U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

25–114 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 112–978 

A LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON THE WATER 

RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2012 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

NOVEMBER 15, 2012 

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

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

NOVEMBER 15, 2012 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 143 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 145 

Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon ................................ 146 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 147 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 149 

Johanns, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska .......................... 151 

Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas ......................... 152 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 152 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 259 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 261 

WITNESSES 

Curtis, Stephen A., P.E., M.ASCE, Board Member and At-Large Director, 

American Society of Civil Engineers .................................................................. 154 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 156 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 165 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 167 

Sullivan, Terry, State Director, Rhode Island Chapter, The Nature Conservancy ..................................................................................................................... 169 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 172 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer......................................................................................... 175, 187 

Senator Inhofe........................................................................................ 181, 187 

Larson, Amy W., Esq., President and CEO, National Waterways Conference, 

Inc .......................................................................................................................... 205 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 207 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 219 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 224 

Williams, Warren Dusty, President, NAFSMA, and General Manager and 

Chief Engineer, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation 

District .................................................................................................................. 227 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 230 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 239 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 241 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statement of the American Public Works Association, November 15, 2012 ....... 306 

(1) 

A LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON THE WATER 

RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2012 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The full Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (Chairman of the full Committee), presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Carper, Lautenberg, Whitehouse, Merkley, Vitter, Barrasso, Johanns, and Boozman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to this hearing. 

Today we are going to examine a draft bill to reauthorize WRDA, 

the Water Resources Development Act. This hearing comes on the 

heels of Sandy, which killed more than 120 people, destroyed entire 

neighborhoods on the east coast, and cost billions of dollars in damage to property and businesses. Our thoughts and prayers go out 

to all the communities affected by this terrible storm. And I know, 

because I have talked to Senator Vitter, when he looks at this, he 

is still dealing with what happened down in his great State. 

The devastation caused by Sandy puts an even brighter spotlight 

on the need to ensure that communities have critical flood protection, which is one of the primary goals of the WRDA bill. The bill 

before us I have drafted, based on the input of members of this 

Committee and many weeks of discussion with the Ranking Member, Senator Inhofe, the Chair and Ranking Member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee. I believe they have 

been productive discussions. I got a very important letter that has 

been made public, and I ask unanimous consent to put it into the 

record at this time. Without objection, from all of the Republicans, 

I find this letter to be very important, very constructive. And I 

thank my colleagues for doing it. 

[The referenced letter was not received at time of print.] 

Senator BOXER. Clearly, the bill before us is my draft. And it is 

going to be changed, and we are going to work on it until we all 

agree. And I believe we will reach agreement, just as we were able 

to do in the highway bill. 

So I look forward personally to working with every member of 

this Committee to refine this draft as we move forward. I have already spoken to a lot of you individually, and you have my commitVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:47 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25114.TXT SONYA
2 

ment, and my staff is ready, willing, and able. We start discussions 

from this moment forward. 

As we discussed in September, WRDA authorizes the projects 

and programs of the Army Corps, provides many benefits to America’s families and businesses, including maintaining navigation 

routes for commerce and reducing the risk of flooding. For example, 

U.S. ports and waterways, many of which are maintained by the 

Corps, moved $2.3 billion tons of goods in fiscal year 2011. We are 

talking about an economic issue here. And Corps flood risk management projects are estimated to have prevented $28 billion in 

damages in 2010. So even though we are looking at horrific damages from Sandy, we have to realize, in 2011, the Corps flood risk 

management projects prevented $28 billion in damages, in 2010. 

This bill recognizes the value of our nation’s water resources infrastructure by authorizing projects that have been extensive reviewed, evaluated, and recommended to Congress for authorization. 

These projects represent all of the Corps of Engineers’ primary mission areas, including flood risk and storm damage reduction, navigation, ecosystem restoration. They will protect life and property 

for thousands of people, restore significant ecosystems, and promote commerce. 

Now, here is the thing. If we don’t act, these projects can’t go forward, even though there is an engineer’s report for them, and all 

the work has been done. We don’t act. And the House doesn’t act, 

the President doesn’t sign the bill, these projects are not going to 

move forward. 

I will give you an example of just one project in my State where 

we are facing very critical challenges. The WRDA bill would authorize improvements to these projects that already have these engineers’ reports. And they are all over the country. This particular 

one is around the Natomas Basin in Sacramento, to reduce flood 

risk for tens of thousands of people. According to the Corps, these levees protect $7 billion in property 

as well as critical Federal, State, and local infrastructure. I would 

like to enter into the record a letter from the Sacramento Area 

Flood Control Agency and Representative Matsui supporting this 

WRDA bill. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

3 


25114.216

No\1\llltber.r~. 2012 

Si:Jiator Bli'l:bara Boxet 

Citaliwo~'COID%ii.IU~ Qti 

Hltvh'Q~liJ1~l'hmd.PtibU~.Wol;k~ 

~! 4):0 D.idtllei:I.~\UJ!Wlg ' 

uiilicid.Siiltes seawe 

Washi!lgtoii, DCii>Sl{).;6115 

s~rJ~es:~~.o(e 

Rarikiilg Member, Coiillliittee:on 

Environmeot.'llllclPublic Works 

ron. 4s6.~»uOaing 

Waslili)gtQn. DC'20:Stl).(l'l 75 

·Dear Ciliiir:womanlloxerianil ~Memhednhofe: 

Qp: ~( 9f th~ :»oi® 9f :0.~1.'1! of.~. s~ .~Flood ~mit 

Agenqy. (SAFCJ\), tiJank. Yllll fu11 9.evelopiitg and making ·a.vailable• the draft "Water 

Resources :oeveti>pment A& of•2bi2." ·'11Us .ts a. majot and.;pOsitive development :in 

advilllCiOgblltiolllil objecti.vetfurpubii'Q·safi;ty.e®nOiili¢develtJpmertt.l!lidjob Ol\'llliiQ'IL 

~·~ I®J,lY WQ~e; and in!J,Qv~~Ptl>visio~an<h;!Qijpy·inj~~v~ in fu.e 

draft and.·we looldorwsrd..to wotidng.witb you. a this imp,ortant legislation moves 

tOI'WIItd. We '81ao. IIPP!aud :$ convelii.P& lif a;~ "WIIDA" ~ on Naveiiiber 

lith, vali'chwill~iP:~e~~'.Piiblii:r\ltt~dfug$1d:~~dn. fOI:the viilue 

of ~'Jlte ~ .. ~eltlp~ ~a Jhe;.urgent.ne:et\·tn·.~ fin a WRDA in a lti!J,e;ly JDllllllor; U!.stfy. vic CC)IIUJiend the <lommiUee for :its~ bipartisan leademhip 

~focus· inwoi'kblg.coUaboriitiveiy to movct;a·WiU>AfotWml · 

I'd, ~ to bri~Y: metffion ~ller-.1 ·pro~~!li!.S of :the ~ biU tliat life' ~allY 

il!lpo~tio·us~~efl~cornrorco~~; 

o Secitimr i002, i>rQ;ect A!itlmri71ltion - this secli!lli:retli!Qis a Vfit'J ~tW&ie approach 

to •utliorlzin~r 0 .s. ADny •C<irp$. of:EtiJfu@tS Plti,it#s by IISlQiring 1bat ibey ~ 

cOinPl~ed ~ll':Fe®aJ ~'V!ewp~ I!III.J ~ ro.Ulldw 11e m the. Pll~il~.'~ 

Q 'Sections, 2008 1hrougll 20U~ :Credits. for. Non•Fec1etaJ·Work .,. :tlie&e sections retlect 

ihlportabt: steps .in ~'State aild TOCill itlitiltiiw Bl1ll' acceletating flood 

08ico·.9,1Nl'4'$8 

1'111 91&<Br .... 

~OIJ1c• 711f.Siflef, 1111'1'i00r Sactumtniti~G'A'.eiiti1'!HI~07 

~., .. 
4 


25114.217

NoveiDl:Jer 13, 2012 

Page2.of2 

.control impi:ovelilents by allowing apptppriate crediling fQr work accomplished by 

NO!.l-Federal interests. · 

·a Sedian-20t7, Vegetation Maiiligbm'ent.Pblie~ -thilll seotion,v.Jbkb reflects P.(Ovisions 

.of:~ ·SUl thtilnpion~ by€o.SW1;!!111m J)o~ Ml$1!{, '-l!il!BSS1Jl'e a tho~ghtful • 

. (.QQ)tl~ and opeu~of~yege.b,ifipn~g~~tpoUcy. 

Obaitman Boxer .iDd. ScDati>i! Inilole •. 111aiik yoU:. lbt yoilt oontinued strong 

b~l'eadershlp,and J,iilblilf serv1:e. w~~ ~t:y.ou .ui '11.10~ JQtW!itd with this' vilally 

iUilponam legililation .4$ .~· liS po~illlt. W~ ·l~!ilc (~ ·10 wor~g w.i;th tru:s 

C<iimDi.tiee ur.help~lllfl]ceWJWA. ~ fl'8)ity.Jn the yerypeaz;.~; 

:smceretr. 

&4aJ-an~ RichanlM. Johnson 

Exeeiltive,Dii:eetor 
5 


25114.218

OOR1S D. MATSUI 

'ltMDd'nWT,~ 

COMMI'nE£ ON £HEAGY AND COMMERCE 

€on~rttii of tbt Wnittb ~tatti 

}(totm£ of ~epresttttattbes 

t88asfllngton. Jl~ 2051~505 

November 14,2012 

The Honomble Barbara Boxer 

Chairwoman 

Smale Comminee an 

Environment and Public Works 

410 'Dirtsen Senate Offioe Building 

Washington, DC 205 I 0 

Tho Honorable James inhofe 

Ranking Member 

Senate Commiltee on 

Environment and Public Works 

4S6 Dirtsen Senate Offioe Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairwoman Boxer and Ranking Member lnhofe: 

WASHWI:ltt!MQIJD, 

%22 CANNON MOUSE OFFICE eUllOWG WAStmtGTDH, tc 10111-05115 C2J11tza..1183 

OISDUCTDHtelh 

AOB£R1T, MATSUl US.I:OLJR'n{OUSE 

601 I Sl'IIRt, $UJTE' 11-600 

~.CA. 95ft.& 

l!t&t498-5GOO 

Mp:M'I'I*'Itui.hQoji&.QOV 

I am wriling to expRSS my Sllollg suppon for your legislative discussion draft dtat outlines your key 

legislative and poliey. proposals du!t ehould be included in 1he next Water Resoun:cs Development Act 

(WRDA). Your leadership on these issues is very much appreciated by my constituents. M. you know, 

much of our nation's flood 'protection inliuttu<:IUre is in dire need of improvement and Conl!JilSSional 

action Is nece8ssly co prevent future floods. M. dte Senate's WROA process moves forward, your 

discussion draft proposal includes a number.ofkey policies dtat will be critical to improving flood 

proteclion in dte Sacramenlo region. 

I underslalld W. constraints dtat dte cuneot eannark ban has placed on IDftastructute projects, many of 

which an1 neee$$8Jy to prevent futUre floOds. I am pleased dtat the commltmo's WRDA· discussion draft, 

through gonerieclllnguage. includes' the audtoriUtion of the Nalornas:Levee Improvement Project (NUP) 

in Sacramento. ·!.introduced similar language in the House (H;R. 4353). This flood risk reduction project 

has been fully vetted and includes a Chiefs Report, with an end6r$ement by dte M.sisi8Jit Secrelilry of the 

Anny {Civil Works) on behslf of the Administration. 

The area co be protected by the NLIP is heavily urbaniZed, home co over I 00,000 people, two ihighways and the Sacramento International Airport. Levee dcficlcni:ics were found in the mea in 2006 

and tho area was remapped by FEMA in 2008. ThaCoips ofEngi""""' has said the area has a level of 

flood protection of below I in 33 years, a !bird of!he minimum nationJJ staQjlanl of I ig t

00 mg. The 

Corps of Engin-. has developed a levee iinproveriicnt plan !hat wOiild rilduee !l6 Peri:ont or expected ., "-7floocMamages;retuman·avettgo'ofSS01 million in"allllual ~omic benefits• and has·a'bellefit to cost 

rallo of 6 to 1. Local taxpayers have voted co tax'themselvcs on two separate occasions to pay for these 

improvements. · ,,, 

The state and local governments have already begun COII$lnlclion and will have spent upwards of S3SO 

million on 18 miles ofleveo improvements, with 24 miles of work remaining. Widtout federal 

audtorlzation and liuther federal support, construction will come to a halt. Authorizing the NLIP is my 

highest priority and I applaud your leadership to help move this project forwanl. 
6 


25114.219

I am also pleas<d tiW your committee's WRDA discussion dolft includes legislative language to address 

tbe issues SUrTOIIIIding the Corps • wgetation on levees policy. As you know, the Anny Corps or 

Engineen Jdeas<d a novised POL n:gardins vegetation on levee policy. The Stale of California and a 

wide varlel}' or stakeholdeR n:maln c:xcremely concerned that the latest proposal does not pll)vide eaough 

flexibility that takes into account each region's unique cballenges. For decades, !be Corps' practice_ bas 

been to prolect and encourage woody vegeladon on IIWIY-levees in Calilbmla and other psrta of our 

country. This practice is in sialic conflict with the Corps' current \lel!elatiODpolicy. 

In a time of declinins federal, stale and local resoura:s, public ftmds sbould be $JICIII first on CfiiCiallevee 

faes, ~than on n:moving tbe n:maioing vegetation liom California's riparian covironment without a site.opecltic, science-based evaluation. The Committee's WRDA discussion draft includes langusge, 

which ia Identical_ to legislation I inbOduccd (fi.R. SBJI) in the House last Spring. I strongly support your 

language that would .equire tbe Cotpa to thoroughly nwiew and rellollaider their current position. Instead 

or a ono-size fits all national lllandard, tho bill would require the Cotpa to move to regional variances with 

input ftom thC state and local entities tiW are most familiar wilh lhe unique cballenges facing each 

community. _Among other things, as part of its regional variance policy, tbe IQngusge provides the Corps 

with tbe ftex>Dility to exempt areas from the policy, where deemed necessary by lbe Assistant Secretary 

of the Army COtpS of En&lncm. I applaud your committee for Including levee vegetation language in 

your discussion draft and encourage you to continue to include. this language as the WRDA process 

continues. 

Lastly,l Would hl:e to express my support for the crediting langusge included in the committee's WRDA 

proposal. I was concerned wilb the Cotps' recent decision to discontinue crediting under Section 104 or 

the 1986 WRDA. It lu!s bad a ripple oifeetal:lOSs the COIIIIIry, iocludins communities in the Sacramcoto 

area, rnakins itmore diffiCUlt for local Slakehol®rs to inveat in flood damage reduction projects. In some 

cases, the effect oftbia decision bas already been to delay, and may eventually be to ball, local Rood 

protection projects. The langusge included In your WRDA diacusaiondraft is a Slep in the right direction, 

cncouragipg Stale and local illitiatives and accelerating Rood control improvements by allowing 

apprOpriate crediting for work accomplished by non-federal inlerests. 

Again, lapp laud the commiUee's leadership in ctafting a WRDA disoussloli draft and tor belding a 

subsequent bearil)g on legislative and policy goals to upgmle our nation's Rood J>I'Oiection lnftastructure. 

As the WRDA process moves forwanl in the Senate, III!IIIBin committed to assisting your efforts in any way possible. 

Thank you in advance tor your consideration and lbr any assistance you may provide. 

Sincerely, 

DORIS 0. MATSUI 

Member or Congress 
7 

Senator BOXER. Like Natomas, there are many more life saving 

flood control projects around the country that are ready to be built 

following passage of WRDA, projects in Kansas, Minnesota, North 

Dakota, Iowa, Kentucky, to name a few. Vital navigation projects 

and significant ecosystem restoration efforts are also ready to go 

once Congress acts. That is why I am so happy we all agree we 

must act. 

