in addressing 

their needs, and it is equally important that Federal water agencies ensure that they are doing all that they can to enhance the resources within their authorities. And I do appreciate the efforts 

that the Corps has made in collaborating with the USDA and Department of Labor and other Federal agencies to address these 

needs. 

But we have—and we have worked collaboratively in Texas for 

a long time to achieve some of this, but I do understand that the 

Corps of Engineers stores more than 10 million acre-feet of water 

for municipal and industrial water supply behind the multipurpose 

reservoirs it operates and maintains. And this is enough to meet 

the annual needs of 6.8 million households. A majority of the municipal and industrial water supply storage is located in reservoirs 

kind of throughout the southwestern U.S. And I have four questions that I would like you to get the answers to me later. 

One, you know, some of your plans for working with these local 

communities, and how these multipurpose reservoirs west of the 

Mississippi, that is more than 1.4 million acre-feet to make sure 

this water is available. Right now it appears that it is not being 

made available. And I would like to know, you know, what the plan 

is to make this water available to these local communities. 

And I will submit these questions, and would like to receive an 

answer within the next 3 weeks. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary 

Darcy, General Bostick, for being here today. I have a couple questions on a few different issues. 

Number one, I just want to give you fair warning when you come 

back to this committee—I just talked about this subject with your 

St. Louis District—and it is a design flaw in lock and dam 27, the 

Mel Price Project, that is causing some damage to the Wood River 

levee system. And, as you know, our locals have put up their share 

of the funding to be able to upgrade their levees throughout the 

Metro East area to ensure that FEMA will again accredit those levees at certain levels, so that our costs to taxpayers do not continue 

to rise. 

I have some concerns, as this project moves forward, with the estimated cost that it is going to take to fix that problem that has 

been caused by that design flaw. So I won’t have you address it 

today, but it is something that I will be asking about in the future, 

as you get more information. And I appreciate the info that the St. 

Louis District has given me. 

Also, as you are aware, there is an issue with the locals in regards to project labor agreements which are in the locals’ provision 

that provided for the funding for—their cost share, and I know that 

St. Louis District is working with you to address that problem, too. 

And I would like continued cooperation and communication on that 

issue, too. But I want to change directions here a little bit. The 

20 

President’s budget requests $29 million for construction projects to 

halt the spread of Asian carp. 

I know in my district along the Mississippi River and central and 

southwestern Illinois we have some innovative ways to deal with 

Asian carp. But I see that we already have demonstration barriers 

to keep the Asian carp out of our Great Lakes. And noting how 

they have already been constructed and how they are operating, 

what is this $29 million funding request for? 

Ms. DARCY. The $29 million is not only for the continued operation of the barriers, but also to complete the construction of the 

permanent barrier. We had temporary barrier 1, then we had barrier 2A and 2B, and I believe this is the final construction for the 

permanent barrier 1. Is that right? Am I right, General? 

General BOSTICK. The specifics are about $12 million for barrier 

1, and then another $5 million for the backup generators that keep 

the barriers operational electrical-wise, and then O&M for the barriers is about $12 million. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. What are the annual O&M costs of these 

projects, once complete? 

General BOSTICK. I don’t have that figure, but we can provide it 

to you. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. I would like to submit a copy of a letter that I, 

along with the rest of my delegation Illinois and Indiana, signed. 

It is on the GLMRIS study. It looked at eight options to control 

spread of Asian carp, and I want to note our concern with the recommendations in the study that involves some sort of hydrologic 

separation because of economic impacts. 

I would ask unanimous consent, Chairman, to submit this letter 

into the record, and I would like to ask either General Bostick or 

Secretary Darcy. What do you plan to do with the GLMRIS report? 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman, as you noted, the GLMRIS report 

came up with alternatives. We were tasked through the MAP–21 

legislation to do an analysis of how aquatic nuisance species are 

transferred between the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes. In 

looking at that, we identified what invasive species were the most 

risk for that transfer between the two basins, and we looked at alternatives for trying to combat that transfer of the species. We 

came up with eight alternatives ranging from a no-action alternative to doing best practices to hydrologic separation. 

All of those alternatives have been the subject of seven public 

hearings during the month of January and half of February. The 

public comment period has closed as of the 31st of March. We intend now to take those public comments, review them, and the next 

step will be to look at what it is on which there might be some consensus. You may be aware that the Great Lakes Commission is 

looking at this issue as well as the upper Mississippi, looking at 

what there might be a consensus as to how we would move forward 

in trying to combat this invasive species. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. I do want to commend the 

Corps, too, on I see that the Veteran’s Curation Project is getting 

$4.5 million. We share a common goal to make sure that our veterans get employment when they return home. As a matter of fact, 

the House in a bipartisan way passed the Hire More Heroes Act 

that I introduced just last week, and I see that Senator Blunt has 

21 

taken that cause up in the Senate. So I hope we can see some 

movement there. This important program has put our veterans 

back to work, and I want to note that 124 veterans have been 

trained and employed through the program in the St. Louis District 

Center. And I have one, last question for you. How can we leverage 

some existing dollars to get even more veterans trained through 

this program? 

Ms. DARCY. I think part of the success of the program is the fact 

that these veterans are out in the private sector, as well as in Government working with the skills that they have. And these skills 

that they’ve achieved in 6 months, whether it is learning how to 

digitize, or learning how to operate camera equipment, I think that 

is where we can leverage, once the public sector realizes what 

value they bring. And, also, this program was a brainchild of our 

great employees in the St. Louis District. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well great. Well thank you very much. I don’t have 

any time to yield back to the chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered for your document to put into the written 

report. 

[The information follows:] 

22 


Insert offset folio 5 here 87431.005
23 


Insert offset folio 6 here 87431.006
24 


Insert offset folio 7 here 87431.007
25 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. And I believe your answer of the O&M is about $12 

million. 

Mr. Frankel? 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to associate myself 

with Mr. Garamendi, first of all to just thank you all. I have enjoyed working with the Army Corps in south Florida, and I don’t 

think the public really understands how important your work is. 

And this is about job creation and protection of our natural resources. And I know it is a difficult assignment, and I have a feeling you would have preferred to come here with a much more robust budget. 

A couple issues that I would like to just talk about with you, 

which pertains to, like many of my colleagues, I will be a little parochial and talk about south Florida. Although I think it will pertain nationwide, what I am saying. First of all, in terms of the construction projects and the harbors and the dredging, and trying to 

keep up with, now, these larger ships that are going to be on our 

seas and having the harbors to be able to accept these ships, and 

with the global competition means really literally across the country. 

I know in south Florida, all through Florida, north Florida, west 

coast, thousands, thousands, thousands of more jobs and huge economic impact, so a little concerning to me that that construction 

budget for those kind of projects is down significantly. Also on the 

shore protection, it’s funny. Florida, I think, you know, I used to 

visit Florida when I was a kid. And I used to think of the beach 

as just a place to get a sunburn. But I have learned, very quickly, 

that it is about protecting properties. 

It is about a venue for a natural habitat, and a huge economic 

generator for tourism. And I see that the shore budget is down 

hugely from $130 million, and last year’s budget to now $26 million. And $130 million doesn’t even include the Sandy money. So 

that is very painful for those districts that rely on, especially on 

tourism and the shore protection for the property values. And the 

last issue I wanted to mention was our very precious Everglades 

in Florida, which is a natural eco-system that was actually damaged by man. 