In addition to authorizing vital projects to protect life and safety 

and maintain economically important navigation routes, this bill 

makes essential policy reforms—which I know Senator Vitter is 

particularly interested in—including increasing flexibility for nonFederal sponsors of Corps projects, encouraging the Corps to fully 

implement ongoing efforts to accelerate project delivery, urging the 

expenditure of funds collected in the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund, reforming the process for delivery of inland waterway 

projects—again, very important to members of this Committee— 

and establishing a national levee safety program. 

In light of the devastation caused by Sandy and other extreme 

floods, I have drafted a new title, I am very excited about getting 

my colleagues’ advice on this title, to help us better prepare for and 

reduce the risk from these types of disasters. I have made this new 

provision available to all members of the Committee, and I ask 

unanimous consent to place this piece into the record at this time. 

Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

8 


25114.001

112TII CONGRESS 

2D SE88ION 

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

s. 

S.LC. 

To provide for the eonservation and developmeut of water and related rcsouret$, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to eonstrud various 

prqjt>cts for improvements to rivers ami hurhors of the United States, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES 

__________ introduced the following hill; which was read twice 

aud referred to the Committee on 

A BILL 

To provide for the conservation and development of water 

and related resourees, to authorize the Secretary of the 

Army to construct -various projects for impro-vements to 

rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other 

purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate amrl House r~l Representa2 tives qf' the Um:ted States of America in ('!ongress assernbled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

4 (a) SHORT TITijK-This Act may be cited as the 

5 "Water Hesources Development Act of 20 12". 

6 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.-The table of contents of 

7 this Act is as follows: 
9 


25114.002

CEL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

2 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of content~. 

Sec. 2. Det\nition of SeCI·etaJ)'· 

'!'1'l'Ll~ I-WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS 

See. 1 00 1. Purposes. 

Sec. 1002. Project authm·izHtion~. 

See. I 00:3. Project re\1cw. 

Sec. 2001. 

See. 2002. 

See. 2003. 

See. 2004. 

See. 2005. 

TITLE 11-WATEI~ RESOURCES POUCY REf'ORl\IS 

Pur·poses. 

~'ish and wildlife mitig·ation. 

Independent peer re,•iew. 

Safety assunmce revie\V. 

Continuing authority pt·ograms. 

S.L.C. 

See. 2006. 

See. 2007. 

Operation and maintenance of na,igation awl hydroeleetric facilities. 

Mitigation status •·ep01't. 

Sec. 2008. 

See. 2009. 

See. 2010. 

Sec. 2011. 

Sec. 2012. 

Sec. 2013. 

Sec. 2014. 

Sec. 2015. 

See. 2016. 

See. 2017. 

See. 2018. 

See. 2019. 

See. 2020. 

See. 2021. 

Sec. 2022. 

See. 202:3. 

Sec. 2024. 

See. 2025. 

Sec. 2026. 

Clarification of work-in-kind credit authol'ity. 

Transfer of excess work-in-killll credit. 

Credit for in-kind contributions. 

Credit in lieu of reimbursement. 

Dum optimization. 

Implemeutation of biological opinions. 

Consideration of ~'ederal land iu feasibilit.'· studies. 

Planning assistance to States. 

Projeet acceleration. 

Veg·etation uwnag·ement polity. 

Operation and mainteuauce of certain pt·ojcets. 

:-.im•-Fede•·al pt·ojeet implementation pilot progrmn. 

1\·ibaJ partncrRltip progra1u. 

Coopen1tive ng·I·eetnetJts witl1 Coltnubia l{,h·e1· Basi11 lttdialt tr·ibes. 

l)ost-disastet· wate1·slled asRess1tle1tts. 

Levee eertifieatimts. 

1\Iilitaty munitions 1·esponse actions at civil works shoreline protcetion pt·ojeetA. 

Beach nourishment. 

Project deauthol'izations. 

TITLE III-l'IW,mCT ~IODU'ICATIONS 

See. 3001. Purpose. 

See. :3002. [To be supplied]. 

TITLE IV-WA'l'ER RESOUIWE S'l'UDIES 

Sec. 4001. Purpose. 

Sec. 4-002. Initiation of new water resources studies. 

See. 4003. Applicability. 

Sec. 

See. 

Sec. 

Sec. 

TITLE V-REGIONAI, AND NONl'RO,mC'l' PROVISIONS 

5001. 

:)002. 

500:3. 

5004. 

Put·pose. 

~ortheast CoaHtal Regio11 eeos,vste1u I'L'stonttimt. 

Imp1·o,ing mmwgement of tlood and drought. 

Chesapeake Ba:' e11vironmental n:storatioJJ and protttdion program. 
10 


25114.003

CI<JL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT S.L.C. 

s~c. 5005. Rio Grande em·ironmental managemeat program, Colorado, New 

rviexico~ TcXtlS. 

See. 5006. !;ower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay eeosystem restoration, 

01'L'goH all(l Washington. 

TIT!;}<] V!-l;l<WEI<J SAJ<'ETY 

SPC. 6001. Short title. 

See. 6002. Findings; purposes. 

Sec. 6003. Definitions. 

See. 6004. Natimwl levee s~fety twogram. 

Se(,. G005. i'\ational Levee Safet? Advismy Board. 

SPe. 600fi. h1YPntm7'~ awl insJwetion of h~\"f't>R. 

See. ()007. H;•ports. 

See. tiOOll. l<}ffe(•,t of title. 

S(:e. G009. Authorization of appropr-iations. 

TITLJ.J VJJ-Ji'\LAND WATI<~RWAYS 

See. 7001. Pnrposes. 

Sec. 7002. Definitions. 

Sec. 700;3. Project dclive1-y pmeess refor·ms. 

See. 70114. Mn,jor rehabilitation standards. 

Sec:. 7005. Etl'icieney of rewmw collcetion. 

'f!TLE; VIII-HAHBOR 1\JAINTI<JNA.'WE 

See. BOO I. Pmvoses. 

Sc•e. 8002. Funding for lwrhm· maiutmmnee Jll'Of-"l'ams. 

See. 800:~. llel'llOI' operation all(! 111aintenanre. 

'l'I'l'LE IX-Dlu'Vl SAFJ.JTY 

Sec. 90()1, Short title. 

See. 9002. Purpose. 

Sec. 900:J. Administrator. 

St•c. 9004. Inspection of dams, 

See. 9005. National Dam Snf,·tr Prngrnm. 

Se(•. fJOOG. Publie (l\\'Hl'enes~ Hnd ontr(~fldl for dmn snn~tr. 

SP(~. 9007. Authorization of appl'Opriationi'<. 

TITLE X-l:\NO\'ATI\'1<; r'It'\A:\'CING PILOT PHOJJ<;CTS 

See. 10001. Short title. 

Sc•c. 10002. I'm poses. 

Sl)e. IOOO:l. Det1nitious. 

Sec. 10004. Authority to pmvidP Hssisl>mN'. 

SPc. 10005. Applieati01ts. 

8<~~- 10006. }Jligible entities. 

See. 10007. Projcctl-1 elibrible foJ' asRi~tmwe. 

SN•. lOOOR. Aetlvities ~:ligiblc· for HsRistanee. 

S,;e. 10009. Determination of eligibility and pmjeet seleetion. 

8ee, 10010. SP(mred loan;:;. 

Se(;. 10011. Prng"r~m fHllninistratimL 

Sec. 10012. St::tte nnd loeal pennits. 

HP(~. IOOJ:l. H<lh"UlB tio11s. 
11 


25114.004

CEJ,12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT S.L.C. 

4 

Sec. 10014. Funding. 

Sec. 10015. Repott to Congn•,s. 

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY. 

2 In this Act, the term "Secretary" means the Sec3 rctmy of the A1 . .rmy. 

4 TITLE I-WATER RESOURCE 

5 PROJECTS 

6 SEC. 1001. PURPOSES. 

7 The purposes of this title are8 (1) to authorize projects that9 (A) are the subject of a completed report 

10 of the Chief of Engineers containing a detcr11 mination that tbe relevant project12 ( i) is in the Federal interest; 

13 (ii) results in benefits that exceed the 

14 costs of tbc project; 

15 (iii) is environmentally acceptable; and 

16 (iv) is technically feasible; and 

17 (B) have been recommended to Congress 

18 for authorization by the Assistant Secretary of 

19 the Army for Civil Works; and 

20 (2) to authorize the Secrctary21 (A) to review projects that reqmre m22 creased authorization; and 

23 

24 

(B) to increase those authorizations 

after-
12 


25114.005

DISCUSSION DRAFT S.L.C. 

5 

2 

(i) certifying that the increases are 

necessary; and 

3 (ii) submitting to Congress reports on 

4 the proposed increases. 

5 SEC. 1002. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. 

6 The Secretary is authorized to carry out water re7 sonrces development and conservation projects su~ject to 

8 the conditions that9 (1) each project is carried out10 (A) substantially in accordance with the 

ll plan for the project; and 

12 (B) subject to any conditions described in 

13 the report for the project; and 

14 (2) a Report of the Chief of Engineers has been 

15 completed and a referral by the Assistant Secretary 

16 of the Army for Civil Works has been made to Con17 gress as of the date of enactment of this Act for the 

18 project. 

19 SEC. 1003. PROJECT REVIEW. 

20 (a) IN GENEH.AL.-For a project that has been au21 thorized by Federal law before the date of enactment of 

22 this Act and that is umler construetion as of the date of 

23 enactment of this Aet, the Secretary may modifY the au24 thorized eost of a project by making the required certifi-
13 


25114.006

CEL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

(j 

S.L.C. 

cation and submitting to Congress a cost recommendation 

2 in accordance vvith subsection (h). 

3 (b) HEQCIREMI<JN'l'S.-

4 (1) CER1'TFICA'l'ION.-'l'he certification to Con5 gTess under subsection (a) shall inelude a certifi6 cation by the Secretary that7 (A) expenditures above the authorized cost 

8 of the project are necessary to protect life and 

9 safety, maintain critical navigation routes, or 

10 restore ecosystems; 

11 (B) the project provides significant na12 tional benefits; 

13 (C) a temporary stop or delay resulting 

14 from a failure to increase the authorized cost of 

15 the project will increase costs to the Federal 

16 Government; and 

17 (D) the amount requested for the project 

18 in the budget of the President or included in a 

19 work plan for the expenditure of funds for the 

20 fiscal year during which the certification is sub21 mittcd will exceed the authorized cost of the 

22 project. 

23 (2) RECOMJ\IENDATION.-'l'he recommendation 

24 to Con!,'l'ess under subsection (a) shall include, at a 

25 mmunum-
14 


25114.007

CEJ,J2932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

7 

1 (A) a comprehensive review of the project 

2 costs and reasons for exceeding the limits set 

3 under section 902 of the Water Resources De4 Yelopment Act of 1986 (33 e.s.c. 2280); 

5 (B) the new funding· level needed to com6 plete the project; and 

7 (C) a recommendation to increase the au8 thorizerl funding ]eye] for the project to Con9 gTCSS. 

10 (c) TERMINNI'ION OF EI<'FECTIVENESS.-The author11 ity of the Secretary under this section terminates effective 

12 on December 31, 2014. 

13 TITLE II-WATER RESOURCES 

14 POLICY REFORMS 

15 SEC. 2001. PURPOSES. 

16 The purpm;es of this title are17 (1) to reform the implementation of water re18 sources prqjects by the Corps of Engineers; 

19 (2) to make other technical changes to the 

20 water resources policy of the Corps of Engineers; 

21 and 

22 (3) to accomplish the following· reforms: 

23 (A) Enhance the ability of local sponsors 

24 to partner with the Corps of Engineers by en25 suring the eligibility of the local sponsors to re-
15 


25114.008

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

8 

S.L.C. 

ceive credit for work carried out by the sponsors and increasing tlelcibility of the sponsors in 

applying that credit to a Corps of Engineers 

project. 

(B) Ensure continuing authority progTams 

can continue to meet important needs by increasing the size and per-project limitations of 

the programs. 

(C) Encourage the continuation of efforts 

to modernize feasibility studies and establish 

targets for expedited completion of feasibility 

studies. 

(D) Seek efficiencies in the management of 

dams and related infrastructure to reduce environrnental impacts while maximizing other benefits and project purposes, such as flood control, water supply, and hydropower. 

(E) Clarify mitigation requirements for 

Corps of Ene,rineers projeets and ensure transparency in the independent external review of 

those prQiects. 

(.F') Deauthorize projects that have failed 

to reeeive a minimum level of investment to ensure active projects can move forward while reducing the backlog of authorized projeets. 
16 


25114.009

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

9 

SEC. 2002. FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION. 

2 S(•ctiou 90G(d) of the Watt•r Resonr·<·es Den•Jopnwut 

3 Ad of HH-l6 (:~~l P.S.C. 22B:3(d)(l)) is nmerHled4 (1) in pnragrnpll (1 

5 (A) in the first seutem·e6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

ll 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

(i) ll~· inserting ''for dmnnges to eeologif'nl resom·(•t>s, indnding tPJTestrinl nnd 

aqunti<· l'l\SOtll'l't>s. and" after "mitigatP"; 

(ii) by inst'rtin~t "e<·ologienl rPsom·ees 

and" afll'r ''irnpal'l on"; and 

(iii) h_v iuserting ''withont the impll'-

menlntion of mitigation nwnsm·ps" bnf(lre 

the period; and 

(B) h~· inserting before tlw last Bentenee 

thl' following·: "If tlw At><•n•tary determinPs that 

mitigation to in-kind l'Onditions is not possible, 

tilt> Neeretary shall idPntit~· in the report the 

hnsis for that dPtermination."; and 

(2) in parag1·aph (:))(A), by iusPrting " nt a 

20 minimum," nftt>J' ''pomplit>s with''. 

21 SEC. 2003. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW. 

22 (a) 'l'L\!I:-\G ()F' PEEH RE\'IEW.-At>et.ion :W:J4(b) of' 

23 tl1P \Yater Resourees Dt>Yl•lopnwnt Al't of 2007 (:3:3 U.S.C. 

24 2:14:)(h)) is <1HH~!Hled25 (]) by !'l'lh•signnting parngraph (:5) as para26 graph ( 4); and 
17 


25114.010

CEL129:J~ DISCUSSION DRAFT 

10 

S.L.C. 

(2) by inserting· after paragTaph (2) the fol2 lowing: 

3 "(3) REASO?\S FOR 'fl:VIING.-If the Chief of 

4 Engineers does not initiate a peer review for a 

5 project study at a time described in paragraph (2), 

6 the Chief shall7 "(A) make publiely available, including· on 

8 the Internet, for each of those times, the rea9 sons for not conducting the review; and 

10 "(B) include the reasons in the decision 

11 document for the project study.". 

12 (b) ES'l'ABLISIIMENT OF PA..'\'ELS.-Section 2034(c) 

13 of the \Vater Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 

14 U.S.C. 2343(c)) is amended by striking· paragTaph (4) and 

15 inserting the following: 

16 "( 4) CONGRESSIONAL AND PCBLIC NOTIFICA17 1'10~.-Following the identification of a project 

18 study for peer review under this section, but prior to 

19 initiation of the review by the panel of experts, the 

20 Chief of Eng·ineers shall21 "(A) notifY the Committee on Environment 

22 and Public Works of the Senate and the Com23 mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 

24 the House of Representatives of the review; and 
18 


25114.011

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

11 

S.hC. 

"(B) make publicly available, including on 

the Internet, information on-

"(i) the dates scheduled for beginning 

and ending the review; 

"(ii) the entity that has the contract 

for the review: and 

"(iii) the names and qualifications of 

8 the panel of experts.". 

9 (e) HECO:VLviE:\'DATIO:--;s cw P,\XE!J.-Section 2034(f) 

10 of the Water Hesources Development Act of 2007 (83 

11 U.S.C. 2343(f)) is amended by striking paragTaph (2) and 

12 inserting the following: 

13 "(2) PCBIJW AVAih'\BILITY A:\'D STJBMISSIO:\' 

14 TO CO:\'GRESS.-After receiving a report on a prqjeet 

15 study from a panel of experts under this section, the 

16 Chief of Engineers shall make available to the pub17 lie, induding on the Internet, and submit to the 

18 Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 

19 Senate and the C~ommittee on Transportation and 

20 Infrastructure of the House of Hepresentatives21 "(1:\) a copy of the report not later than 3 

22 days after the date on which the report is dcliv23 ered to the Chief of Eng·ineers; and 

24 "(B) a copy of any written response of the 

25 Chief of Engineers on recommendations con-
19 


25114.012

CBL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT SJLC. 

12 

tained in the report not later than 3 days after 

2 the date on which the response is delivered to 

3 the Chief of Engineers. 

4 "(3) 1:-.JCLUSIOX IX PROJEC'r STUDY.-A report 

5 on a prqject study from a panel of experts under 

6 this section and the written response of the Chief of 

7 Engineers shall be ineluded in the final decision doc8 ument for the project study.". 

9 (d) APPLIGABILITY.-Seetion 2034(h)(2) of the 

10 Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (3:3 U.S.C. 

11 284:3(h)(2)) is amended by striking "7 years" and insert12 ing "12 years". 

13 SEC. 2004. SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEW. 

14 Section 20:35 of tbe Water Resources Development 

15 Act of 2007 (:3:3 U.S.C. 2:344) is amended by adding at 

16 the end the following: 

17 "(g) NONAPPLICABILITY OF FACA.-The Federal 

18 Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply 

19 to a safety assurance review condueted under this sec20 tion.". 

21 SEC. 2005. CONTINUING AUTHORITY PROGRAMS. 

22 (a) SMALL RIVER AXD HARBOR biPROVEMEN'l' 

23 PROJEC'l'S.-Section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 

24 1960 (:3:3 U.S.C. 577) is amended-
20 


25114.013

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

13 

KL.C. 

( 1) m subsection (a), by striking 

2 "$35,000,000" and inserting "$50,000,000"; and 

3 (2) in subsection (b), b~r striking "$7,000,000'' 

4 and inserting "$Hl,OOO,OOO". 

5 (b) SIIORE DA:\1AGE PREVENTION OR MITIGATION.-

6 Section 111 (e) of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 

7 U.S.C. 426i(c)) is amended by striking "$5,000,000" and 

8 inserting "$10,000,000". 

9 (e) RBGIOXAL SEDLVIENT JYL\XAGK\TENT.-Seetion 

10 204 of the Water Resources Development Aet of 1992 (33 

II U.S.C. 2:32G) is amendedI2 (1) m subsection (e)(l )(C), by striking 

13 "$5,000,000" and inserting "$10,000,000"; and 

14 (2) by redesignating subsection (g·) as subI5 section (h); 

16 (3) by inserting after subsection (f) the folI7 lowing: 

I8 "(g) APPLICABILI'rY.-'rbis section does not apply to 

19 a project authorized under the ·water Resources Develop20 ment Act of 2007 (Publi(' l.Jaw 110-114; 121 Stat. 1041) 

21 if a report of the Chief of Engineers for the project was 

22 completed prior to the date of enaetment of that Act."; 

23 and 
21 


25114.014

CEL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

14 

S.L.C. 

( 4) in subsection (h) (as redesignated by para2 graph {2)), by striking "$30,000,000" and inserting 

3 "$50,000,000". 

4 (d) SMALL FLOOD CON'l'ROL PROJECTS.-Scction 

5 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) 

6 is amended in the third sentence by striking· "$7,000,000" 

7 and inserting "$10,000,000". 

8 (e) PROJECT MODIFICA'l'IONS l•'OR lMPROVE:VIE:\'T OF' 

9 ENV1RO:\'MENT.-Section 1135(d) of the Water Resources 

10 Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(d)) is amend11 ed12 (1) in the second sentence, by striking "Not 

13 more than 80 percent of the non-Federal may be" 

14 and inserting "The non-Federal share may be pro15 vided"; and 

16 (2) m the third sentence, by striking 

17 "$5,000,000" and inserting· "$10,000,000". 

18 (f) AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTOR.A'l'lON.-Section 

19 206(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

20 (33 U.S.C. 2330(d)) is amended by striking "$5,000,000" 

21 and inserting· "$10,000,000". 
22 


25114.015

DISCUSSION DRAFT S.L.C. 

15 

SEC. 2006. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION 

2 AND HYDROELECTRIC FACILITIES. 

3 (a) Ix GENERAL.-Section 314 of the Water Re4 sources Development Act of 1990 (83 U.S.C. 2321) is 

5 amended6 ( 1) by striking the heading and inserting the 

7 following: 

8 "SEC. 314. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION 

9 AND HYDROELECTRIC FACILITIES."; 

10 (2) in the first sentence, by striking "Activities 

11 currently performed" and inserting the following: 

12 "(a) Ix GEXERAL.-Activities currently performed"; 

13 (3) in the second sentence, by striking "This 

14 section" and inserting the following: 

15 "(h) MAJOR MAIN'l'ENAxcg CoN'l'RACTS AI.-

16 r,owED.-'I' his section"; and 

17 ( 4) in subsection (a) (as designated by para18 graph (2) ), by inserting· "navigation or" before "hy19 droelect.ric". 

20 (b) CLERICAl, A.viENDMENT.-The table of contents 

21 contained in section l(b) of the Water Itesources Develop22 ment Act of H)90 ( 104 Stat. ·i604) is amended by striking 

23 the item relating to section 314 and inserting the fol24 lowing: 

"See. 314. Oper11tion and maiotennnce of Havig-ation and loydroeleetric faeili· 

tit~!';. 11 • 
23 


25114.016

CEL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

16 

SEC. 2007. MITIGATION STATUS REPORT. 

2 Section 20:36(b) of the \Vater Resources Development 

3 Act of 2007 (:3:3 U.S.C. 2288a) is amended4 (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paraS graph ( 4); and 

6 (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol7 lowing: 

8 "(3) lNFOR:\IA'riON INCLUDED.-ln reporting· 

9 the status of all projects included in the report, the 

I 0 Seeretary shall11 "(A) use a uniform methodology for deter12 mining the status of all projects included in the 

13 report; 

14 "(B) use a methodology that describes 

15 both a qualitative and quantitative status for all 

16 prqjects in the report; and 

17 "(C) provide specific dates for and partiei18 pants in the consultations required under see19 tion 906(d)(4)(B) of the \Vater Resources De20 velopment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 

21 2283(d)(4)(B)).". 

22 SEC. 2008. CLARIFICATION OF WORK-IN-KIND CREDIT AU23 THORITY. 

24 (a) NoN-li~EDE&\L CosT SIIAI-m.-Section 7007 of 

25 the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 

26 1277) is amended-
24 


25114.017

cgLJ2~:J2 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

17 

(1) in subsection (a)-

S.L.C. 

2 (A) by inserting ", on, or after" after "be3 fore"; and 

4 (B) by inserting " program," after 

5 "study" each place it appears; and 

6 (2) in subsections (b), (d), and (e), by inserting 

7 ", program," after "study" each place it appears. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.-'l'he amendments niade by 

9 subsection (a) take effect on November 8, 2007. 

10 SEC. 2009. TRANSFER OF EXCESS WORK-IN-KIND CREDIT. 

11 (a) IN GENERAL-Subject to subsection (b), the Sec12 retary may authorize a non-Federal project sponsor to 

13 earn work-in-kind credit in excess of the required cost14 share for a study or project and apply that credit to the 

15 required non-Federal cost-share for a different water re16 sources study or project. 

17 (b) RESTIUCTIONS.-

18 (1) IN GENERAL.-Credit in excess of the non19 Federal cost-share for a project authorized under 

20 this section shall meet all applicable requirements of 

21 section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 

22 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) (as amended by section 2010), 

23 except that subsection (a)(4)(D)(i) of that section 

24 shall not apply. 
25 


25114.018

CEL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

18 

S.L.C. 

(2) CONDITIONS.-Crcdit in excess of the non2 F1

ederal cost-share for a project may only be author3 ized under this section if4 (A) the non-Federal sponsor prepares and 

5 submits a comprehensive plan to the Secretary 

6 that identifies-

? (i) the projects for which the non-Fed8 era! sponsor seeks to earn the excess cred9 it; and 

10 (ii) the prQjects with a Federal inter11 est to which that credit would be trans12 ferred; and 

13 (B) the total amount of credit in excess of 

14 the non-Federal cost-share authorized docs not 

15 exceed the total non-Federal cost-share for the 

16 projects with a Federal interest identified in the 

17 comprehensive plan. 

18 (c) ADDITIONAL CRITERIA.-ln evaluating a request 

19 to apply excess credit earned under this section to a dif20 fercnt study or project, the Secretary shall consider whcth21 cr the transfer of the credit will22 (1) help to expedite the completiou of a project 

23 or gToup of projects; 

24 (2) reduce costs to the Federal Government; 

25 and 
26 


25114.019

CEL129:32 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

19 

R.L.C. 

(3) aid the completion of a project that provides 

2 significant flood risk reduction or environmental 

3 benefits. 

4 (d) TERMINATIO~ ()!<' At:THORITY.-The authority 

5 provided in this section shall terminate 5 years after the 

6 date of enactment of this Act. 

7 (e) REPOR'l'.-

8 (1) DEADLINES.-

9 (A) I~ GENERAL.-Not later tbml 2 years 

IO 

II 

12 

13 

I4 

I5 

I6 

17 

I8 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public ·works of the SenatE~ and 

the Committee on Transportation and Inf'rastmeture of the House of R.epresentatives an 

interim report on the usc of the authority under 

this scetion. 

(B) F'L:'JJ\1, REPORT.-Not later than 5 

years after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Secretary shall submit. to the Committee on 

Environment and Public \Vorks of the Senate 

and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastrueture of the House of Representatives a 

final report on the use of the authority under 

this seetion. 
27 


25114.020

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

20 

(2) INCLCSIONS.-The reports describell m 

2 paragraph (1) shall inelude3 (A) a description of the use of the author4 ity under this section during the reporting pe5 riod; 

6 (B) an assessment of the impact of the au7 thority under this section on the time required 

8 to complete projects; and 

9 (C) an assessment of the impact of the au1 0 thority under this section on other water re11 sources projects. 

12 SEC. 2010. CREDIT FOR IN-KIND CONTRIDUTIONS. 

13 (a) IN GENERAL.-Seetion 221 (a)( 4) of the Flood 

14 Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(a)(4)) is 

15 amended16 (1) m subparagraph (A), in the matter pre17 ceding clause (i) by inserting "or a project under an 

18 environmental infrastructure assistance program" 

19 after "law"; 

20 (2) in subparagraph (C)-

21 (A) by striking "In any case" and insert22 ing the following: 

23 "(i) IN GENI<JRAL.-In any case"; 

24 (B) in clause (i) (as so desig11ated), by 

25 striking ", and only work carried out following 
28 


25114.021

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

21 

the execution of the agreement shall be eligible 

for credit"; and 

(C) by adding at the end the following: 

"(ii) ELIGIBLE WORK.-Only mitigation, construction, and construction services work that is carried out pursuant to a 

notice to proceed issued by the non-Federal interest following the execution of an 

agreement under clause (i) shall he eligible 

for crerlit under this subparagraph. 

"(iii) I'LA:\:\1:\Cl, DESIG:\, A:\D l\L\:\-

AGEMEN'I' COSTS.-The costs of planning 

(including data collection), design, and 

management carried out for an element of 

a prQject for which a non-Federal interest 

has entered into an agreement under 

clause (i) and for which the Secretary determines the work to be integTal to the 

project unrler subparagraph (B) shall be 

eligible for credit under this subparagTaph, 

regardless of whether the costs were incurred prior to the execution of that agreement. 
29 


25114.022

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

22 

S.L.C. 

"(iv) COMBINATION OF' CREDIT.-

Credit authorized under this subparagTaph 

shall be-

"(I) available for use by a nonFederal interest on any separable element of a project, including in combination with credit authorized under 

section 104 of the Water Hesources 

Development Act of 1986 (~l3 U.S.C. 

2214) for the same separable element 

of a project; and 

"(II) transferable between separable elements of the same project."; 

( 3) in subparagTaph (D)-

(A) by redesignating clauses (i) through 

(iv) as subclauses (I) through (N), respectively; 

(B) by striking "Credit authorized" and 

inserting the following: 

"(i) IN GENERAL.-Credit authorized"; 

(C) in subelause (II), by inserting "su~jeet 

to clause (ii)" before "shaH not"; and 

(D) by adding at the end the following·: 

"(ii) RESTRIC'l'ION.-If implementation of clause (i) (II) increases the costs of 
30 


25114.023

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

23 

S.hC. 

the non-l<'ederal interest for a project to an 

2 amount that exceeds the non-Federal cost3 share otherwise required for that pr~ject 

4 under applicable law, the Secretary shall 

5 reimburse the non-Federal interest for the 

6 portion of the cost equal to the difference 

7 between8 "(I) the cost to the non-Federal 

9 interest of carrying out the project as 

10 if the eredit under this paragraph is 

11 not provide<!; and 

12 "(II) the total amount the non13 Federal interest would be required to 

14 contribute under the applicable cost15 sharing requirement for the project as 

16 if the credit under this paragraph is 

17 provided."; 

18 ( 4) by redesignating subparagTaph (E) as sub19 paragTaph (F); 

20 (5) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the fol21 lowing: 

22 "(E) GcmELINES.-

23 

24 

25 

"(i) IX GEKERAL.-Not later than 1 

year after the date of enactment of the 

\Vater Resonrees Development Act of 
31 


25114.024

CE:r~ 12932 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

24 

S.L.C. 

2012, the Secretary shall issue guidelines 

for carrying· out this paragTaph. 

"(ii) lNCLUSIOl\:S.-The 6~'uiddines 

shall include-

"(!) criteria and procedures for 

determining whether work carried out 

by non-Federal interests is integral to 

a project under subparagTaph (B); 

"(II) a milestone in the water resources planning process by which an 

agreement shall be signed under subparagraph (C)(i), which milestone 

shall he not later than the release of 

the draft report of the District Engineer for the project; 

"(III) a process by which the requirement under subclause (II) may 

be waived, including any criteria for 

granting the waiver; and 

"(IV) a requirement that the 

Secretary consider, in analyzing the 

costs and benefits of a proposed 

project, the costs and benefits of any 

flood control work carried out by the 

non-Federal interest that the Sec-
32 


25114.025

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

DISCUSSION DRAFT KhC. 

25 

retary determines to be inte{,.>Tal to the 

project. 

"(iii) PTJBLIC AND STAKimOLDER 

PARTICIPATION.-

"(!) lx GENEHAI1.-Bef'ore 

issuing the f,~"11idelines, the Seeretary 

shall consult with non-Federal interests. 

"(II) PUBLIC NO'l'ICE.-'l'he Sec10 retary shall publish the proposed 

11 guidelines developed under this sub12 paragraph in the .B'ederal Register 

13 and provide the public with an oppor14 tunity to comment. 

15 "(Ill) UPDA'l'ES.-The Secretary 

16 shall publish any updated version of 

17 the guidelines developed under this 

18 subparagraph in the :B'ederal Register 

19 anrl provide the public with an oppor20 tunity to comment."; and 

21 (6) in subparagTaph (F) (as redesig·nated by 

22 paragraph (4)), by :o;triking clause (ii) and inserting 

23 the following: 

24 "(ii) ALT1'TIORIZA'l'ION IN AD25 DITIOX TO SPECIFIC CREDIT 
33 


25114.026

CEL129a2 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

26 

S.L.C. 

PROVISION.-ln any case m 

2 which a specific provision of law 

3 authorizes credit for in-kind con4 tributions provided by a non-Fed5 era! interest before the date of 

6 execution of a partnership agTee7 ment, the Secretary may apply 

8 the authority provided in this 

9 paragraph to allow credit for in10 kind contributions provided by 

11 the non-Federal interest on or 

12 after the date of execution of the 

13 partnership agreement.". 

14 (b) El!'FEC'l'IVE DNrE.-The amendments made by 

15 this section take effect on November 8, 2007. 