It is not only the water system for millions of Floridians, which 

goes, of course, to our life. It is natural habitat. It is for a multitude of species and a huge economic generator also because of 

tourism. And that funding seems to be on a drift downwards, almost half. Seventy-five million dollars is less than half of what was 

in the budget 2 years ago. So I will just asked you one question, 

if you could just address each of those issues, you know, from your 

perspective. 

Ms. DARCY. Thank you, Congresswoman. I will start with the Everglades, first. The Everglades budget, as you say, is less than it 

has been in the last couple of years; however, we are funding everything that we are capable of delivering in the Everglades in the 

2015 budget. We were fortunate to get some ARRA money for Everglades projects, which helped us begin construction. 

At the moment, there are also some authorizations in the Water 

bill that are going to help us with the financing of some of the credVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:10 Nov 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\4-2-14~1\87431.TXT JEAN
26 

iting provisions in Water projects and Everglades projects. I think 

all of that is a positive lean forward. We have broken ground on 

four projects in the last 4 years in the Everglades, so we are pretty 

excited about how the largest restoration effort in the world is progressing. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Could you just talk about the shore protection 

money? 

Ms. DARCY. The shore protection money, you did reference 

Sandy. We were able to use Sandy supplemental funds for impacts 

from that storm. That was one of the reasons it was down, but also 

at this stage, most of the renourishments are being funded, and 

some of them are being funded with carry-over money. And that’s 

the reason that the beach renourishment number is down. 

Ms. FRANKEL. OK. Thank you for sharing that with me and the 

panel, and I thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Meadows? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank each of you for 

your testimony here today. 

Ms. Darcy, I want to start with you. Twice the Supreme Court 

has made decisions, one with the SWANCC case, and the other 

with the Rapanos decision, and they’ve told agencies that there is 

a limit to the Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. And 

they have gone too far in asserting their authority. At least that 

is what those decisions would indicate. 

Therefore, to be consistent with the Supreme Court decisions, 

any new rule would necessarily have to leave some of that to the 

State regulations, and some of the waters previously regulated by 

the Federal Government would be regulated by the State. So my 

question to you is what waters that were previously regulated by 

the Federal Government, prior to the Rapanos decision, now are 

definitely no longer under Federal Government jurisdiction? To 

your knowledge, is there any that have been relegated to the State? 

Ms. DARCY. No, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So we have two Supreme Court decisions in terms 

of jurisdiction. And, really, that has had no effect from a rulemaking standpoint at this point, to your knowledge? 

Ms. DARCY. Sir, the SWANCC decision as well as the Rapanos 

decision, in particular. The Rapanos decision requested that the 

EPA and the Corps of Engineers do a rulemaking in order to make 

clear what the determinations and what was jurisdictional, what 

was in, what was out. And that’s what we are attempting to do in 

this rule. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So in your rulemaking, with that new rulemaking, what would be excluded from Federal jurisdiction and 

passed over to the State? Is it defined enough where there is no— 

or will it be defined where there is no ambiguity in terms of what 

is Federal and what is State? 

Ms. DARCY. We are hoping that’s what this rule will clarify, but 

also, all of the exemptions that exist in the Clean Water Act will 

continue to exist, even if this rule goes final. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, but therein is the problem. We now have 

two Supreme Court rulings that have taken place because of the 

ambiguity thereof. And, so, I guess with this new rulemaking, what 

can the States say? OK. This is definitely our jurisdiction, and the 

27 

feds say that it is no longer their jurisdiction; or is it still going 

to be a gray, murky area. 

Ms. DARCY. I don’t believe it will be a gray, murky area. The 

Clean Water Act, for purposes of getting a permit from the Army 

Corps of Engineers, is a Federal Department of the Army permit 

that would be required. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yeah. I have applied for them. I am very familiar 

with those. I have worked with the Army Corps for a number of 

years; and, therein is the problem, is where does that jurisdiction— 

because what I have found is that many times, whether it is the 

EPA or the Army Corps, they have a broad scope in terms of where 

their jurisdiction will be, and it many times overlaps with agencies 

in the State. And so there is competing areas of jurisdiction. So 

how are you going to help us clarify that so we have the efficiency 

within the Federal Government, and so that people who are applying for permits know that they go to you for this and they go to 

the State for something else? 

Ms. DARCY. Well I am hoping that through the public comment 

period we will be able to clarify that, if it is not clear. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, assuming that the public doesn’t know it as 

well as you do, what would your recommendation be for defining 

that line so that we know? I mean you are familiar with the two 

Supreme Court cases. I can tell the way that you have talked. So 

how would you better define that to comply with those decisions, 

where you separate that jurisdiction between Federal and State? 

Ms. DARCY. Well, Congressman, for purposes of an Army permit, 

that would be Federal jurisdiction over that water because of the 

dredge and fill requirements. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But according to—you know. That authority has 

gone too far. Asserting their authority has ‘‘gone too far.’’ So—— 

Ms. DARCY. I think the authority, if I may, that is being referenced would be the authority to regulate a particular kind of 

water, not necessarily the State’s authority to do so. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what waters would you not regulate anymore, 

as a result of those two Supreme Court cases? 

Ms. DARCY. This proposed rule would continue to regulate those 

waters that have already been part of the Federal regulations. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you wouldn’t relinquish control over anything? 

Ms. DARCY. Well it would depend as to how the other waters is 

eventually defined. That’s one of the areas, one of the seven areas 

within this proposed rule where we are seeking public comment in 

order to make a determination about what other waters would be 

jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act. 

Mr. MEADOWS. We will submit a few other questions for the 

record. I would appreciate the Chair’s indulgence. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Kirkpatrick. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Secretary Darcy, thank you and your staff for 

meeting with me, listening to my constituents and funding really 

critical projects in my district. On behalf of the thousands of people 

and businesses that are going to be helped by that, I thank you. 

My question today is about delays. In the Water bill, the House 

version, we set a maximum of 3 years to complete various studies. 

And, as you know, the Rio de Flag project is coming up on a 

sixth-year anniversary waiting for the updated, limited reevaluaVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:10 Nov 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\4-2-14~1\87431.TXT JEAN
28 

tion report. Do you have a status update on where we are with 

that? And then just would like to know your thoughts about how 

we protected against future delays in Chief’s Reports and updated 

economics. 

Ms. DARCY. I have some information on the Clay Avenue Wash 

Detention Basin. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Yes. 

Ms. DARCY. Is that the piece of Rio de Flag? 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Yes. 

Ms. DARCY. The contractor will be mobilizing this spring, and we 

anticipate construction completion in the fall of 2014. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. OK. That is good news. Thank you. Any 

thoughts about how we can prevent future delays to Chief’s Reports, either one of you? 

General BOSTICK. One of the things I would offer is we have 

taken a real broad look at our portfolio of feasibility studies. When 

we started to review 2 years ago, we had about 600. We have that 

number down to about 168, and we have looked at which of these 

projects has a non-Federal sponsor. Which projects do we think we 

can actually find a Federal interest? And we brought that number 

down to about 160. Well over 100 of those are 3 × 3 × 3 compliant, 

which is good news. 

There is a small number, less than 10, where we are going to 

have to do waivers, because they can’t get in under 3 years or $3 

million. And there are about 30 to 40 that are considered legacy 

projects, where it was just too far along for us to bring the feasibility report under 3 years and $3 million; but, we think we are 

making great progress. And we are doing a lot of this internal to 

the Corps. 