16 SEC. 2011. CREDIT IN LIEU OF REIMBURSEMENT. 

17 Section 2ll(e)(2) of the Water Resources Develop18 ment Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b-13(e)(2)) is amended 

19 by adding at the end the following: 

20 "(C) S'I'UDIES OR O'l'IIER PROJECTS.-On 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the request of a non-Federal interest, in lieu of 

reimbursing a non-Federal interest the amount 

equal to the estimated Federal share of the cost 

of an authorized flood damage reduction project 

or a separable element of an authorized flood 
34 


25114.027

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

27 

S.I,.C. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

damage reduction project under this subsection 

that has been constructed by the non-F'ederal 

interest under this section as of the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary may provide 

the non-Federal interest with a credit in that 

amount, which the non-Federal interest may 

apply to the share of the cost of the non-Federal interest of carrying out other flood damage 

9 reduction projects or studies.". 

10 SEC. 2012. DAM OPTIMIZATION. 

11 (a) DEFL'\ITIO:'\'R.-ln this section: 

12 (1) ENVIRON:\iENTAL PRO'l'ECTION AND R}<}S13 TORATIO:\ ACTNITIES.-'rhe term "environmental 

14 protection and restoration activities" includes the 

15 maintenance and restoration of16 (A) water quality, water flows, and water 

17 levels; 

18 (B) the health and movement of fish and 

19 other aquatic species; and 

20 (C) floodplains, wetlands, estuaries, and 

21 other environmentally valuable areas. 

22 (2) 0TIIER RELATED PROJECT BENEF'ITS.-

23 The term "other related projeet benefits" includes24 (A) enhanced water supply storage; 

25 (B) increased hydropower generation; 
35 


25114.028

DISCUSSION DRAFT S.L.C. 

28 

1 (C) reduced flood risk; and 

2 (D) improved recreation. 

3 (b) PROGRl'u\1.-

4 (1) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary may carry out 

5 any activity that the Secretary determines to be nec6 essary7 (A) to improve the efficiency of dam oper8 ations and maintenance; and 

9 (B) to maximizetO (i) authorized project purposes; 

11 (ii) environmental protection and res12 toration activities for authorized projects; 

13 and 

14 (iii) other related project benefits. 

15 (2) ELIGIBLE AC'l'IVITIES.-An activity author16 ized under this section is any activity that is de17 signed to improve environmental protection and res18 toration activities and other related project benefits 

19 in a manner that is consistent with the authorized 

20 purposes of the project, including21 (A) the review of project operations on a 

22 regular and timely basis to determine the po23 tential for operational changes; 
36 


25114.029

CEI,J2932 DISCUSSION DRAFT s.r,.c. 

29 

(B) carrying out any investigation or study 

2 the Administrator determines to be necessary; 

3 and 

4 (C) the revision or updating of a water 

5 control plan or other modification of the oper6 ation of a water resource project. 

7 (e) POJ,ICIES, REGl:h·\TIO~S, A.1'\TD GUIDAXCE.-The 

8 Secretary shall carry out a review of, and as necessary 

9 modifY, the policies, regulations, and guidanc~e of the Sec10 retary to carry out the activities described in subsection 

II (b)(l). 

I2 (d) Commrl"ATIO:'\.-The Secretary shall coordinate 

I3 all planning and activities carried out under this section 

14 with appropriate Federal, State, and local ag·encies and 

I5 those public and private entities that the Secretary deterI6 mines may be affected by those plans or activities. 

I7 (e) REPORTS.-

I8 (1) Ix GENJ<JR.Ah-Not later than 1 year after 

I9 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

20 shall submit to Congress a report detailing any rec21 ommendations of the Secretary on changes that the 

22 Seeretary determines to be neeessary23 (A) to carry out existing projection author24 izations, including the deauthorization of any 

25 water resource project that the Seeretary deter-
37 


25114.030

CEL129:l2 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

30 

S.L.C. 

mines could more effectively be achieved 

through other means; 

(B) to improve the efficiency of dam operations; and 

(C) to maximize authorized project purposes, environmental protection and restoration 

activities, and other related project benefits. 

(2) UPDATED REPORT.-

(A) Ix GENERAL.-Not later than 1 year 

after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall update the report entitled "Authorized and Operating Purposes of Corps of Engineers Reservoirs" and dated ,July 1992, which 

was produced pursuant to section 311 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1990 

(104 Stat. 4639). 

(B) INCUJSIONS.-The updated report described in subparagraph (A) shall include-

(i) the date on which the most recent 

dam operations revie>v was conducted and 

any recommendations of the Secretary relating to that review the Secretary determines to be significant; 
38 


25114.031

CEL129:32 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

31 

S.hC. 

(ii) the dates on which the rec2 ommendations described in clause (i) were 

3 carried out; and 

4 (iii) a schedule detailing a subsequent 

5 operations review. 

6 (f) Ful'miNG.-

7 (1) IN GENERAL.-Notwithstanding any other 

8 provision of law, the Secretary may use to carry out 

9 this section amounts made available to the Secretary 

10 from11 (A) any account or program, inc.luding 

12 continuing authority programs; 

13 (B) the general purposes and expenses ac14 count; 

15 (C) the operations and maintenance ac16 count; and 

17 (D) any other amounts that are approIS priated to carry out this section. 

19 (2) FCNDIXG FROM OTIIER SOURCES.-The 

20 Secretary may accept and expend amounts from 

21 non-Federal entities and other Federal agencies to 

22 cany out this section. 

23 (3) TRANSFER OF VGNDING.-The Secretary 

24 may transfer amounts made aYailable to the Sec-
39 


25114.032

cgL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

32 

S.L.C. 

1 retary to other Federal agencies and non-Federal 

2 entities to carry out this section. 

3 SEC. 2013. IMPLEMENTATION OF BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS. 

4 The Secretary may carry out any activity the SeeS retary determines to be necessary to comply with a biologi6 cal opinion issued before, on, or after the date of enact7 ment of this Act pursuant to a biolog·ical assessment under 

8 section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536) 

9 that directly relates to impacts from an authorized water 

10 resources project. 

11 SEC. 2014. CONSIDERATION OF FEDERAL LAND IN FEASI12 BILITY STUDIES. 

13 At the request of the non-Federal sponsor, the Sec14 retary shall include as part of a regional or watershed 

15 study any Federal land that is located within the geo16 graphic scope of that study. 

17 SEC. 2015. PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES. 

18 Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act 

19 of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-16) is amended20 (1) in subsection (a)(l)-

21 (A) by inserting "or other stakeholder 

22 

23 

24 

25 

working with a State" after "cooperate with 

any State"; and 

(B) by inserting ", including plans to comprehensively address water resources and envi-
40 


25114.033

CEL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

33 

S.L.C. 

2 

3 

ron mental challenges," after "of sueh State"; 

and 

(2) ll1 subsection (e)(l), by striking· 

4 "$10,000,000" and inserting "$30,000,000". 

5 SEC. 2016. PROJECT ACCELERATION. 

6 (a) SENSF<J OF Cm.;muJss.-It 1s the sense of Con7 gress that8 (1) delays in the completion of feasibility stud9 ies10 (A) increase costs for the :B~ederal Govern11 ment as well as State and local governments; 

12 and 

13 (13) delay the implementation of water re14 sources projects that provide eritical benefits, 

15 ineluding redueing f1ood risk, maintaining com16 mercially important flood risk, and restoring 

17 vital ecosystems; 

18 (2) the efforts undertaken by the Corps of En19 gineers through the establishment of the "3-3-3" 

20 planning process should be continued; and 

21 (3) the Corps of Engineers22 (A) to the maximum e:A'tent practicable, 

23 shall seek to complete new feasibility studies in 

24 the 18 month-period beginning on the date of 

25 enaetment of this Act; and 
41 


25114.034

CI<JL 129:32 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

34 

S.L.C. 

(B) shall complete the new feasibility stud2 ies not later than 3 years after the date of en3 actment of this Act. 

4 (b) REPORT.-Not later than 18 months after the 

5 date of enactment of this Act and each year thereafter, 

6 the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Environ7 ment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee 

8 on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 

9 Representatives a report that describes10 (1) the status of the implementation of the "8-

11 8-8" planning process, including the number of par12 ticipating projects; 

13 (2) the amount of time taken to complete all 

14 studies participating in the "3-3-3" planning proc15 ess; and 

16 (3) any recommendations for additional author17 ity necessary to support efforts to expedite the feasi18 bility study process for water resource projects. 

19 SEC. 2017. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT POLICY. 

20 (a) REVIE\V.-Not later than 180 days after the date 

21 of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall carry out a 

22 comprehensive review of the Corps of Engineers policy 

23 guidelines on vegetation management for levees (referred 

24 to in this section as "national guidelines") in order to de25 termine whether current Federal policy relating to levee 
42 


25114.035

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

35 

S.L.C. 

vegetation 1s appropriate for all regions of the United 

2 States. 

3 (b) 'F'ACTORS.-

4 ( 1) 1:-.T GENERAI,.-In earryi.ng out the review, 

5 the Seeretary shall examine the national guidelines 

6 in view of7 (A) the varied interests and responsibilities 

8 in managing f1ood risks, including the need to 

9 provide the greatest levee safety benefit ''.rith 

10 limited resourees; 

11 (B) preserving, protecting, and enhancing 

12 natural resources, ineluding the potential ben13 efit that vegetation on levees can have m pro14 viding habitat for species of concern; 

15 (C) protecting the rights of Indian tribes 

16 pursuant to treaties and statutes; and 

17 (D) other factors relating to the factors de18 scribed in subpara1:,>Taphs (A) through (C) that 

19 the Secretary determines to be appropriate. 

20 (2) HEGIONi\I; A?>JD WATERSHED VARii\1\TE 

21 CONSIDERATIOXS.-

22 (A) Ix GENEHAL.-In carrying out the re23 view, the Secretary shall specifically consider 

24 whether the national guidelines can be amended 

25 to promote and allow for consideration of poten-
43 


25114.036

CEL129~2 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

36 

S.L.C. 

tial variances from national guidelines on a regional or watershed basis, including on factors 

such as-

(i) regional or watershed soil conditions; 

(ii) hydrologic factors; 

(iii) vegetation patterns and characteristics; 

(iv) environmental resources; 

(v) levee performance history; 

(vi) institutional considerations; and 

(vii) other relevant factors. 

(B) ScOPE.-The scope of a variance approved by the Secretary may include a complete 

exemption to national guidelines, as the See16 retary determines to be necessary. 

17 (c) COOPERA'l'IOK AI-.JD CONSUIIrATION; REC18 0:\Ii\IEKDATIONS.-

19 (1) IN GENERl1.L.-The Secretary shall carry 

20 out the review under this section in consultation 

21 with other applicable Federal agencies, representa22 tives of State, local, and tribal governments, appro23 priate nongovernmental organizations, and the pub24 lie. 
44 


25114.037

CEJ,129:J2 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

37 

S.hC. 

1 (2) RECO~IMENDA1'IONS.-The Chief of Engi2 neers shall submit to the Secretary any rec3 ommendations for vegetation management policies 

4 for levees that ronform with Pederal and State laws 

5 developed by the Chief of Engineers in consultation 

6 v\ith the Corps of Engineers Regional Integration 

7 Teams and Pederal, State, tribal, and local rc8 sources agencies. 

9 (d) PEI<JR RI<JVIEW.-· 

10 (1) IN GENERAL.-As part of the review, the 

11 Secretary shall solicit and consider the views of the 

12 National Academy of Engineering on the engincer13 ing, environmental, and institutional considerations 

14 underlying the national guidelines. 

15 (2) AVAILABIJ,ITY (W VIEWS.-The views of the 

16 National Academy of Engineering obtained under 

17 paragraph ( 1) shall be18 (A) made available to the public; and 

19 (B) included in supporting materials issued 

20 m connection with the revised national guide21 lines required under subsection (e). 

22 (e) RE\rrsro.:.; OF NNI'IONAI, GUIDELIXI<JS.-

23 (1) IN GENERAL.-Not later than 2 years after 

24 the date of enactment of this Act, the Seeretar;v 

25 shall-
45 


25114.038

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

38 

S.L.C. 

(A) revise the national guidelines based on 

2 the results of the review, including the results 

3 of the peer review conducted under subsection 

4 (d); and 

5 (B) submit to Conf,JTess a report that con6 tains a summary of the activities of the Sec7 retary and a description of the findings of the 

8 Secretary under this section. 

9 (2) CON'l'El'\'l'; Il'\CORPORATIOJ'\ Il'\TO JIILV\'-

10 l]AL.-The revised national guidelines shall11 (A) provide a practical process for approv12 mg regional or watershed variances from the 

13 national guidelines, reflecting due consideration 

14 of measures to maximize public safety benefits 

15 with limited resources, regional climatic vari16 ations, environmental quality, implementation 

17 challeng·es, and allocation of responsibilities; 

18 and 

19 (B) be incorporated into the manual pro20 posed under section 5(c) of the Act entitled "An 

21 Act authorizing the construction of certain pub22 lie works on rivers and harbors for flood con23 trol, and for other purposes", approved August 

24 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 70ln(c)). 
46 


25114.039

CEL129:32 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

39 

S.I,.C. 

(f) CONTINUATION OF WORK-Concurrent with the 

2 completion of the requirements of this section, the Sec3 retary shall proceed without interruption or delay with 

4 those ongoing or programmed projects and studies, or ele5 ments of projects or studies, that are not directly related 

6 to vegetation variance policy. 

7 SEC. 2018. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN 

8 PROJECTS. 

9 The Secretary may assume operation and mainteI 0 nance activities for a navigation channel that is deepened 

II by a non-Federal interest prior to December 31, 2012, 

I2 ifI3 (1) the Secretary determines that the requireI4 rnents under paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 

I5 204(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

I6 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2232(f)) are met; 

I7 (2) the Secretary determines that the activities 

I8 carried out by the non-Federal interest in deepening 

I9 the navigation channel are economically justified and 

20 environmentally acceptable; and 

2I (3) the deepening activities have been carried 

22 out on a Federal navigation channel that23 (A) erists as of the date of enactment of 

24 this Act; and 

25 (B) has been authorized by CongTess. 
47 


25114.040

O~Ll2932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

40 

S.LC. 

SEC. 2019. NON-FEDERAL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 

2 PILOT PROGRAM. 

3 (a) IN GI<JNEHAh-The Secretary shall establish a 

4 pilot program to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and 

5 prQject delivery efficiency of allowing non-Ii'ederal inter6 ests to carry out authorized f1ood damage reduction, hnrri7 cane and storm damage reduetion, and navigation 

8 projects. 

9 (b) PURPosgs,-The purposes of the pilot prog1·am 

10 are11 (1) to identifY prqject delivery and cost-saving 

12 alternatives that reduce the backlog of authorized 

13 Corps of Engineers prQjects; 

14 (2) to evaluate the technical, financial, and or15 ganizational efficiencies of a non-Federal interest 

16 carrying out the design, execution, management, and 

17 constmction of 1 or more projects; and 

18 (:1) to evaluate alternatives for the deeentraliza19 tion of the project planning, management, and oper20 ational deeisionmaking pmcess of the Corps of Engi21 neers. 

22 (c) AlnUNISTRA'l'IOK23 (1) IN GENERAL.-ln carrying out the pilot 

24 program, the Secretary shall25 (A) identifY a total of not more than 12 

26 f1ood damage reduction, hurricane and storm 
48 


25114.041

CJ:<~LI2932 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

41 

S.J,.C. 

damage reduction, and navigation projects, ineluding levees, f1oodwalls, flood control channels, water control stiuctures, and navigation 

locks and channels, authorized for construction 

that-

(i) have received I<~ederal funds and 

have experienced delays or missed scheduled deadlines in the 5 fiscal years prior to 

the date of enactment of this Act; or 

(ii) for more than 2 consecutive fiscal 

years, have an unobligated funding balance 

for that project in the Corps of Engineers 

construction account; 

(B) notify the Committee on Environment 

and Public \Vorks of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 

the House of l{epresentatives on the identification of each project under the pilot program; 

(C) in consultation with the non-Federal 

interest, develop a detailed project management 

plan for each identified prqject that outlines the 

scope, budget, design, and construction resource 

requirements necessary for the non-Federal inter·est to execute the project, or a separable element of the project; 
49 


25114.042

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

42 

S.L.C. 

(D) on the request of the non-Federal interest, enter into a project partnership agreement with the non-Federal interest for the nonFederal interest to provide full project management control for construction of the project, or 

a separable element of the project, in accordance ·with plam; approved by the Secretary; 

(E) following execution of the project partnership a€:-,rreement, transfer to the non-Federal 

interest to carry out construction of the project, 

or a separable element of the project-

(i) if applicable, the balance of the unoblig·ated amounts appropriated for the 

project, except that the Secretary shall retain sufficient amounts for the Corps of 

Engineers to carry out any responsibilities 

of the Corps of Engineers relating to the 

project and pilot progTam; and 

(ii) additional amounts, as determined 

by the Secretary, from amounts made 

available under subsection (h), except that 

the total amount transferred to the nonFederal interest shall not exceed the estimate of the Federal share of the cost of 
50 


25114.043

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

43 

S.hC. 

construetion, ineluding any required de2 sign; and 

3 (F) regularly monitor and audit each 

4 pro.ject being constructed by a non-F'ederal in5 t.erest under this section to ensure that the con6 strnction activities are carried out in compli7 ance \v:ith the plans approved hy the Secretary 

8 and that the construction eosts are reasonable. 

9 (2) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.-On the request 

10 of a non-Federal interest, the Secretary may provide 

11 technical assistance to the non-Federal interest, if 

12 the non-J;~ederal interest contracts \\.~th the Sec13 retary for the technical assistance and compensates 

14 the Secretary for the technical assistance, relating 

15 to16 (A) any study, engineeriug activity, and 

17 design activity for eonstrnetion carried out hy 

18 the non-Federal interest under this section; and 

19 (13) obtaining any permits necessary for 

20 the project. 

21 (d) CosT SnAH.E.-Nothing in this seetion affeets the 

22 cost-sharing requirement applicable on the day before the 

23 date of enactment of this Act to a projeet carried out 

24 under this section. 

25 (e) REPORT.-
51 


25114.044

CEL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFI' 

44 

S.L.C. 

(1) IN GENEH.AL.-Not later than 2 years after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

3 shall submit to the Committee on Environment and 

4 Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on 

5 Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 

6 Representatives a report detailing the results of the 

7 pilot program carried out under this section, includ8 ing any recommendations of the Seeretary eon9 cerning whether the program or any component of 

10 the program should be implemented on a national 

11 basis. 

12 (2) UPDATE.-Not later than 5 years after the 

13 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 

14 submit to the Committee on Environment and Pub15 lie Works of the Senate and the Committee on 

16 Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 

17 Representatives an update of the report described in 

18 parag-raph ( 1). 

19 (f) .ADi\UNISTH.ATION.-Alllaws and reg1.1lations that 

20 would apply to the Secretary if the Secretary were car21 rying out the project shall apply to a non-Federal interest 

22 carrying out a project under this section. 

23 (g) TERMINA1'ION OP ACTIIORI1'Y.-The authority to 

24 commence a prqject under this section terminates on the 
52 


25114.045

CEL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

45 

S.L.C. 

1 date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of this 

2 Ac:t. 

3 (h) AVTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-ln addi4 tion to any amounts appropriated for a specific project, 

5 there is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to 

6 carry out the pilot rn·o~orram under this section 

7 $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2013 through 2017. 

8 SEC. 2020. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM. 

9 Section 203 of the Water Hesources Act of 2000 (:33 

10 e.s.c. 2269) is amended11 (1) in subsection (d)(l)(B)-

12 (A) by striking "The ability" and inserting 

13 the following: 

14 "(i) IK GI~NEK<\h-The ability"; and 

15 (B) b.Y adding at the end the follm-ving: 

16 "(ii) DETERl\:fiNATION.-~ot later 

17 than 180 days after the date of enactment 

18 of the \Yater Hesources Development Act 

19 of 2 012, the Secretary shall issue guidance 

20 on the procedures described in elause (i)."; 

21 and 

22 (2) in subsection (e), by striking "2012" and 

23 inserting· "2017". 
53 


25114.046

CEL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

46 

S.L.C. 

1 SEC. 2021. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH COLUMBIA 

2 RIVER BASIN INDIAN TRIBES. 

3 The Secretary may enter into a cooperative agTce4 ment with 1 or more federally recog11ized Indian tribes (or 

5 a designated representative of the Indian tribes) that are 

6 located, in whole or in part, within the boundaries of the 

7 Columbia Hiver Basin to carry out activities within the 

8 Columbia Hiver Basin to protect fish, \Vildlife, water qual9 ity, and cultural resources. 

10 SEC. 2022. POST-DISASTER WATERSHED ASSESSMENTS. 

11 (a) Ix GEKgRAJJ.-In an area that the President has 

12 declared a major disaster in accordance with section 401 

13 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Helief and Emergency 

14 Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170), the Secretary may carry 

15 out a watershed assessment to identify appropriate flood 

16 risk reduction, hurricane and storm damag·e reduction, or 

17 ecosystem restoration projects to rehabilitate damaged in18 frastructure and reduce risks from future natural disas19 ters. 

20 (h) PRO.JEC'l'S.-The Secretary may carry out 1 or 

21 more small projects identified in a watershed assessment 

22 under subsection (a) that the Secretary would otherwise 

23 be authorized to carry out under24 (1) section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 

25 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s); 
54 


25114.047

CBL129:12 DISCUSSION DRAFT S.L.C. 

47 

1 (2) section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 

2 1968 (:33 U.S.C. 42fii); 

3 (:3) section 20() of the Water Resources Devel4 opment Act of 199() (:33 U.S.C. 2330); or 

5 (4) section 11:35 of the Water Resources Devel6 opment Act of 1986 (38 U.S.C. 2:-!09a). 

7 (c) REQUIRE.i\IENTS.-All requirements applicable to 

8 a project under the Acts described in subsection (b) shall 

9 apply to the project, exeept that the Pederal share of the 

10 cost of carrying out a prqjeet under this section shall not 

11 exceed $5,000,000. 

12 (d) l.lll\1ITATIONS ON ASSESHMENTS.-

13 (1) IN GENERAio.-A watershed assessment 

14 under subsection (a) shall be initiated not later than 

15 2 years after the date on whieh the nu\jor disaster 

16 declaration is issued. 

17 (2) FEDERAL SIL\RK-The Pederal share of 

18 the eost of earrying out a watershed assessment 

19 under subsection (a) shall not exceed $1,000,000. 

20 (e) Al:THORIZATION OJ<' APPROPRL\TIONS.-There is 

21 authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 

22 $25,000,000 for each of fiscal year;;; 201:3 through 2017. 

23 SEC. 2023. LEVEE CERTIFICATIONS. 

24 (a) IN GENERAL.·-On receipt of a request from a 

25 non-I<~ederal interest, the Secretary may carry out a levee 
55 


25114.048

CEL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

48 

S.L.C. 

system evaluation and certification of a federally author2 ized levee for purposes of the national flood insurance pro3 gram established under chapter 1 of the National Flood 

4 Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4011 et seq.). 

5 (b) REQUIREME;o.;Ts.-A levee system evaluation and 

6 certification under subsection (a) shall7 (1) at a minimum, comply with section 65.10 of 

8 title 44, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on 

9 the date of enactment of this Act); and 

10 (2) be carried out in accordance with such pro11 cedures as the Secretary, in consultation with the 

12 Director of the Federal Emergency Management 

13 Agency, may establish. 

14 (c) C~OST SIL\lU:\G.-

15 (1) NO:\-F'EDERAL SHARE.-Subject to para16 graph (2), the non-Federal share of the cost of car17 rying out a levee system evaluation and certification 

18 under this section shall be 8 5 percent. 

19 (2) ADJCS'l':V£El\'T.-The Secretary shall adjust 

20 the non-Federal share of the cost of carrying out a 

21 levee system evaluation and certification under this 

22 section in accordance with section 108(m) of the 

23 Water Hesources Development Act of 1986 (88 

24 U.S.C. 2218(m)). 
56 


25114.049

CJ<JL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFr 

49 

S.J,.C. 

1 SEC. 2024. MILITARY MUNITIONS RESPONSE ACTIONS AT 

2 CIVIL WORKS SHORELINE PROTECTION 

3 PROJECTS. 

4 (a) li'< GENI<JHAh-The Secretary may implement 

5 any response action the Secretary determines to be nec6 essary at a site where7 (1) the Secretar~r has carried out a project 

8 under civil works authority of the Secretary that in9 eludes placing sand on a beach; 

10 (2) as a result of the project described in para11 graph (1), military munitions that were originally re12 leased as a result of Department of Defense activi13 ties are deposited on the beach, posing a threat to 

14 human health or the environment. 

15 (b) RESPONSE ACTION FUNDING.-A response action 

16 described in subsection (a) shall be funded from amounts 

17 made available to the agency within the Department of 

18 Defense responsible for the original release of the muni19 tions. 

20 SEC. 2025. BEACH NOURISHMENT. 

21 Section 156 of the Water Resources Development Act 

22 of 1976 (42 U.S.O. 1962d-5f) is amended to read as fol23 lows: 

24 "SEC. 156. BEACH NOURISHMENT. 

25 "(a) IN GI<JNERAh-The Secretary of the .Army, act26 ing through the Chief of Engineers, may provide periodic 
57 


25114.050

CELI2932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

50 

S.L.C. 

beach nourishment for each water resources development 

2 prQject for which that nourishment has been authorized 

3 for an additional period of time, as determined by the Sec4 retary, su~ject to the condition that the additional period 

5 shall not exceed the later of6 "(1) 50 years after the date on which the con7 struction of the project is initiated; or 

8 "(2) the date on which the last estimated peri9 odic nourishment for the project is to be carried out, 

10 as recommended in the applicable report of the Chief 

11 of Engineers. 

12 "(b) ExrrENSION.-Before the end of the 50-year pe13 riod referred to in subsection (a)(1 ), the Secretary of the 

14 Army, acting through the Chief of EngineersIS "(1) may, at the request of the non-Federal in16 terest and subject to the availability of appropria17 tions, carry out a review of a nourishment project 

18 carried out under subsection (a) to evaluate the fea19 sibility of continuing Federal participation in the 

20 project for a period not to exceed 15 years; and 

21 "(2) shall submit to Congress any recommenda22 tions of the Secretary relating to the review.". 

23 SEC. 2026. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS. 

24 Section 1001 (b) of the Water Resources Development 

25 Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)) is amended-
58 


25114.051

CEL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

51 

s.r~.c. 

(1) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the 

2 following: 

3 "(2) !.JIST Of<' PRO.JECTS.-

4 "(A) IN GI<JNERAh-Notwithstanding sec5 tion 3003 of Public I.JaW 104-66 (:31 U.S.C. 

6 1113 note; 109 Stat. 734), each year, after the 

7 submission of the list under paragraph (1 ), the 

8 Secretary shall submit to Congress a list of 

9 projects or separable elements of projects that 

10 have been authorized but that have received no 

11 obligations during the 5 full fiscal years pre12 ceding the submission of that list. 

13 "(B) .ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATIO:-.:.-On 

14 submission of the list under subparagraph (A) 

15 to Congress, the Secretary shall notify16 "(i) each Senator in whose State and 

17 each Member of the House of Representa18 tives in whose district a project (including 

19 any part of a project) on that Jist would be 

20 located; and 

21 "(ii) each applicable non-Federal in22 terest associated with a projeet (including 

23 any part of a prctject) on that list. 

24 "(C) DEAF'riiORIZATIO:\.-A prqject or 

25 separable element included in the list under 
59 


25114.052

C]<}LJ2932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

52 

S.L.C. 

1 subparagraph (A) is not authorized after the 

2 last date of the fiscal year following the fiscal 

3 year in which the list is submitted to Congress, 

4 if funding has not been obligated for the planS ning, design, or construction of the project or 

6 element of the project during that period."; and 

7 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

8 "(3) JVIINIMUi.\I F'Gl'\DI:\'G LIST.-At the end of 

9 each fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to Con10 gress a list of projects or separable elements of 

11 projects authorized for construction under this Act 

12 for which funding· has been obligated in the 5 pre13 vious fiscal years.". 

14 TITLE III-PROJECT 

15 MODIFICATIONS 

16 SEC. 3001. PURPOSE. 

17 The purpose of this title is to modifY existing water 

18 resource project authorizations, subject to the condition 

19 that the modifications result in no additional cost. 

20 SEC. 3002. [TO BE SUPPLIED]. 

21 TITLE IV-WATER RESOURCE 

22 STUDIES 

23 SEC. 4001. PURPOSE. 

24 The purpose of this title is to direct the Corps of En25 gineers to study and recommend solutions for water re-
60 


25114.053

DISCUSSION DRAFT S.L.C. 

source issues relating to flood risk and storm damage re2 duction, navigation, and ecosystem restoration. 

3 SEC. 4002. INITIATION OF NEW WATER RESOURCES STUD4 IES. 

5 (a) Ix GI<J\'ERAL.-At the request of a non-Federal 

6 interest, the Secretary may initiate a study7 ( 1) to determiw~ the feasibility of carrying out 

8 1 or more projects for flood risk management, storm 

9 damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, na·vigation, 

10 hydropower, water supply, or recreation; or 

11 (2) to comprehensively evalnate multiple water 

12 reRonrce iRsues in a watershed. 

13 (b) CRI'rl<JRIA.-The Secretary shall develop criteria 

14 for determining when to initiate a stud~, under subsection 

15 (a), whieh, at a minimum, shall :require that16 ( 1) the study is for an area that is likely to in17 elude a project to be carried out by a Federal inter18 est; and 

19 (2 )(A) the study addresses a high priority water 

20 resource issue for which local support exists for ad21 dressing the water resource issue; and 

22 (B) a non-Federal sponsor is likely to partici23 pate in the implementation of a solution to the water 

24 resource Issue. 
61 


25114.054

CEL129:32 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

54 

S.L.C. 

(c) LIMI'l'ATION.-Subsection (a) shall not apply to 

2 a project for which a study has been authorized prior to 

3 the date of enactment of this Act. 

4 (d) TERMii\'ATION.-'rhe authority under subsection 

5 (a) expires on the date that is 2 years after the date of 

6 enactment of this Act. 

7 SEC. 4003. APPLICABILITY. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.-Nothing m this title authorizes 

9 the construction of a water resources project. 

10 (b) NEW AU'l'HORI7.u\'l'ION REQUIRED.-New author11 ization from Congress is required before any project evalu12 ated in a study under this title is constructed. 

13 TITLE V-REGIONAL AND 

14 NONPROJECT PROVISIONS 

15 SEC. 5001. PURPOSE. 

16 The purpose of this title is to authorize regional, 

17 multistate authorities to address water resource needs and 

18 other non-project provisions that do not have additional 

19 costs. 

20 SEC. 5002. NORTHEAST COASTAL REGION ECOSYSTEM RES· 

21 TORATION. 

22 (a) IN GI<JNERAL.-The Secretary shall plan, design, 

23 and construct projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration 

24 within the coastal waters of the Northeastern United 

25 States from the State of Virginia to the State of Maine, 
62 


25114.055

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

55 

S.hC. 

including associated bays, estuaries, and critical riverine 

2 areas. 

3 (b) (}J<jNERAI, COAS'I'A[; l\L\~AGEMEN'I' PLA~.-

4 ( 1) AssESS:\fE~'l'.-The Secretary, in coordina5 tion with the Administrator of the Environmental 

6 Protection Agenc~', the heads of other appropriate 

7 Federal agencies, the Governors of the coastal 

8 States from Virginia to Maine, nonprofit organiza9 tions, and other interested parties, shall assess the 

10 needs regarding, and opportunities for, aquatic eco11 system restoration within the coastal waters of the 

I 2 Northeastern United States. 