We are working with our interagency partners, but it is really 

going to take a team effort. Because a lot of decisions, as you know, 

are outside of our direct control, so we are working well with the 

interagency. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you. It sounds like you are making 

good progress. Congratulations! I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Mullin. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know we have really learned to value the Corps in my district, especially, with our 

navigational channel that runs up. And we are able to have one of 

the largest inland water ports in the country because of the Corps 

and the navigational channel. And we understand the burden that 

is put on you with restraints as far as money being allotted to you 

through the budgets and through the idea that the repairs are in 

some critical needs. 

And I know the Corps would like to get them done. So I appreciate the partnership that we have been able to work with the 

Corps, but don’t always agree on everything. But I know that we 

definitely are trying to work together. And so, General, just to let 

you know that Colonel Pratt in Oklahoma has done a phenomenal 

job. Colonel Teague who proceeded him did a phenomenal job too, 

and we appreciate their willingness to work with us. 

Ms. Darcy, we understand that the Corps is undergoing a rulemaking on water supply. Is that correct? 

29 

Ms. DARCY. We are considering doing rulemaking on surplus 

water supply, yes. 

Mr. MULLIN. I understand this has been going on for quite some 

time, so it is more than a consideration. You guys have been talking about it. We had your staff in my office, actually, last week. We 

had requested to meet with him; and, quite frankly, we have been 

trying to get this meeting for several, several months for, in fact, 

a big part of even last year, just to find out exactly what that rulemaking is, because we understand that you guys are trying to redefine the pricing structure of the water and try and identify if you 

have surplus water and what is the best use, how do you best use 

the surplus. Is that correct? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. The rulemaking we are considering would establish what a reasonable price is for surplus water. Under the Flood 

Control Act and the Water Supply Act we are required to set a reasonable cost for that; and, currently, we don’t really have one. So 

we need to go out for public comment and to—— 

Mr. MULLIN. When is it you plan on going out for public comment? Because, if I understand, you guys have been meeting on 

this one particular topic for at least 8 months. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, and quite honestly, it has been longer than that. 

Mr. MULLIN. OK. Well I was aware of it about 8 months ago. 

Ms. DARCY. We are still under development within the agency, 

and I am not certain about what the actual timeline for releasing 

a proposed rule on this would be. 

Mr. MULLIN. Here is my concern about this, Ms. Darcy. Underneath the latest example of the waters of the U.S.—the rulemaking, you know—we were assuming that was going to come up 

for public opinion, too, and we thought the States would have some 

opinion in that. And, what we did is we completely sidestepped the 

States, and there was no rule. 

The rulemaking came out and the States were sitting there having to deal with it, which, I believe—if I’m not mistaken—that the 

10th Amendment, that is what gave the States the rights, the right 

to understand and even have first shot at regulating their State. 

And so by you guys side-stepping and going right past them, well, 

how can we even trust that the rulemaking on this water pricing 

is even going to be taken into consideration? 

You have been meeting for over 8 months, and yet you still 

haven’t brought it up for public opinion. In fact, most people aren’t 

even aware of what is going on. 

Ms. DARCY. We have been meeting with stakeholders and those 

concerned. 

Mr. MULLIN. Who have you met with? Because we have been trying to get a meeting for, like I said, 8 months, and you just came 

to my office last week, which I appreciate your staff doing, but I 

believe that probably was because of this hearing coming up. 

Ms. DARCY. We have been meeting for over a year with other 

stakeholders, including the State of North Dakota and others who 

have been interested in this issue. And any rulemaking that we do 

would be a proposed rulemaking, which would have at least a 90- 

day comment period for the States and other stakeholders. 

Mr. MULLIN. Going back to the waters of the U.S., are you going 

to work with the States? 

30 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MULLIN. When are you planning on doing that? I mean if the 

rulemaking is already out, at what point are you going to actually 

allow the States to have input on their own property? 

Ms. DARCY. It’s a proposed rulemaking, and so there is a 90-day 

comment period for all stakeholders, including States. 

Mr. MULLIN. OK. Real quick before I run out of time, existing 

permits on farmlands with the navigable waters, my concern is 

with the broad reach that you just took out a redefining sum of the 

streams or nonstreams that’s going to be classified under the Clean 

Water Act, that farms are going to be caught up. And underneath 

the rulemaking when I read it, I understand it says existing permits aren’t going to be affected. What about farmlands that are not 

currently having to get those permits. 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman, all of the existing exemptions for 

farming, silviculture and ranching in the current Clean Water Act, 

those exemptions remain in place. In addition, we have done an interpretative rule with the Department of Agriculture and EPA, 

stating what additional farming practices would be exempt. Some 

of those farming practices have come into existence since the 1972 

Clean Water Act. So we list what those exemptions will continue 

to be. 

Mr. MULLIN. I appreciate it. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Norton? 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you Ms. Darcy and General Bostick. After a number of years we 

finally passed a Water Resources Development Act amidst a fair 

amount of self-congratulation, which I think was well-deserved. 

But now we are down to the hard part when we meet head-on the 

issue of funding in this bill. 

I have a couple of questions on a formerly contaminated site for 

General Bostick and another question—these are brief questions— 

on the 17th Street levee. I very much appreciate General Bostick 

that after some concern in one of our communities about perchloric 

contamination in the groundwater that the Army Corps is going to 

dig a well to try to trace this contamination. They somehow have 

picked a spot that is in a park, a park that is partly maintained 

by the community with trees and other vegetation that the community itself has added. 

I understand that the Corps has not made a final decision on 

where to place this well, as much as the well is needed, considering 

the size of the community and the fact that there are 53 wells, I 

understand, located in the area. And some of them are in roads. 

The community is asking that this well be put in a roadbed or 

other appropriate location, and not in a park, which according to 

all of their experts, will never be able to be brought back to its 

present site if the well is put there. I am asking you, General 

Bostick, if you would work with the community to find a mutually 

agreeable site for this well in Spring Valley, looking at roads, and 

for that matter at other nearby locations. 

General BOSTICK. Rep. Norton, we have looked at this very closely. I am happy to continue working with the community to try to 

find the most agreeable location based on the technical analysis 

that our experts have done. I am informed that the ideal spot is 

31 

this location on the island, the public island that you are talking 

about. Other locations are in people’s front yards and back yards. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, obviously, we don’t want that. That is why I 

said ‘‘mutually agreeable.’’ 

General BOSTICK. Right, right. 

Ms. NORTON. And all I am asking is that you continue to work 

with the community if you don’t want it in someone’s back yard or 

front yard. You surely don’t want it in the front yard of the community itself—— 

General BOSTICK. Certainly. 

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. In a park that it is maintained. 

General BOSTICK. We will look into it. 

Ms. NORTON. Look. And I understand the technical difficulties. 

All I need is a back and forth with the community, because as the 

community sees a good faith effort, and that’s all that’s there, I 

know the ideal site. But an ideal site doesn’t necessarily make it 

the best site for all concerned. So I appreciate your commitment to 

continue to work with them. 

General Bostick, I wrote you, personally, a letter, after working 

a great deal of time with the Corps before you began the latest 

evacuation in Spring Valley. Because for the first time—and this 

community has been very tolerant—you understand that Spring 

Valley is a community of gorgeous homes and taxpayers who—because frankly of mistakes made by the Corps—have had their community built on without knowing it was a contaminated site. They 

have been doing work there for almost 20 years. 

I appreciate how the Corps has cooperated with my office and 

with the community, since this contamination was discovered and 

since the Corps left twice and had to come back, because the contamination was not cleaned up. Now they are a really pivotal site. 

Across from the site is a home of a family that has two children, 

1 and 5 years old. I asked if they could be temporarily located. You 

denied that this family, I think, for reasons that perhaps are understandable, were so concerned that they have rented an apartment on their own. 

Now your office said it is going to take 6 months longer than 

planned. Imagine. The community now hearing that there is more 

extensive debris across from their own home, and just last week 

alone you found intact glass containers in large amounts at the 

American University experiment station. This family is paying rent 

now on top of a mortgage in order to protect their children. 

General Bostick, do you agree that children of this age, 1 and 5, 

are more susceptible to diseases, including toxins, from toxins and 

glutens, that may affect their brain and immune system at this developmental stage? Do you agree that that is a concern? 

General BOSTICK. Representative, I am always concerned about 

safety. I am not a doctor, so I couldn’t comment on whether they 

are more susceptible. But I will tell you that we are very concerned 

about safety. We have taken all the precautions, not only within 

the Corps, but in talking to other organizations to make sure what 

we are doing is safe and we made the determination that we would 

not be able to support the request to relocate the family based 

on—— 

32 

Ms. NORTON. General Bostick, in light of the fact that the time 

is now been elongated, you found even more debris than you expected. Would you take another look? Would you take another look 

at this matter? 

General BOSTICK. I will take another look. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, General Bostick. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Capito. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you. I want to thank you both for being 

here. I appreciate your service to the country. I know your areas 

of responsibility are very difficult. We have heard a lot of discussion about the Corps along with the EPA redefining, our new regulations to define the waters to the United States. And this definition would expand those waters to regulations permitting under 

the Clean Water Act. 

The Corps’ ability to consider applications for 404 permits right 

now is a huge issue in my State of West Virginia. The Huntington 

Corps does a great job, but they are really stretched. And my concern is that we have a professional staff and an experienced staff 

in West Virginia and around the country who are working hard to 

consider these permitting applications that we have right now. 

If you are expanding that definition, my concern is in your budg- et request you are requesting flat funding of $200 million for the 

regulatory program. We have a huge backlog and a lot of waiting 

periods before we are able to satisfy or to obtain permits. How are 

you going to deal with this enlarged playing field, so to speak, of 

more 404 permits when already we see a lot of frustration with the 

backlog that currently exists. Madam Secretary? 

Ms. DARCY. Thank you, Congresswoman. The proposed rule will 

not be finalized for several months, so the potential for the increase 

is a little bit of a ways away. However, you know, within the regulatory program, we are going to have to look at what increased demands there will be if the rule goes final and have to adjust as best 

we can within our limited budget. 

Mrs. CAPITO. So, basically, what you are saying is you haven’t 

really accounted for that yet, for the expansion, because you know 

you are going to anticipate a greatly expanded application procedure. Correct? 

Ms. DARCY. We anticipate an initial increase in some permit applications; however, we believe that the certainty that’s going to result if this rule goes final will help us down the road, because people will know. The applicant will know what’s jurisdictional and 

what is not and what is going to need a permit, and what will not. 

And, right now, there is so much uncertainty about that, that has 

created a great deal of increased work. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Well I guess I was speaking more about ones that 

already know they are within the jurisdiction and the backlog that 

we are seeing in the time that it takes to work these. And some 

of them are very, very difficult, obviously. So, you know, I still 

think the permitting process is going to become much more bogged 

down in the future with this new, expanded definition that you are 

trying to seek. Would you agree with that? 

Ms. DARCY. I think initially we may see some increase in the request for applications, but I think the long-term impact is going to 

be increased certainty. And the amount of waters that are curVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:10 Nov 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\4-2-14~1\87431.TXT JEAN
33 

rently covered are ones that will be covered, but the certainty that 

this rule will provide will help us. You are right. There is probably 

going to be an increase initially. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Well we are going to have to speak to the certainty 

issue. I mean we saw what has happened to the permit that was 

awarded and went through the procedure with the Corps with the 

Spruce permit that was overturned. I don’t think that is really 

leading us to much certainty in the area of the country where I live 

right now. 

What about in terms of what kind of considerations when you 

are putting forth the rule? We have, obviously, a lot of manufacturing, as we do across the country. We have Essrock in Martinsburg, who has voiced concerns, and I am concerned as well. Have 

you looked, as you are expanding this definition, have you looked 

at all at what the job impact would be, the manufacturing job impact would be? Is that part of the consideration when you are looking in this jurisdictional role that you put forward? 

Ms. DARCY. Congresswoman, there was an economic analysis 

done considering what the administrative costs would be as well as 

what the benefits would be of this rule. 

Mrs. CAPITO. So that would be the jobs that it would cost to administer the rule. Is that what you are saying? Or, does it say even 

if certain folks are now going to be pulled into this with a lengthy 

and expensive process, what that is going to do to the manufacturing base or what it could do to their ability to expand their manufacturing jobs? Is that a consideration? 

Ms. DARCY. I would have to—I am not sure. 

Mrs. CAPITO. OK. OK. General, just a quick question. We have 

a project in West Virginia with a coal company on the King Coal 

Highway, and the Corps has worked very hard to try to work with 

the permitting issue there to try to do a public-private partnership, 

which would result in the construction of a very difficult piece of 

road while satisfying the definitions of the Clean Water permit 

with the Corps. Are you encouraging public-private partnerships 

through the Corps? I mean we are in leaner times now. Think it 

makes a lot of sense? Is that an initiative the Corps is taking on? 

General BOSTICK. Absolutely, Representative. In fact, this month 

I have a meeting with several prominent leaders in public-private 

partnership, both in Government and civilian CEOs that are gathering together to try to determine how we can do this more within 

the Corps. 

Mrs. CAPITO. I would encourage that and I would encourage this 

project too to be moved forward, because in southern West Virginia, 

it is much needed. Thank you so much. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Sanford. 

Mr. SANFORD. I thank you, and I thank you for what you do. I 

am going to try to run very quickly through five questions in 5 

minutes. So it will be a little speedy here. First, just to check up, 

as far as I know, the Post 45 Charleston Harbor Feasibility Study 

is on budget and on time. Anything I need to know new from you 

all’s perspective on that one? 

Ms. DARCY. No, Congressman, other than the fact that it’s one 

of our studies that we look to as being compliant with our 3 × 3 

34 

process, which was referenced earlier. We cut the time off this 

study. We cut about $8 million off of it. So it is on track to go. 

Mr. SANFORD. Good. There have been, I guess, there was talk 

within the WRDA bill on authorization and still allowing for construction. In some instances, I think it was touched on a manager’s 

amendment in WRDA, but it’s still a little bit ambiguous and I 

didn’t know if you all were prepared to issue guidance on that particular front, wherein you’re in that sort of interim time period and 

not quite sure what comes next. 

Ms. DARCY. I’m not sure of your question. Is it what is going to 

happen to projects between authorization and the passage of a 

WRDA bill? Well, currently, if a project is not authorized in WRDA, 

we can’t budget for construction. And, as you know, in the House 

bill, it’s—— 

Mr. SANFORD. Well, I guess what I am getting at is if a project’s 

been authorized, but not yet appropriated, and if there are backup 

State funds that say, look. We have a backup in terms of funding 

sources. Is there any way we continue to move ahead in anticipation of appropriation? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, sir, if it is an authorized project we can accept 

contributed funds. We can accept advanced funds or accelerated 

funds, if we have a cooperative agreement with the local sponsor. 