13 (2) PI"AN.-The Secretary shall develop a gen14 eral coastal management plan based on the assessIS ment carried out under paragraph (1), maximizing· 

16 the use of existing plans and investigation, which 

17 plan shall inelude18 (A) an inventory and evaluation of coastal 

19 habitats; 

20 (B) identification of aquatic resources m 

21 need of improvement; 

22 (C) identification and prioritization of po23 tential aquatic habitat restoration projects; and 

24 (D) identification of geographical and eeo25 logical areas of concern, ineluding--
63 


25114.056

.DISCUSSION DRAFT S.L.C. 

5G 

1 (i) finfish habitats; 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

(ii) diadromous fisheries migratory 

corridors; 

(iii) shellfish habitats; 

(iv) submerged aquatic vegetation; 

(v) wetland; and 

(vi) beach dune complexes and other 

similar habitats. 

9 (c) ELIGIBU~ PRCMEC'l'S.-The Secretary may carry 

10 out an aquatic ecosystem restoration project under this 

11 section if the project12 (1) is consistent with the management plan de13 veloped under subsection (b); and 

14 (2) provides for15 (A) the restoration of degraded aquatic 

16 habitat (including coastal, saltmarsh, benthic, 

17 and riverine habitat); 

18 (B) the restoration of geographical or eco19 logical areas of concern, including the restora20 tion of natural river and stream characteristics; 

21 (C) the improvement of water quality; or 

22 (D) other projects or activities determined 

23 to be appropriate by the Secretary. 

24 (d) COS1' SIL\Rll'\G.-
64 


25114.057

C~JI,J2932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

57 

S.hC. 

(1) l\L\NAGE"'IE~T PI,AN.-The manag·ement 

2 plan developed under subsection (b) shall be com3 pleted at Federal expense. 

4 (2) RESTORA'riOX PROJECTS.-The non-F'ed5 era! share of the cost of a project carried out under 

6 this section shall be 35 percent. 

7 (e) CosT lJil\IITATI0:--1.-Not more than $10,000,000 

8 in Ferleral funrls may be allocated under this section for 

9 an eligible prQject. 

10 (f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-There is 

11 authorizerl to be appropriated to carry out this section (in12 eluding· funds for the completion of the management plan) 

13 $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2013 through 2017. 

14 SEC. 5003. IMPROVING MANAGEMENT OF FLOOD AND 

15 DROUGHT. 

16 (a) IN GEXERAL.-The Secretary shall enter into an 

17 arrang·ement with the National Academy of Sciences 

18 under which the Academy shall conduct an evaluation of 

19 the strategies of the Corps of Engineers for managing 

20 water resources in response to floods and droughts. 

21 (b) COXSIDEHATIONS.-The evaluation under sub22 section (a) shall address23 ( 1) the extent to which existing· water manage24 ment activities of the Corps of En~rineers can better 
65 


25114.058

CEL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

58 

S.L.C. 

address and mitigate flood and drought impacts on 

2 a national basis; 

3 (2) whether a reevaluation of existing manage4 ment approaches of the Corps of Engineers could re5 suit in greater efficiencies in water management that 

6 would enable the Corps of Engineers to better re7 spond to flood and drought conditions; and 

8 un any recommendations for improving the 

9 planning processes of the Corps of Engineers to 

10 evaluate opportunities for comprehensive manage11 ment of water resources that increases efficiency and 

12 improves response to flood and drought conditions. 

13 SEC. 5004. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORA14 TION AND PROTECTION PROGRAM. 

15 Section 510 of the Water Resources Development Act 

16 of 1996 (Public Law 104-303; 110 Stat. 3759; 121 Stat. 

17 1202) is amended18 ( 1) in subsection (a)-

19 (A) in paragraph ( 1 )-

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

(i) by striking· "pilot program" and 

inserting "program"; and 

(ii) by inserting "across the basin 

States described in subsection (f) and the 

District of Columbia" after "interests"; 

and 
66 


25114.059

DISCUSSION DRAFT S.hC. 

59 

(B) by striking paragraph (2) and insert2 ing the following·: 

3 "(2) I~ORlVL-The assistance under paragraph 

4 ( 1) shall he in the form of a comprehem;ive environS mental restoration and protection plan and design 

6 and construction assistanee for water-related re7 source protection and restoration projects affecting 

8 the Chesapeake Bay estuary, including projects 

9 fort 0 "(A) sediment and erosion control; 

11 "(B) low-impact development; 

12 "(C) restoration ami protection of water 

13 quality and quantit~r; 

14 "(D) protection of eroding· shorelines; 

15 "(E) protection of essential public works; 

16 ''(F1

) beneficial uses of dredged material; 

17 "(G) restoration of submerged aquatic 

18 vegetation; and 

19 "(H) other related pro,jeets that may en20 hance the living resources of the estuary."; 

21 (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the 

22 following: 

23 "(b) Cmvn'REIIK\'RIVE PLAN.-

24 "(1) I?\ GE?\EH.AL.-Not later than 2 years 

25 after the date of enactment of the \Vater Resources 
67 


25114.060

cgu2932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

GO 

S.L.C. 

Development Act of 2012, the Secretary, in coopera2 tion with State and local governmental officials and 

3 affected stakeholders, shall design and implement a 

4 eomprehensive Chesapeake Bay restoration plan. 

5 "(2) COORDI~ATION.-A project identified in 

6 the restoration plan described in paragraph (1) shall 

7 be designed to take advantag·e of any ongoing or 

8 planned actions of other Federal, State, and local 

9 ag·eneH~s and nonprofit, nongovernmental organiza10 tions. 

11 "(3) An.VIC\IS'rRNI'ION.-The Pederal share of 

12 the costs of carrying out paragraph (1) shall be 100 

13 percent."; 

14 (:3) in subsection (c)-

15 (A) in paragraph (1), by striking "to pro16 vide" and all that follows through the period at 

17 the end and inserting "for the desig·n and con18 stmction of a projeet identified in the com19 prehensive Chesapeake Bay restoration plan de20 scribed in subsection (h)."; 

21 (B) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking "fa22 cilities or resource protection and development 

23 plan" and inserting "resource protection and 

24 restoration plan"; and 

25 (C) by adding at the end the following: 
68 


25114.061

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

Gl 

S.L.C. 

"(3) PRO,JECTS ON b'EDERAIJ IJAND.-A project 

2 identified in the comprehensive Chesapeake Bay res3 toration plan described in subsection (b) that is lo4 cated on Pederal land shall be carried out in accordS ance ·with a Memorandum of Agreement that6 "(A) is signed by all applicable Pederal 

7 agencies; 

8 "(B) defines for each signatory to the 

9 Memorandum of AgTeement the responsibilities 

10 of the signatory and any finaneial support re11 quired of the si~matory; and 

12 "(C) describes any Chesapeake Bay res13 toratiou benefits to be realized as a result of 

14 the project."; 

15 (4) in subsection (d)-

16 (A) in paragraph (1)-

17 (i) by striking "Except as provided in 

18 paragraph (2)(B)," and inserting the fol19 lowing·: 

20 "(A) IX GENERAL.-Except as provided in 

21 subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragTaph (2),"; 

22 and 

23 (ii) by adding at the (~nd the fol24 lowing: 
69 


25114.062

CEL12932 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

62 

S.L.C. 

"(B) CoN'rRIBUTIOKS BY OTHER I<'EDERAL 

AGBNCIES.-The Federal share, or a portion of 

the .B'ederal share, required under subparagraph 

(A) may be provided by other Federal agencies."; and 

(B) in paragraph (2)-

(i) in subparagraph (B), by striking 

"The non-Federal share" and inserting 

"Except as provided in subparagraph (C), 

the non-Federal share"; and 

(ii) by adding at the end the folJo-.,ving: 

"(C) PROJECTS 01\ FEDERAL LAKD.-For 

a project that is carried out on Federal land 

under this section, the Federal share of the 

costs of carrying out the project shall be 100 

percent."; 

(5) in subsection (e)-

(A) in paragraph (3), by striking· "and" 

after the semicolon; 

(B) in paragTaph (4), by striking· the period at the end and inserting"; and"; and 

(C) by adding at the end the following: 

" ( 5) the Chesapeake Bay Commission."; 
70 


25114.063

CEI~12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT s.r~.c. 

63 

(6) by striking subsection (f) and inserting· the 

2 following: 

3 "(f) PROJECTS.-'l'he Secretary shall establish, to 

4 the maximum extent practicable, at least 1 project under 

5 this section in6 "(1) each of the basin States of Delaware, 

7 Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and 

8 West Virginia; and 

9 "(2) the District of Columbia."; 

10 (7) by striking subsection (h); and 

11 (8) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection 

12 (h). 

13 SEC. 5005. RIO GRANDE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 

14 PROGRAM, COLORADO, NEW MEXICO, TEXAS. 

15 Section 5056 of the Water Resources Development 

16 Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1213) is amended17 (1) in subsection (b)(2)-

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph 

(A), by striking "2008" and inserting "2013"; 

and 

(B) m subparagraph (C), by inserting 

"and an assessment of needs for other related 

purposes in the Rio Grande Basin, including 

f1ood damage reduction" after "assessment."; 

(2) in subsection (c)(2)-
71 


25114.064

CEL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

64 

S.hC. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

(A) by striking "an interag·ency agreement 

\vith" and inserting "1 or more interagency 

agreements with the Secretary of State and"; 

and 

(B) by inserting "or the U.S. Section of 

6 the International Boundary and Water Com7 mission" after "the Department of the Inte8 rior"; and 

9 (3) in subsection (f), by striking "2011" and 

10 inserting "2021". 

11 SEC. 5006. LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER AND TILLAMOOK BAY 

12 ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OREGON AND 

13 WASHINGTON. 

14 Section 536(g) of the Water Resources Development 

15 Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2661) is amended by striking 

16 "$30,000,000" and inserting "$75,000,000". 

17 TITLE VI-LEVEE SAFETY 

18 SEC. 6001. SHORT TITLE. 

19 This title may be cited as the "National l1evee Safety 

20 ProgTam Act". 

21 SEC. 6002. FINDINGS; PURPOSES. 

22 (a) FINDINGS.-Congress finds that23 (1) there is a need to establish a national levee 

24 safety program to provide national leadership and 
72 


25114.065

CEL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

{)5 

S.L.C. 

encourage the eRtablishment of State and tribal levee 

2 safety programs; 

3 (2) aceording to the National Committee on 

4 Levee Safety, "the level of proteetion and robustness 

5 of design and constmction [of levees] vary consider6 ably across the country"; 

7 (3) knmving the location, condition, and mvner8 ship of levees, as well as understanding the popu9 lation and infrastmeture at risk in leveed areas, is 

I 0 necessary for identification and prioritization of ac11 tivities associated with levees; 

12 (4) States and Indian tribes13 (A) are uniquely positioned to oversee, co14 ordinate, and regulate local and regional levee 

15 systems; and 

16 (B) should be encouraged to participate m 

17 a national levee safety program hy establishing 

18 individual levee safety programs; and 

19 ( 5) States, Indian tribes, and local governments 

20 that do not invest in pmtecting the individuals and 

21 property located behind levees place those individuals 

22 and property at riRk. 

23 (h) PrRPOSES.-The purpoRes of this Act are-
73 


25114.066

CEhl29:32 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

66 

S.L.C. 

(1) to promote sound technical practices in 

2 levee design, construction, operation, inspection, as3 sessment, security, and maintenance; 

4 (2) to ensure effective public education and 

5 awareness of risks involving levees; 

6 (3) to establish and maintain a national levee 

7 safety program that emphasizes the protection of 

8 human life and property; and 

9 ( 4) to implement solutions and incentives that 

10 encourage the establishment of effective State and 

11 tribal levee safety programs. 

12 SEC. 6003. DEFINITIONS. 

13 In this Act: 

14 (1) BOARD.-The term "Board" means the Na15 tiona! Levee Safety Advisory Board established 

16 under section 6005. 

17 (2) CAi'JAL STRUC'rURE.-

18 (A) IN GENERAL-The term "canal struc19 ture" means an embankment, wall, or structure 

20 along a canal or manmade watercourse that21 (i) constrains water flows; and 

22 (ii) is suqject to frequent water load23 ing. 
74 


25114.067

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

67 

S.L.C. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

(B) Excijl1SION.-The term "canal structure" ctoes not include a barrier across a watercourse. 

(3) FEDERAL A<iENC'Y.-The term "Federal 

5 agency" means a Federal agency that designs, fi6 nanees, constructs, mvns, operates, maintains, or 

7 regulates the construction, operation, or rnainte8 nance of a levee. 

9 (4) FU)()J) DAlVL\Cm REDUCTION SYSTEM.-The 

10 term ''flood damage reduction system" means a sys11 tern designed and constructed to have appreciable 

12 and dependable effects in reducing damage by flood13 waters. 

14 (5) FLOOD lVIITIGATION.-The term "f1ood miti15 gation" means any stniCtural or nonstructural meas16 ure that reduces risks of flood damage by reducing 

17 the probability of flooding, the consequences of 

18 flooding, or both. 

19 ( 6) !:>:DIAN TRIBE.-The term "Indian tribe" 

20 has the meaning g·iven the term in section 4 of the 

21 Indian Self-Determination and Edueation Assistance 

22 Act (25 U.S.C. 450b). 

23 (7) l..1EVEE.-
75 


25114.068

CELJ2932 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

68 

S.L.C. 

(A) IN GENEIL\L.-Thc term "levee" 

means a manmade barrier (such as an embankment, floodwall, or other structure)-

(i) the primary purpose of which is to 

provide hurricane, storm, or flood protection relating to seasonal high water, storm 

surges, precipitation, or other weather 

events; and 

(ii) that IS normally subject to water 

loading for only a few days or weeks during a calendar year. 

(B) IXCIX:"SIOXS.-The term "levee" mcludes a levee system, including-

(i) levees and canal structures that-

(I) constrain water flows; 

(II) are subject to more frequent 

water loading; and 

(III) do not constitute a barrier 

across a watercourse; and 

(ii) roadway and railroad embankments, but only to the extent that the embankments arc integTal to the performance 

of a flood damage reduction system. 

(C) EXCLUSIONS.-The term "levee" does 

not include-
76 


25114.069

CE!Ll2932 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

DISCUSSION DRAFT S.L.C. 

69 

(i) a roadway or railroad embankment 

that is not integral to the performance of 

a flood damage reduction system; 

(ii) a canal eonstructed completely 

within natural gTCmnd without any manmade structure (sueh as an embankrnent 

or retaining wall to retain water or a ease 

in which water is retained only by natural 

ground); 

(iii) a eanal regulated by a Federal 

agency in a manner that ensures that applicable Federal safety criteria meet or exceed the levee safety guidelines; 

(iv) a levee or canal strncture-,-

(1) that is not a part of a Pederal flood damage reduetion system; 

(II) that is not recognized under 

the National Flood Insurance ProgTam as providing protection from the 

1-pereent-annual-chance or greater 

flood; 

(III) that 1s not greater than 3 

feet high; 
77 


25114.070

CEI,J2932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

70 

S.L.C. 

(IV) the population in the leveed 

2 area of which is less than 50 individ3 u~s; and 

4 (V) the leveed area of which IS 

5 less than 1,000 acres; or 

6 (v) any shoreline protection or nver 

7 bank protection system (such as revet8 ments or barrier islands). 

9 (8) LEVEE FEA'l't:RE.-The term "levee feat 0 ture" means a stn1cture that is critical to the func11 tioning· of a levee, including12 (A) an embankment section; 

13 (B) a floodwall section; 

14 (C) a closure structure; 

15 (D) a pumping station; 

16 (E) an interior drainage work; and 

17 (F) a flood damage reduction channeL 

18 (9) l1E:VEE SAPETY GCIDEUI'\t~S.-The term 

19 "levee safety guidelines" means the guidelines estab20 lished by the Secretary under seetion 6004(c)(1). 

21 (10) T.1EVEE SEG~IEN'l'.-The term ''levee seg22 ment" means a diserete portion of a levee system 

23 that is owned, operated, and maintained by a single 

24 entity or discrete set of entities. 
78 


25114.071

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

71 

S.L.C. 