Mr. SANFORD. I will follow back up with you, because there is 

some level of ambiguity, at least being read to the TVs back home 

on some of that based on some of what’s going to Charleston. I am 

going to follow up with specific questions on that. 

On the 3 × 3 going back to what you mentioned just a moment 

ago, at times, though, EPA seemingly will still gum the works up. 

So it is good in theory, but at times in practice, I guess—maybe 

that’s why Charleston stands out—is the project that is working on 

that front. Is there anything that can be done to further expedite 

that process when some Federal agencies come up and maybe slow 

up what you guys are working on? 

Ms. DARCY. We are trying to, in part through the 3 × 3 × 3 as 

well as with other Federal agencies. The earlier we can work with 

the other Federal agencies in the project development process, the 

easier it is going to be so that at the end of a study process, we 

are not confronted with problems or concerns that we didn’t anticipate that may in some ways slow it down or in some way derail 

the process. We are trying to do that. 

Mr. SANFORD. I will come back with further questions on that, 

because I am trying to stay within my prescribed 5 minutes. Two 

other quick questions, though. One is going back to macro. There 

has been some concern, I guess for some time, on cost-benefit analysis within the Corps and a belief that, you know, costs are understated and benefits are overstated. I think there was a Pentagon 

inspector general report to that effect. There was a GAO report to 

that effect. Is there anything that you all would point to in terms 

of changing that process or moving a foot within the Corps to further calibrate based on those two studies? 

General BOSTICK. We don’t have, necessarily, another study that 

we are looking at. But I would say that we are looking at budgeting 

and how we budget as part of our overall civil works transformation. And within that analysis of how we budget, I think we 

35 

will find methods to become more efficient, effective in the BCR. 

But we don’t have anything specifically, we can tell you today. 

Mr. SANFORD. I will follow up with additional questions. Here is 

my last one though in my 5 minutes, which is going back to what 

you just said on budgeting and better budgeting. As I understand, 

the Corps owns about 7 million acres. I don’t know if that is true 

or not, but that is what I have been told. It is the fourth largest 

agency out there in terms of land holdings in the aggregate. 

One, is that true? But, B, and maybe that’s not the right place 

to look, if you look at the overall numbers of the country. We have 

a 5-percent fiscal gap, which means for agencies ultimately there 

is a much bigger gap in getting to break even. If you were to point 

to the least efficient program that you administer or the biggest 

cost savings that you think could be found within the Corps, it 

would be what? 

Ms. DARCY. That’s a tough one. 

General BOSTICK. I think we would have to come back to you on 

that. We try to focus on the programs that are highest priorities 

and spend a lot of time putting our energy and our money there. 

But we would come back to you on what we think might be one 

we’re probably not spending as much time on and not as effective 

to the good of the Nation. 

Mr. SANFORD. I would appreciate that. Thank you for your time. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Hahn. 

Ms. HAHN. [Inaudible.] 

Mr. GIBBS. Turn your mic on. 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you, because I am saying something nice about 

you. 

Mr. GIBBS. You used up your time on that. 

Ms. HAHN. Yeah, I know. But thank you for your opening remarks about the Harbor Maintenance Tax. And, Assistant Secretary Darcy, thanks for being here; General Bostick. I do have a 

statement I am going to put into the record about Compton Creek 

in Los Angeles. I understand in this budget the Compton Creek 

project will be fully funded. 

I just wanted to ask a couple of questions about the Harbor 

Maintenance Tax. I just would like to know from your point of view 

why the administration is not advocating for full utilization of yearly receipts. We know that we will get about $1.7 billion in yearly 

receipts, and the President is advocating for just $1 billion to be 

spent. So that’s $700 million left on the table, yearly. So I just wanted 

to know from your perspective why do you think we are still not 

putting forth the full utilization of the Harbor Maintenance Tax. 

Ms. DARCY. Congresswoman, within the scope of the Corps of Engineers budget, the $1.7 billion that you referenced within our $4.5 

billion-dollar cap, $915 million from the fund is all that we are 

going to be able to use at this time. 

Ms. HAHN. I remember in one roundtable that we had where I 

asked you if we fully utilized the receipts of the Harbor Maintenance Tax how long would it take to have all of our ports in this 

country fully dredged to their authorized level. And you actually 

threw out a figure of 5 years, which is, again, something we should 

look at in terms of how do we keep our ports competitive and mainVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:10 Nov 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\4-2-14~1\87431.TXT JEAN
36 

tained. And, you know, particularly with the Panama Canal coming 

online, I just believe this is one piece of our economy and job creation that is right there within our grasp, and I am still going to 

continue to advocate for that. 

Let me ask you what the administration’s view is on more equity 

for our ports. One of the things I’ve also tried to advocate for is a 

guaranteed minimum that would come back to each port. The ports 

of Long Beach and Los Angeles contributed about $263 million annually, and we get back about $263,000. So I know we are obviously a donor port, and I believe in the seamless network of ports 

in this country, however, would like to see a little more equity as 

we go forward. 

I would love to see a 10-percent guarantee back to the ports 

where the tax is collected. What is the administration’s view on 

more equity going forward? 

Ms. DARCY. Congresswoman, the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund, as you know, is an ad valorem tax on imports, and that 

money all goes into the overall operation and maintenance of the 

entire system. There are some ports that don’t need as much operation or maintenance dollars as others—and so it is the need nationwide that we have to look at in making the decisions on how 

the funds are going to be apportioned. And it is a donor-donee sort 

of similar situation like that. 

Ms. HAHN. But you look at the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. I like to call them America’s port, since 44 percent of all the 

trade coming to this country comes through those ports. If you 

want to talk about projects of national significance, it is certainly 

the work done at those ports. So I still think that would be something we ought to aim towards, and, sure. I’d like to see 50 percent 

go back to the ports where it was collected, but I know that is unrealistic. But something like a 10-percent minimum guarantee, I 

think would be important, particularly—the next question I’m 

going to ask—if we can work on an expanded use of the Harbor 

Maintenance Tax, particularly for those ports who have already 

dredged to their authorized level. 

What is your view on using some of that money for expanded 

uses within the harbor? 

Ms. DARCY. It is currently under law limited to just operation 

and maintenance in the water—no port side development. I think 

there are other programs within the Federal Government, things 

such as TIGER grant program within the Department of Transportation that can be used for those kinds of additional enhancements 

to the port. 

Ms. HAHN. But, again, that is another competitive process, again, 

when we are already collecting the tax from these ports and the 

ports that have already done their dredging; seems reasonable that 

they would be allowed to use this money for other uses within their 

ports. Of course, I am advocating for the last mile, as well. I think 

if we want to talk about why cargo is diverted from some of our 

ports, it is because of landside congestion, and not necessarily what 

is going on within the harbor. How do you feel about that? 

Ms. DARCY. In order to expand the usage of the tax, legislative 

direction would be required for that expansion to occur. 

37 

Ms. HAHN. I mean, let’s face it. The way we stay competitive in 

this country is for that cargo to come in and out of our ports as 

quickly, as efficiently, and as effectively as possible. That cargo 

needs to come off the ships, onto the rail or trucks and to their intended destination quickly. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and being the last one, 

maybe I will get in a few words here. 