1 (11) IJEVEE SYSTBM.-The term "levee sys2 tern" means 1 or more levee segments, including all 

3 levee features that are interconnected and necessary 

4 to ensure protection of the associated leveed areas5 (A) that collectively provide flood damage 

6 reduction to a defined area; and 

7 (B) the failure of 1 of which may result in 

8 the failure of the entire system. 

9 (12) LEVEED AREA.-The term "leveed area" 

10 means the land from which flood water in the adja11 cent watercourse is exeluded by the levee system. 

12 (13) NA'l'TONAL I.EVEE DATABASE.-The term 

13 "national levee database" means the levee database 

14 established under section 9004 of the Water Re15 sources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. :330:~). 

16 (14) PARTJCIPATIJ\'G I'ROGRAM.-The term 

17 "participating program" means a levee safety pro18 gram developed by a State or Indian tribe that in19 eludes the minimum components necessary for rec20 ognition by the Secretary. 

21 (15) RrsK.-The term "risk" means a measure 

22 of the probability and severity of undesirable con23 sequences. 
79 


25114.072

CEL12!J32 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

72 

S.L.C. 

(16) SECRETARY.-The term "Secretary" 

2 means the Secretary of the Army, acting throug-h 

3 the Chief of Engineers. 

4 (17) STA'l'E.-The term "State" means5 (A) each of the several States of the 

6 United States; 

7 (B) the District of Columbia; 

8 (C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; 

9 (D) Guam; 

10 (E) American Samoa; 

11 (F) the Commonwealth of the Northern 

12 Mariana Islands; 

13 (G) the Federated States of Micronesia; 

14 (H) the Republic of the Marshall Islands; 

15 (I) the Republic of Palau; and 

16 (J) the United States Virgin Islands. 

17 SEC. 6004. NATIONAL LEVEE SAFETY PROGRAM. 

18 (a) ESTABLISII:\IE~'r.-The Secretary, in consulta19 tion with the Administrator of the Federal Emerg·ency 

20 Manag·ement Agency, shall establish a national levee safe21 ty program to provide national leadership and consistent 

22 approaches to levee safety, including·-

23 (1) a national levee database; 

24 (2) an inventory and inspection of Federal and 

25 non-Federallevees; 
80 


25114.073

Cl%129:l2 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

n 

(:3) national levee safety standards; 

R.L.C. 

2 ( 4) a hazard potential classification system for 

3 I<~ederal and non-Pederal levees; 

4 ( 5) researeh and development; 

5 (6) a national public education and awareness 

6 progTam, ·with an emphasis on communication re7 garding the risk associated with levees; 

8 (7) coordination of levee safety, floodplain man9 ag·ement, and environmental protection acti,.ities; 

10 ( 8) development of State and tribal levee safety 

11 programs; and 

12 (9) the provision of technical assistance and 

13 materials to States and Indian tribes relating to14 (A) developing levee safety programs; and 

15 (B) rehabilitating, improving, replaeing, 

16 and removing levees. 

17 (b) lVL\NAGEMENT.-

18 (1) IN GENERAI,,-The Secretary shall ap19 point20 (A) an administrator of the national levee 

21 safety progntm; and 

22 (B) such staff as is neeessary to implement 

23 the program. 

24 (2) AmuNIS1'RATOR.-'l'he sole duty of the ad25 ministrator appointed under paragTaph (I) (A) shall 
81 


25114.074

cgL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

74 

S.L.C. 

be the management of the national levee safety pro2 gram. 

3 (c) l..JEVEI!J SAFETY Gt:IDELINES.-

4 (1) ESTABLISIIME;\T.-Not later than 1 year 

5 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec6 retary shall establish a set of voluntary, comprehen7 sive, national levee safety b:.uidelines that8 (A) are available for common, uniform use 

9 by all Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies; 

10 and 

11 (B) incorporate policies, procedures, stand12 ards, and criteria for a range of levee t:ypes, 

13 canal stmctures, and related facilities and fea14 tures. 

15 (2) REQCIREMENT.-The policies, procedures, 

16 standards, and criteria under paragTaph ( 1) (B) shall 

17 be developed taking into consideration the levee haz18 ard potential classifieation system established under 

19 subsection (d). 

20 (3) ADOPTIO?\ BY FEDERAL AGENCIES.-All 

21 Federal agencies shall consider the levee safety 

22 guidelines in acti\ities relating to the management 

23 of levees. 

24 (d) HAZARD POTENTIAJ, CLASSIFICA'l'ION SYSTEM.-
82 


25114.075

CEL129:J2 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

75 

S.I;.C. 

(1) ES1'ABLISHMENT.-The Secretary shall es2 tahlish a hazard potential classification system for 

3 use under the national levee safety progTam and 

4 participating programs. 

5 (2) HEviSION.-The Secretary shall review and, 

6 as necessary, revise the hazard potential elassifica7 tion s.vstem not less frequently than once every 5 

8 years. 

9 (3) CONSISTENCY.-The hazard potential clas1 0 sification system established pursuant to this snb11 section shall he consistent with and incorporated 

12 into the I~evee Safety Action Classification tool de13 veloped by the Corps of Engineers. 

14 (e) 'l'ECIINIC.Al; ASSISTANCE AND lVL\TERIAI,S.-

15 (1) ESTABLISH:\HJNT.-The Secretary, in co16 onlination \Vith the Board, shall establish a national 

17 levee safety training program to develop and deliver 

18 technical support and technical assistance materials, 

19 curricula, and training in order to promote levee 

20 safety and the voluntary development of State leYee 

21 safety programs. 

22 (2) Usg OF SERV1CES.-Jn establishing the na23 tiona1 levee safety training program under para24 graph (1), the Secretary may use the services of:--

25 (A) the Corps of Engineers; 
83 


25114.076

CELJ29:l2 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

76 

S.L.C. 

(B) the Federal Emergency Management 

2 Jlgency; 

3 (C) the Bureau of Reclamation; and 

4 (D) other appropriate Federal agencies. 

5 (f) CO:VIPREIIENSIVE NATIO:\AL PGBLIC EDCCA'l'IO:\ 

6 At"JD AWARENESS CA.lviPAICH\.-

7 (1) ESTABLISIIMEN'l'.-The Secretary, in co8 ordination with the Administrator of the Federal 

9 Emergency Management Agency and the Board, 

10 shall establish a national public education and 

11 awareness campaign relating to the national levee 

12 safety program. 

13 (2) PURPOSES.-The purposes of the campaign 

14 under paragraph ( 1) are15 (A) to educate individuals living in leveed 

16 areas regarding the risks of living in those 

17 areas; 

18 (B) to promote consistency in the trans19 mission of information regarding levees among 

20 government ag·encies; and 

21 (C) to provide national leadership regard22 mg risk communication for implementation at 

23 the State and local levels. 

24 (g) COORDINATION OF LEVEE SAI<'E'l'Y, FLOODPLAIN 

25 l\1ANAGEMEN'l', At'J'D EJ'.iviRONME:--.'TAL Co:--:cER:\S.-The 
84 


25114.077

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

77 

S.L.C. 

Secretary, in coordination \vith the Board, shall evaluate 

2 opportunities to coordinate3 ( 1) public safety, f1oodplain management, and 

4 environmental protection activitie~; relating to levees; 

5 and 

6 (2) en;rironmental permitting processes for op7 eration and maintenance activities at existing levee 

8 projects in compliance with all applicable laws. 

9 (h) LEVEE INSPECTI0:\'.-

10 (1) IN GBNJ<~RAh-The Secretary shall carry 

11 out a one-time inventory and inspection of all levees 

12 identified in the national levee database. 

13 (2) No FEDER.o\TJ INTEREST.-The inventory 

14 and inspection under paragraph (1) does not create 

15 a Federal interest in the construction, operation, or 

16 maintenance any levee that is included in the inYen17 tory or inspected under this subsection. 

18 (3) INSPECTION CR.ITI<JRL\.-In carrying out the 

19 inventory and inspection, the Secretary ~;hall use the 

20 Levee Safety Action Classification criteria to deter21 mine whether a !ewe should be classified in the in22 ventory as requiring a more comprehensive inspec23 tion. 

24 (i) STATI<J AND 'rRIBAij l.JEVI<JE SAPE1'Y PROG:RAM.-

25 (1) GemET,INES.-
85 


25114.078

CEL12932 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

78 

S.L.C 

(A) IN GENERAL.-Not later than 1 year 

after the date of enactment of this Act, in coordination with the Board, the Secretary shall 

issue guidelines that establish the minimum 

components necessary for recognition of a State 

or tribal levee safety pr·ogram as a participating 

progTam. 

(B) GUIDEI,INI£ CON'fENTS.-The guidelines under subparagTaph (A) shall include provisions and procedures requiring each participating State and Indian tribe to certify to the 

Secretary that the State or Indian tribe, as applicable-

(i) has the authority to participate in 

the national levee safety program; 

(ii) can receive funds under this Act; 

(iii) has adopted any national levee 

safety guidelines developed under this Act; 

(iv) will carry out levee inspections; 

(v) will carry out, consistent \\ith applicable requirements, any emergency action planning procedures the Seerctary determines to be necessary relating to levees; 

and 
86 


25114.079

CEI;I2932 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

7B 

(vi) will collect and share information 

regarding the loeation and eondition of levees. 

(2) GRANT PIWGRA:\1.-

(A) Es'rABLISIEVIEXT.-The Seeretary 

shall establish a progTam under whieh the Seeretary shall provide gTants to assist States and 

Indian tribes in establishing participating programs, conducting levee inventories, and carrying out this Act. 

(B) REQUIHEl\IENTS.-To be eligible to receive grants under this section, a State or Indian tribe shall-

(i) meet the requirements of a participating program established by the guidelines issued under paragTaph (1); 

(ii) use not less than 25 percent of 

any amounts received to identifY and assess non-Federal levees within the State or 

on land of the Indian tribe; and 

(iii) submit to the Secretary any information collected by the State or Indian 

tribe in carrying out this subsection for inclusion in the national levee safety database. 
87 


25114.080

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

80 

S.L.C. 

1 SEC. 6005. NATIONAL LEVEE SAFETY ADVISORY BOARD. 

2 (a) ESTABLISHJ;IEXT.-The Secretary, in eoordina3 tion with the Administrator of the Pederal Emerg·ency 

4 l\1anag-crnent Ag-ency, shall establish a board, to be known 

5 as the "N a tiona! J_,evee Safety Advisory Board"-

6 ( 1) to advise the Secretary and Congress re7 garding- consistent approaclws to levee safety; 

8 (2) to monitor the safety of levees in the United 

9 States; and 

10 (3) to assess the effectiveness of the national 

11 levee safety prof,"''am. 

12 (b) l\f.I<JJ;IBERSHIP.-

13 (1) VOTING .MEMBERS.-The Board shall be 

14 composed of the following- 14 voting members, who 

15 shall be appointed by the Secretary: 

16 (A) 8 representatives of State levee safety 

17 agencies, 1 from each of the civil works divi18 sions of the Corps of En6rineers. 

19 (B) 2 representatives of the private sector 

20 who have expertise in levee safety. 

21 (C) 2 representatives of local and regional 

22 g·overnmental agencies who have expertise in 

23 levee safety. 

24 (D) 2 representatives of Indian tribes who 

25 have expertise in levee safety. 
88 


25114.081

DISCUSSION DRAFT S.L.C. 

81 

(2) NONVOTING MEMBERS.-'l'he Secretary (or 

2 a designee of the Secretary), the Administrator of 

3 the Federal Emergency Management Agt>ncy (or a 

4 designee of the Administrator), and the adminis5 trator of the national levee safety program appointed 

6 under section 6004(b)(1)(A) shall serve as nonvoting 

7 members of the Board. 

8 (a) CIJ.AIRPERSON.-The voting members of the 

9 Board shall appoint. a chairperson from among the 

10 voting members of the Board, to serve a term of not 

11 more than 2 years. 

12 (c) QUALWICATIONS.-

13 (1) INDI\71Dt:ALS.-Each voting member of the 

14 Board shall be knowledgeable in the fields of water 

15 resources and risk management. 

16 (2) As A \\'IIOU<:.-The membership of the 

17 Board, considered as a whole, shall represent the di18 versity of skills required to advise the Secretary re19 garding levee issues relating to20 (A) engineering; 

21 (B) public communications; 

22 (C) program deYelopmcnt and oversight; 

23 and 

24 (D) public safety and the environment. 

25 (d) TEmm OF' SERVICE.-
89 


25114.082

CEL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

82 

s.1_l.c. 

1 (1) IN GENE&\L.-A voting member of the 

2 Board shall be appointed for a term of 3 years, ex3 cept that, of the members first appointed4 (A) 5 shall be appointed for a term of 1 

5 year; 

6 (B) 5 shall be appointed for a term of 2 

7 years; and 

8 (C) 4 shall be appointed for a term of 3 

9 years. 

10 (2) REAPPOINTMEN1'.-A voting member of the 

11 Board may be reappointed to the Board, as the Sec12 retary determines to be appropriate. 

13 (3) VACl~"\CIES.-A vacancy on the Board shall 

14 be filled in the same manner as the original appoint15 ment was made. 

16 (e) S'l'ANDING COMMITTEES.-

17 (1) IN GENE&\L.-The Board shall be sup18 ported by Standing Committees, which shall be com19 prised of volunteers from all levels of government 

20 and the private sector, to advise the Board regard21 ing the national levee safety program. 

22 (2) ES'fABLISIIMEN'r.-The Standing Commit23 tees of the Board shall include-
90 


25114.083

CI<JL12932 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

83 

S.hC. 

(A) the Standing Committee on Participating Programs, which shall advise the Board 

regarding-

(i) the development and implementation of State and tribal levee safety programs; and 

(ii) appropriate incentives (including 

financial assistance) to he provided to 

States, Indian tribes, and local and reg1onal entities; 

(B) the Standing Committee on Technical 

Issues, which shall advise the Board regardmg·-

(i) the management of the national 

levee database; 

(ii) the development and maintenance 

of levee saft>ty guidelines; 

(iii) processes and materials for developing levee-related technicnl assistanee aud 

training·; and 

(iv) research and development activities relating to levee safety; 

(C) the Standing Committee on Public 

Education and Awareness, which shall advise 

the Board regarding the development, imple-
91 


25114.084

CEL12H32 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

84 

S.L.C. 

mentation, and evaluation of targeted public 

outreach programs-

(i) to gather public input; 

(ii) to educate and raise awar·eness in 

leveed areas of levee risks; 

(iii) to communicate information regarding participating programs; and 

(iv) to track the effectiveness of public 

education efforts relating to levee risks; 

(D) the Standing Committee on Safety and 

Environment, which shall advise the Board regarding-

(i) operation and maintenance activities for existing levee projects; 

(ii) opportunities to coordinate public 

safety, f1oodplain management, and envir·onmental protection activities relating to 

levees; 

(iii) opportunities to coordinate ermronmental permitting processes for operation and maintenance activities at existing 

levee projects in compliance with all applicable laws; and 

(iv) opportunities for collaboration by 

environmental protection and public safety 
92 


25114.085

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

R5 

S.L.C. 

interests m leveed areas and adjacent 

2 areas; and 

3 (E) such other standing committees as the 

4 Secretary determines to be necessary. 

5 (3) :ME:.>fm:RSIIIP.-

6 (A) IX GEXERAL.-The Board shall rec7 ommend to the Secretary for approval individ8 uals for membership on the Standing Commit9 tees. 

10 (B) QUAI,IFICATIONS.-

11 (i) lNDIVIDUALS.-Bach member of a 

12 Standing Committee shall be knowledge13 able in the issue areas for which the Com14 mittee is charged with advising the Board. 

15 (ii) As A WIIOLE.-'l'he membership 

16 of each Standing Committee, considered as 

17 a whole, shall represent, to the maximum 

18 e:l'-1:ent praeticable, broad geographical di19 versity. 

20 (C) l.JI.MITA1'ION.-Eaeh Standing Com21 mittee shall be comprised of not more than 10 

22 members. 