Assistant Secretary Darcy and General Bostick, thank you so 

much for your appointees to the L.A. area in the last—I don’t 

know—10 years that I have been very active with the Corps. The 

Colonels Compton, Toy and Magnus and their Deputy Van Dorf, 

has been excellent to work with. 

We also want to say that we have been very happy that you are 

now looking at water conservation measures in the dams, which 

are critical to our Los Angeles area—since the drought is really hitting us more than we thought it could for the last several years— 

in preparing for the sediment removal that will allow for the capture of more rain, since we have very little in southern California. 

I will note that our water agencies from control districts and the 

local leaders have been urging the court to take measures for many 

years. And now that you have adopted some emergency conservation measures in that general area of Los Angeles, we have picked 

up 22,000 acre-feet of water conserved. We should be doing more 

of this, and that is hopefully where we can lead to being able to 

have the Corps’ mission include the water retention and the sediment removal from the dams to capture more, and maybe even 

raising the levees and expediting the process by which we check 

the dams’ leakage, et cetera. 

As you well now, we have narrows Whittier Narrows that we 

have been working on for about 10 years. I would like to have an 

idea of where the Corps is on the Whittier Narrows and the Santa 

Fe Dams with contributed funds. If you remember, there had been 

a time where they wanted—I have an agency that wanted to pay 

for a review, and there was no way to be able to get the Corps to 

accept that funding. So now that we have that ability and it is the 

contributing funds agreement for water conservation feasibility 

studies and more short-term water conservation deviations. 

General BOSTICK. At the local level there is agreement to study 

the water conservation for accelerated funds and they are negotiating that now. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And when can we see some timeframes so we 

have an idea. Because we have so very little water, so very little 

rain, the more expeditiously we move towards being able to capture 

that, the between off we are going to be addressing the drought in 

southern California. 

General BOSTICK. I will follow up with the timing. I really don’t 

have the details on that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would really appreciate it. The other area is 

the RFPs for Open Bidding Process to removal of the sediments of 

the dam, especially, particularly, the Santa Fe dam, because it is 

downstream. And if they are able to remove the sediment, they 

would be able to capture more water in the dams where the water 

is, so more able to be stored. But will the sediment have enough 

38 

value to pay for the removal? If it doesn’t, then will the Corps be 

able to pay for that removal of the pile. 

General BOSTICK. We will finish the request for proposal. That 

will be done this month. But in terms of funding it, due to funding 

limitations the sediment removal was not included in the 2015 

budget. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It is not included. So that won’t happen then 

for this year or next year. 

General BOSTICK. That is my understanding. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And in the meantime, we are not preparing 

our areas for the drought, or at least conserving that water. Is 

there a way we should be able to move up and expedite the process? And I know funding is an issue. 

General BOSTICK. We can always look at methods for trying to 

accelerate the process. I think in the end, in this case, it is going 

to be a question of funding, and we have got to really go back and 

take a look at once the RFP is completed, in future years, something could happen. And in the interim, I’d say we continue to 

work for the local sponsors and the local communities to see what 

options we can develop together working forward. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well I look forward to sitting with you, and 

then figuring out, because there are some local partners that are 

interested in helping in other areas, and this could be one of the 

things that they would be very helpful in being able to address the 

funding issue. And then there is an area where, apparently, the 

sediment is going to be able to get a buyer, if you will. We are not 

sure that our fee, I believe, is being developed by them, or actually 

submitted by them. 

They may have other folks submitting these RFPs, but by the 

same token, we do not know whether they are going to be able to 

have enough ability to have that sediment pay for itself. And there 

is the issue of an area that the Corps owns, a particular area that 

develops all this aggregate, if you will, is willing to make a deal, 

wanting to sit down with the Corps to see if they can exchange 

these areas of helping each other by allowing them to mind that 

area and being able to help the sediment removal for use by them. 

And I am not sure, exactly. 

I’d have to sit down with you, if you don’t mind, and go over this. 

And I think, Ellen, you know about that. How do we work with the 

entities that are willing to help find a solution, if you will, to address some of the issues that are inherent in that particular area? 

General BOSTICK. I think in this day and age we are all looking 

for different opportunities and different ways to think through solving these complex issues that we have. And if we’ve got willing 

partners that think they can purchase the sediment—use it for different reasons—and if there’s a different type of funding mechanism that we could work with the Congress in getting the approval 

on, then we would be open to suggestions on that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But the approval has to come from Washington. It can’t be at the local level, and that is also a big delay 

in getting that processed. Am I correct? 

General BOSTICK. Well if it’s going to be an authorized project 

and using Federal dollars, then it would involve the Congress and 

folks in Washington. 

39 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to submit some 

of the questions in writing. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, representative. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Secretary Darcy, I want to just follow through here 

on a couple of things. So, first is when you are dealing with the 

rule, the Supreme Court decisions on the navigable waters in the 

United States or waters in the United States, it is quite clear in 

Rapanos that the Federal jurisdiction is limited under the Clean 

Water Act, and essentially the Supreme Court said that you need 

to pull back. 

And in your exchange with Congressman Meadows, talk about 

clarity, you know, it is muddier than it has ever been, if you are 

interested to do that. And I would also imply to you that Corps— 

we have budget constraints and budget realities, and we are trying 

to figure that out. And I know the ranking member’s comment 

about the budget restraints and the other members’, but I know 

the two generals sitting next to you there, behind you, are probably 

a little nervous, because they don’t need any more work to do. 

And my question is on this regard, it is implied that the Federal 

Government has to move into these other areas because the States 

aren’t doing it. And that’s kind of the implied, that I am getting 

from that, is because the last Congress, when we had State EPA 

directors in here, we heard so much about how frustrated they are, 

and they are from both sides of the aisle about the overreach of 

this administration and this EPA. And so your ability to not answer Congressman Meadows about what waters would be relinquished of Federal jurisdiction in regard to the Court order, basically, I have got real concerns about that. 

So, if you would, quickly answer the question about what the 

States are doing and why the Federal Government thinks they 

have to get more involved in these other waters, because to me that 

looks like a big power grab by the Federal Government. 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman, we are not extending the reach of the 

Clean Water Act to new waters outside of what is being required 

to have a permit. 

Mr. GIBBS. But if you are going to define what is significant 

nexus is, you have the ability to extend that, but by how you define 

what significant nexus is. 

Ms. DARCY. The significant nexus determination would need to 

be made on a case-by-case basis on other waters. That significant 

nexus determination as well as what other waters would be covered 

by the Clean Water Act as part of what the proposed rule is asking 

for public input on and public conflict. 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, to me, anyway, this issue is it is becoming less 

clear way of removing. So that is my word of caution on that. I 

want to move on to another area. We have another issue, and hopefully you are aware of up in Cleveland, Ohio, and the dredging of 

the harbor port there. In the Omnibus Appropriation bill, Congress 

appropriated $7.8 million to get the dredging done. Dredging is 

scheduled to be done here in a month or so. It is very important 

that it gets done. 

We have one, large steel company that is bringing in lighter 

loads of iron ore, and they won’t be able to get enough supply in 

40 

there. And there is a possibility that will shut down their operations, and nearly 2,000 jobs will be idled. And I guess my question 

is we are having a little back and forth about how the EPA and 

the Corps—the dredging that occurs there every year—it is going 

in the CFF, the landfill, because it has got metal, heavy metals 

PCBs—you know—things that you don’t want to put out in the 

lake, apparently. My first question is why did the Corps only bid 

open lake disposal, when they should have known that it is highly 

likely that they won’t get the 401 certification from the Ohio EPA? 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman, we have requested, as you say, the 

401 water certification from the Ohio EPA. We have in other places 

within the State of Ohio and in Lake Erie. We have done open 

water disposal for Toledo. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes, Toledo, but I don’t believe that the—I think it 

is more of a phosphorous issue, a nutrient issue. I don’t think the 

Cuyahoga River, the river that caught on fire four times a few 

years ago, you know, there’s been apparently issues with the PCBs 

and heavy metals. And I think the issue that I am hearing, the discrepancy between two agencies is the protocol that was used in the 

sampling. So I guess what I am trying to say is dredging has to 

happen. OK? And the two agencies have to figure out what’s best. 

Now, we know there is at least a year of capacity in the CFF, 

the landfill. And then also the Port of Cleveland has spent $4 million to work on another disposal site under the section 217 authority. And, you know, by the Corps moving forward with open lake 

disposal proposal, are they automatically saying no to moving forward with the other disposal area for when they get past this next 

year? 

General BOSTICK. Chairman, we’ve done our meeting with the experts in Cleveland today. We believe there is a real science to this, 

and our scientists have looked at this. What we like to do is collaborate with the team in Cleveland, and we would like to come to 

some mutual consensus. We know we have to dredge. We know we 

are funded for that, and we know the impacts if we don’t. But we 

would like to understand the differences of opinion, and then try 

to find a solution to resolve it. But, as you say, we are coming to 

a point where we have to make a decision because we are running 

out of time in these confined disposal facilities. And, as you say, 

within a year or more, we will not have any room. 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, what is going on with the other site, where the 

Port Authority has spent $4 million to, I think, develop another 

site under 217 authority? Do you know the status of that? 

General BOSTICK. I am not aware of the details on that. But I 

will take a look into it. 

Mr. GIBBS. I think everybody is trying to move forward, and we 

have to move forward, and—but we want to also be careful that we 

protect the lake out there. 

The other area of that that I just don’t really understand, either, 

we are dredging 5 feet of sediment out every year, at least 5 feet. 

And is there anybody or—looking at how all that sediment—that 

seems like a lot of sediment getting into the harbor there—to mitigate the flow of sediment, or is it just the shoreline itself collapsing 

in? I mean that seems like a lot of sediment, and then still be 

heavy with, you know, hazardous materials. It seems like, to me, 

41 

that there ought to be some other mitigation efforts, and I am puzzled, I am a little bit puzzled by that. 

General BOSTICK. I can’t talk to the amount of sediment, but in 

terms of the quality of the sediment from our perspective, I know 

we are in disagreement with some on this, but 80 percent of it we 

feel is clean enough to put in open water. 

So, I can have our guys look at why there is continued sediment, 

but we have been at this for about three decades now, and in that 

area, put in about a billion dollars’ worth of money in confined disposal facilities. And we are at the point where we must make a decision. In view of that, I think we are going to continue to work 

with the locals, and I am sure we can find a solution that will move 

us forward in the right way. 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, I just want to impress on you the importance 

that dredging stays on schedule, and we need to get this worked 

out with how EPA—and also, you know, protect our vital resources 

there in northern Ohio. 

My time is up. I just had—want to make a couple other quick 

comments, since we are just the only ones here. You know, the permit revocation, the Spruce Mine issue, 404 permits, have we seen 

an increase of 404 permits, applications? And have you seen—what 

is the status? What is going on with that? 

Ms. DARCY. Are you asking about 404 permits regarding surface 

mining? 

Mr. GIBBS. Just—— 

Ms. DARCY. Or 404 permits, overall? 

Mr. GIBBS. In general, because I am a little nervous. I am disappointed that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t take this up, because 

I think it sets a bad precedence, because my understanding, the 

permit, you know, was revoked, not vetoed. You know, the EPA has 

authority to veto permits during the process, but they revoked the 

permit 3 years after it was approved, after the entities, you know, 

invested hundreds of millions of dollars to start the operation up. 

You know, that sends a bad precedence about certainty. 

And so, I am very concerned about that. And if we—that is why 

I think the Supreme Court should have took it up. And so now, you 

know, depending on what the status is on this permitting process, 

Congress might have to take it up. 

But I guess I am asking, you know, what the status is of 404 permits. Have we seen more, less? And how many are pending? 

Ms. DARCY. I would have to get back to you on that. But do you 

want, like, in the last year or two, or kinds of permits, or just a 

404, overall? We can get you that information. 

Mr. GIBBS. We will talk about that. But I am really concerned 

about that, because it is—I am also concerned that, you know, people might not even be applying. It is stifling economic activity, because the uncertainty of being shut down, even though they 

weren’t in violation of their permit. 

And, as I recall from our previous hearings last Congress, the 

State of West Virginia, EPA, and I think even the Corps themselves, said they weren’t in violation of the permit. So it was more 

of a political agenda. 

So, Mr. Bishop? 

42 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just have 

a couple of things with respect to the Clean Water Act and the proposed rule. 

First off, I think words matter, and I think accuracy matters. 

Several of our colleagues have spoken today about the rule expanding the definition of waters covered under the Clean Water Act. Is 

it not more correct to say that what the rule seeks to do is clarify 

the definition of waters under the Clean Water Act? 

Ms. DARCY. That is correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. And the way this process is working is standard, is it not? I mean putting out a proposed rule, and having a 

90-day public comment period, and then incorporating those comments into a final rule, that is how executive branch agencies conduct their business. Is that not correct? 

Ms. DARCY. That is correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Now, Mr. Meadows asked some questions regarding which waters previously covered by the Clean Water Act 

would not be covered once the proposed rule is finalized. And isn’t 

it more correct to recognize that at this point there is no way of 

knowing the answer to that question until the rule is finalized? 

Ms. DARCY. That is correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. So this is not a power grab. This is not the Federal Government expanding its reach. This is the Federal Government responding to a Supreme Court ruling which instructed the 

appropriate agencies to clarify which waters would be covered and 

which would not be. Is that correct? 

Ms. DARCY. That is correct. It would be a rulemaking, was—— 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. So what I guess I would hope is that we would 

let the process work its way out, and that all of us will withhold 

our judgments with respect to whether the proposed rule—and if 

it becomes a final rule, whether that is good or bad, whether it expands or contracts. We should withhold our judgment until those 

processes work its way through. Is that—— 

Ms. DARCY. We are hoping the process will get us to there. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Could you just talk to us a little bit about how 

you see the process going forward? I mean you are going to be assembling, I would imagine, an enormous number of comments. 

Ms. DARCY. We will be. We will also be doing some outreach with 

locals and stakeholders as to their reaction. The public comment 

period is 90 days. Anyone can comment on the rule. Either by Web 

sites—— 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Mr. Mullin raised some, I thought, legitimate 

concerns about the extent to which States will be involved. States 

will be involved, correct? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. All right, Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield 

back. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just following up a 

little bit on some of your questions, and—I really appreciate, again, 

both of you being here today. 

I have concerns, too, like many have raised, in regards to the 

Clean Water Act, and how this—how your final rule is going to define navigable waterways. I have tremendous concerns, especially 

43 

in light of the fact that it seems that, in one instance, the DC 

Court of Appeals has allowed the EPA to basically veto one of your 

already-existing 404 permits. And they retroactively vetoed that 

permit. 

If—you know, what, if any, guidelines or agreements exist right 

now between the Corps and the EPA which would describe the circumstances or the criteria of when the EPA will veto a Corpsissued 404 permit? 

Ms. DARCY. Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA has the authority, under 404, I believe it is—I don’t have the right citation—to 

veto a Department of the Army permit with whatever just cause 

they feel is right from their perspective. 

Mr. DAVIS. So the EPA—— 

Ms. DARCY. That exists in current law. 

Mr. DAVIS. Right. The EPA currently has veto power over existing 404 permits that you are permitting. 

Ms. DARCY. They do have that authority. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. Throughout this process now that we have discussed at this committee, are you going to develop, in conjunction 

with the EPA, any guidelines of what would constitute the EPA’s 

ability to come in and veto an existing permit that has gone 

through a review process? 

Ms. DARCY. The proposed rule, Congressman, does not address 

the veto authority of EPA. It addresses what waters will or will not 

be covered—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Will the Corps of Engineers be open to an addendum 

to any rule that would allow some guidelines to be put forth, so 

that the EPA cannot veto work that you are already doing? 

Ms. DARCY. We are always open to conversation and collaboration with our sister agency to make the process more efficient. And 

I think that is always something that we should be open to. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. Well, I appreciate that. And, obviously, you see 

a lot of concern from many Members, both sides of the aisle, on 

how a navigable waterway is going to be defined. We have issues. 

And I just met back in a room with agricultural leaders who are 

in the livestock industry. They are concerned about issues that we 

are facing right here, talking about with you. These are concerns 

that are not going to go away until the final rule is issued. And, 

even then, I doubt that they go away. I doubt that we are still 

going to have some concerns about what the final definition is. 

So, I will move on. General Bostick, I have some time left. I 

wanted to get to Olmsted. Olmsted, obviously, is in my home State. 

I have toured the project in its infancy. Obviously, as you are, as 

many are, we are disappointed in the cost overruns and the continued delays. With that in mind, how much do you think the Federal 

Government is going to have to invest in rehabilitating lock and 

dam 52 and 53 because Olmsted has not come online to make them 

go offline? 

General BOSTICK. Congressman, I don’t have the exact figures on 

lock and dam 52 and 53. I do know that those are in very bad 

shape, very poor shape, which is why Olmsted is our top priority. 

We are about 60 percent complete on Olmsted, and the balance to 

complete for that is about $1 billion. 

44 

Mr. DAVIS. And there is $126 million in the President’s budget 

for Olmsted, correct? 

General BOSTICK. [No response.] 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, it is. I believe that is correct. Or $160 million, 

I apologize, $160 million is in the President’s request, half from the 

Inland Waterway Trust Fund, and half from the hardworking taxpayers of this country, too. 

With Olmsted, do you think that the public-private partnership 

language that is actually included in the House version of WRDA 

where we authorize 15 projects that could address inland waterway 

issues, do you think finishing Olmsted could be an option through 

a public-private partnership? 

General BOSTICK. You know, I am optimistic, so I think anything 

is possible if you put your mind to it, and you have got the support 

of the people involved. 

That being said, we have a long way to go with public-private 

partnerships in the United States. I met with a group of CEOs, and 

one of them told me he has done 600 public-private partnerships; 

5 of them have been in the United States. So there are a lot of 

things that we need to work on, from a legal aspect, from a cultural 

aspect, from a profit aspect, in order to make public-private partnerships work. But they have been working on some small-scale efforts across the country. 

So, I wouldn’t count it out, but I think we have got a long way 

to go. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, I appreciate your optimism on that, and I agree 

with you, that many countries that are not the United States still 

build infrastructure projects, and they don’t have Inland Waterway 

Trust Funds, they don’t have Harbor Maintenance Trust Funds. 

They use public-private partnerships to do that. And I want to continue to make sure that the Corps is willing to take into consideration new and innovative ways, so that we can build our infrastructure. 

I mean, as somebody who represents the Mississippi River, I 

have a tremendous concern when 17 years ago we picked an option 

to upgrade our water infrastructure along the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, and we have yet to do so because we have projects like 

Olmsted that are still backlogged. So I hope we can work together 

in some new and innovative approaches to begin that process. 

And I also want to commend this committee for making some 

regulatory changes in WRDA that will hopefully speed up the regulatory process, and save taxpayers billions, and also get the Corps 

of Engineers to the point where we are building these projects, 

rather than talking about them. 

General BOSTICK. In fact, Congressman, this month I have a 

panel of experts coming in, both academic and business leaders including one of these CEOs that I mentioned, and the topic is public-private partnerships. So we are looking for opportunities to do 

the financing when we know that the Government cannot pay the 

full bill for these projects. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, I appreciate your willingness to do so, and I 

would ask that you keep in communication on the progress of those 

discussions, on P3s. 

45 

And I would ask you one last question. Do you anticipate rebuilding any other projects in the wet? 

General BOSTICK. Really, I am not thinking about that at this 

time. I can’t say that it would never happen again, you know, but 

I think at the time, some of the best minds that we had worked 

that and came up with that decision. So I have not gone back to 

question it. But currently I am not thinking about it. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, I will ask it again the next time you are back, 

sir. Thank you very much for your time, and I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. What was always amazing about that, when I got this 

job and I found out that the two locks were built in the dry, and 

the dam couldn’t be—it was built in the wet, it kind of blew me 

away when they talked about the seasonal, 50 feet—you know, but 

they were—you guys were able to build the two 1,200-foot locks in 

the dry. So that is just an interesting thought that I had. 

And, as you know, in WRDA we do have—we do challenge the 

Corps to—on a pilot project, anyway, to find some private-public 

partnerships, and try to develop that. 

Again, thank you for coming in today. Thank you for the work 

that you do. And we are working together to enhance our global 

competitiveness and grow our economy and create jobs, and you 

have played a key role in that, so thank you very much. And this 

concludes our hearing today. 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman? With one indulgence? 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. 

Ms. DARCY. The congressman has returned, and he asked me a 

question that I didn’t have the answer to, and I do now, so can I 

just tell you—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Go ahead. 

Ms. DARCY. That the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, O&M, 

once the barriers are completed, we estimate to be about $15 million a year. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. Thank you very, very much. Thanks to both of 

you. 

Mr. GIBBS. I was three short in my answer on that. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

46 


Insert offset folio 8 here 87431.008
47 


Insert offset folio 9 here 87431.009
48 


Insert offset folio 10 here 87431.010
49 


Insert offset folio 11 here 87431.011
50 


Insert offset folio 12 here 87431.012
51 


Insert offset folio 13 here 87431.013
52 


Insert offset folio 14 here 87431.014
53 


Insert offset folio 15 here 87431.015
54 


Insert offset folio 16 here 87431.016
55 


Insert offset folio 17 here 87431.017
56 


Insert offset folio 18 here 87431.018
57 


Insert offset folio 19 here 87431.019
58 


Insert offset folio 20 here 87431.020
59 


Insert offset folio 21 here 87431.021
60 


Insert offset folio 22 here 87431.022
61 


Insert offset folio 23 here 87431.023
62 


Insert offset folio 24 here 87431.024
63 


Insert offset folio 25 here 87431.025
64 


Insert offset folio 26 here 87431.026
65 


Insert offset folio 27 here 87431.027
66 


Insert offset folio 28 here 87431.028
67 


Insert offset folio 29 here 87431.029
68 


Insert offset folio 30 here 87431.030
69 


Insert offset folio 31 here 87431.031
70 


Insert offset folio 32 here 87431.032
71 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 33 here 87431.033