23 (f) DUTIES AXD POWJms.-'l'he Board24 (1) shall submit to the Secretary and Congress 

25 an annual report regarding· the effeetiveness of the 
93 


25114.086

CEL12fl~12 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

8(j 

B.L.C. 

national levee safety program m accordance with 

2 section 6007; and 

3 (2) may seeure from other Federal agencies 

4 such services, and enter into such contracts, as the 

5 Board determines to be neeessary to carry out this 

6 subsection. 

7 (g) TASK FORCE COORDINA'l'ION.-The Board shall, 

8 to the maximum ex-tent practicable, coordinate the activi9 ties of the Board with the Federal Interagency Floodplain 

10 Management Task Force. 

11 (h) COMPENSATION.-

12 (1) FEDERAL E:\U'L0\1~ES.-Each member of 

13 the Board who is an officer or employee of the 

14 Cnit.ed States shall serve without compensation in 

15 addition to compensation received for the services of 

16 the member as an officer or employee of the United 

17 States, but shall be allowed a per diem allowance for 

18 travel expenses, at rates authorized for an employee 

19 of an agency under subchapter I of ehapter 57 of 

20 title 5, United States Code, while away from the 

21 home or regular place of business of the member in 

22 the performance of the duties of the Board. 

23 (2) NON-I,'EDERA.L EMPIJOYEES.-To the ex-tent 

24 amounts are made available to carry out this section 

25 in appropriations Acts, the Secretary shall provide to 
94 


25114.087

CI<JL1293~ DISCUSSION DRAFT 

87 

S.L.C. 

each member of the Board who is not an officer or 

2 employee of the United States a stipend and a per 

3 diem allowance for traye} expenses, at rates author4 izcd for an employee of an agency under subchapter 

5 I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while 

6 away from the home or regular place of business of 

7 the member in performance of services for the 

8 Board. 

9 (3) STANDING COMl\ii'l"l'EE :VII<1:YIBERS.-Eaeh 

10 member of a Standing Committee shall11 (A) serve in a voluntary capacity; but 

12 {B) receive a per diem allowance for travel 

13 expenses, at rates authorized for an employee of 

14 an agency under subchapter I of chapter 57 of 

15 title 5, United States Code, while away from 

16 the home or reg11lar place of business of the 

17 member in performance of services for the 

18 Board. 

19 (i) NONAPPLICABILITY OF FACA-The Federal Ad20 visory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to 

21 the Board or the Standing Committees. 

22 SEC. 6006. INVENTORY AND INSPECTION OF LEVEES. 

23 Section 9004{a)(2)(A) of the \Vater Resomces Devel24 oprnent Act of 2007 (33 lJ.S.C. 3i303{a)(2)(A)) is amend25 eel by striking "and, for non-F'ederal levees, such informa-
95 


25114.088

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

88 

S.L.C. 

tion on levee location as is provided to the Secretary by 

2 State and local governmental agencies" and inserting 

3 "and updated levee information provided by States, Indian 

4 tribes, Federal agencies, and other entities". 

5 SEC. 6007. REPORTS. 

6 (a) STATE ()I<' J,I<JVEES.-

7 (1) I;-.; GENERAL.-Not later than 1 year after 

8 the date of enactment of this Act, and biennially 

9 thereafter, the Secretary in coordination \vith the 

10 Board, shall submit to Congress a report describing 

11 the state of levees in the United States and the ef12 fectiveness of the national levee safety program, in13 cluding14 (A) progTess achieved in implementing the 

15 national levee safety program; 

16 (B) State and tribal participation m the 

17 national levee safety program; 

18 (C) recommendations to improve com·dina19 t.ion of levee safety, floodplain management, and 

20 environmental protection concerns, ineluding21 (i) identi(ying and eYaluating opportu22 nities to coordinate public safet~', f1ood23 plain management, and environmental pro24 tection activities relating to levees; and 
96 


25114.089

CEL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

89 

S.L.C. 

(ii) evaluating opportunities to eoordi2 nate environmental permitting processes 

3 for operation and maintenance activities at 

4 existing· levee projects in compliance with 

5 all applicable laws; and 

6 (D) any recommendations for legislation 

7 and other congressional actions necessary to en8 sure national levee safety. 

9 (2) lNCUJSION.-Each report under paragraph 

10 ( 1) shall include a report of the Board that describes 

11 the independent recommendations of the Board for 

12 the implementation of the national levee safety pro13 gram. 

14 (b) NATIONAl; DAM AND LEVI<JE SAFETY PR0-

15 GRAM.-Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment 

16 of this Act:, to the maximum extent praetieable, the See17 retary, in coordination with the Board, shall submit to 

18 Congress a report: that ineludes recommendations regard19 ing the advisability and feasibility of, and potential ap20 proaehes for, establishing a joint national dam and levee 

21 safety program. 

22 (c) ALIGN:\TENT OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS TO Prw23 VIDE ADDITIONAl; !XCENTIVES AND DISINCENTIVES RE24 LA'l'ING TO LEVEES.-Not later than 2 years after the 

25 date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General 
97 


25114.090

CrJL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFI' 

90 

S.L.C. 

shall submit to Congress a report on opportunities for 

2 alignment of Federal programs to provide incentives and 

3 disincentives to State, tribal, and local governments and 

4 individuals and entities5 ( 1) to promote shared responsibility for levee 

6 safety; and 

7 (2) to encourage the development of strong 

8 State and tribal levee safety programs. 

9 (d) l.JIABIIJITY FOR CER'l'AI:\" I.JEVI:<Jl<~ ENGIKEERING 

10 PRO.TEUTS.-Not later than 1 year after the date of enact11 ment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 

12 a report that includes recommendations that identify and 

13 address any legal liability associated with levee engineer14 ing· prctiect.s that preventIS (1) levee owners from obtaining needed levee 

16 engineering· services; or 

17 (2) development and implementation of a State 

18 or tribal levee safety program. 

19 SEC. 6008. EFFECT OF TITLE. 

20 Nothing in this title21 (1) establishes any liability of the United States 

22 or any officer or employee of the United States (in23 eluding the Board and the Standing Committees of 

24 the Board) for any damages caused by any action or 

25 failure to aet; or 
98 


25114.091

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

91 

S.L.C. 

(2) relieves an owner or operator of a levee of 

2 any legal duty, obligation, or liability incident to the 

3 ownership or operation of the levee. 

4 SEC. 6009. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

5 There are authorized to be appropriated to the Sec6 retary to carry out this title7 (1) for funding the administration and staff of 

8 the national levee safety program, the Board, the 

9 Standing Committees of the Board, and partici10 pating progTams, $7,500,000 for each of fiscal years 

11 2013 and 2014; 

12 (2) for technical programs, including· the devel13 opment of levee safety guidelines, publications, train14 ing, and technical assistanceIS (A) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 

16 2013 and 2014; and 

17 (B) $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 

18 2015 through 2017; 

19 (3) for public involvement and education pro20 grams, $3,000,000 for eaeh of fiscal years 2013 

21 through 2017; 

22 ( 4) to carry out the levee inventory and inspec23 tions under section 9004 of the \Vater Resources 

24 Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3303), 
99 


25114.092

C~JL 12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

92 

S.L.C. 

$30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 201:3 through 

2 2017; and 

3 ( 5) for grants to State and tribal levee safety 

4 programs, $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2013 

5 through 2017. 

6 TITLE VII-INLAND WATERWAYS 

7 SEC. 7001. PURPOSES. 

8 The purposes of this title are9 ( 1) to improve program and project manage10 ment relating to the construction and major rehabili11 tation of navigation projeets on inland watetways; 

12 (2) to optimize inland waterways navigation 

13 system reliability; 

14 (3) to minimize the size and scope of inland wa15 tenvays navigation prqjeet completion schedules; 

16 ( 4) to eliminate preventable delays in inland 

17 waterways navigation project completion schedules; 

18 and 

19 ( 5) to make inland watenvays navigation capital 

20 investments through the use of prioritization criteria 

21 that seek to maximize systemwide benefits and mini22 mize overall system risk. 

23 SEC. 7002. DEFINmONS. 

24 In this title: 
100 


25114.093

CEL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

98 

S.L.C. 

(1) b~"LAND WATERWAYS '!'RUST F'U?\'D.-The 

2 te1·m "Inland \Vaterways 'l'n1st :B'und" means the 

3 Inland Waterways Trust Fund established by section 

4 9506(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

5 (2) QUALTP'l'ING PROJECT.-The term "quali6 (ying project" means any construction or major re7 habilitation project for navigation infrastmcture of 

8 the inland and intracoastal wat.mways that is9 (A) authorized before, on, or after the date 

10 of enactment of this Act; 

11 (B) not completed on the date of enact12 ment of this Act; and 

13 (C) funded at least in part from the Inland 

14 Waterways Trust Pund. 

15 (~{) SECRE:TARY.-The term "Secretary" means 

16 the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief 

17 of Engineers. 

18 SEC. 7003. PROJECT DELIVERY PROCESS REFORMS. 

19 (a) REQt:IREMENTS FOR (~t:ALIF'YING PHO.JECTS.-

20 With respect to each qualifying prQjcct, the Secrctar~· shall 

21 rcquire22 ( 1) formal project management training and 

23 certification for each project manag·er; 

24 (2) assignment as project manager only of per25 sonncl fully C'Crtified by the Chief of Bng·ineers; and 
101 


25114.094

CJ<jL12932 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

94 

S.hC. 

(3) for an applicable cost estimation, that-

(A) the estimation-

(i) is risk-based; and 

(ii) has a confidence level of at least 

80 percent; and 

(B) a risk-based cost estimate shall be implemented-

(i) for a qualified project that requires 

an increase in the authorized amount in 

accordance with section 902 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public I1aw 99-662; 100 Stat. 4183), during 

the preparation of a post-authorization 

chang-e report or other similar decision 

document; 

(ii) for a qualified project for which 

the first construction contract has not been 

awarded, prior to the award of the first 

construction contract; 

(iii) for a qualified project vvithout. a 

completed Chief of Engineers report, prior 

to the completion of such a report; and 

(iv) for a qualified project with a completed Chief of Engineers report that. has 
102 


25114.095

CEL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT S.L.C. 

95 

1 not yet been authorized, during design for 

2 the qualified project. 

3 (b) ADDI'I'IO:\AL PHO.TEC'I' DELIV1~RY PROCESS RE4 FOHMS.-Not later than 18 months after the date of enS actment of this Act, the Seeretary shall6 ( 1) establish a system to identify and apply on 

7 a continuing basis lessons learned from prior or on8 going qualifying prqjeets to improve the likelihood of 

9 on-time and on-budget completion of qualifying 

10 projeets; 

11 (2) evaluate early contractor involvement aequi12 sition procedures to improve on-time and on-budget 

13 project delivery performance; and 

14 (3) implement any additional measures that the 

15 Secretary determines will achieve the purposes of 

16 this title and the amendments made by this title, in17 eluding, as the Secretary determines to be appro18 priate19 (A) the implementation of' applicable prac20 tices and procedures developed pursuant to 

21 management by the Secretary of an applicable 

22 military construction program; 

23 (B) the establishment of 1 or more centers 

24 of expertise for the design and review of quali25 fying projects; 
103 


25114.096

CEL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

96 

S.L.C. 

(C) the development and use of a portfolio 

2 of standard designs for inland navig-ation locks; 

3 (D) the usc of full-funding contracts or 

4 formulation of a revi.Bed continuing contracts 

5 clause; and 

6 (E) the establishment of procedures for 

7 recommending new project construction starts 

8 using a capital projects business modeL 

9 (c) PILO'I' PROJECTS.-

10 (1) Ix GEl\ERAL.-Subject to paragTaph (2), 

11 the Secretary may carry out 1 or more pilot projects 

12 to evaluate processes or procedures for the study, 

13 design, or construction of qualif)i.ng projects. 

14 (2) lXCLUSIOl\8.-At a minimum, the Secretary 

15 shall carry out pilot prQjects under this subsection to 

16 evaluate17 (A) early contractor involvement in the cle18 velopment of features and components; 

19 (B) an appropriate use of continuing con20 tracts for the construction of features and com21 ponents; and 

22 (C) applicable principles, procedures, and 

23 processes used for military construction 

24 projeets. 
104 


25114.097

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

97 

S.hC. 

(d) INLAND VVATER\YAYS USER BOARD.-Section 

2 802 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (38 

3 U.S.C. 2251) is amended4 ( 1) by striking· subsection (b) anrl inserting the 

5 follmvi.ng: 

6 "(b) DU'l'IBS OF' USERS BOARD.-

7 "(1) IN GENERAh-The Users Board shall 

8 meet not less frequently than semiannually to de9 velop and make recommendations to the Secretary 

10 and Congress regarding the inland waterways and 

11 inland harbors of the United States. 

12 ''(2) ADVICE A ... "lD RECO:\I:VIENDATIONS.-For 

13 commercia I navigation featnres and components of 

14 the inland waterways anrl inland harbors of the 

15 Vnited States, the Users Board shall provide16 ''(A) prior to the development of the bndg17 et proposal of the President for a given fiscal 

18 year, advice and recommendations to the Sec19 retary regarding construction and rehabilitation 

20 priorities and spenrling levels; 

21 "(B) advice and recommendations to Con22 gress regarding any report of the Chief of Engi23 neers relating to those features and compo24 nents; 
105 


25114.098

CEL129a2 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

98 

S.L.C. 

"(C) advice and recommendations to Con2 gTess regarding· an increase in the authorized 

3 cost of those features and components; 

4 "(D) not later than GO days after the date 

5 of the submission of the budget proposal of the 

6 President to CongTess, advice and recommenda7 tions to Congress regarding construction and 

8 rehabilitation priorities and spending levels; and 

9 "(E) a long-term capital investment pro1 0 gram in accordance with subsection (d). 

11 "(3) PROJEC'l' DEVELOPlVIEi\'T TEA:VIS.-The 

12 chairperson of the Users Board shall appoint a rep13 rcsentative of the Users Board to serve on the 

14 project development team for a qualifying projeet or 

15 the study or design of a commercial navigation fea16 ture or component of the inland waterways and in17 land harbors of the United States. 

18 "(4) INDEPENDENT .JCDGMENT.-Any advice or 

19 recommendation made by the Users Board to the 

20 Secretary shall reflect the independent judgment of 

21 the Users Board."; 

22 (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as sub23 section (f); and 

24 (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol25 lmving·: 
106 


25114.099

cgLJ2932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

99 

S.L.C. 

1 "(c) DunEs OF' SECRETARY.-The Secretary shall2 "(1) communicate not less than once each quar3 ter to the Users Board the status of the study, de4 sign, or construction of all commercial navigation 

5 features or components of the inland waterways or 

6 inland harbors of the United States; and 

7 "(2) submit to the Users Board a courtesy copy 

8 of all reports of the Chief of Engineers relating to 

9 a commercial navigation feature or component of the 

IO inland waterways or inland harbors of the United 

II States. 

I2 "(d) CAPITAl; INVESTi'IIEXT PROGRAM.-

I3 "(1) IN GE:\'ERAI;.-Not later than 1 year after 

14 the date of enactment of this subsection, the SecIS retary, in coordination with the Users Board, shall 

I6 develop, and submit to Congress a report describing, 

I7 a 20-year program for making capital investments 

I8 on the inland and intracoastal water;vays, based on 

I9 the application of objective, national prQject selection 

20 prioritization criteria. 

21 "(2) CONSIDERATJON.-In developing the pro22 gram under parag-raph (1), the Secretary shall take 

23 into consideration the 20-year capital investment 

24 strategy contained in the Inland Marine 'l'ranspor25 tation System (IMTS) Capital Projects Business 
107 


25114.100

CEL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

100 

S.L.C. 

Model, Final Report published on April 1:3, 2010, as 

2 approved by the Users Board. 

3 "(3) CRITERlA.-In developing· the plan and 

4 prioritization criteria under paragraph (1), the Sec5 retary shall ensure, to the maximum e;.,.'tent prac6 ticable, that investments made under the 20-year 

7 program described in paragraph (1)-

8 "(A) are made in all g·eogTaphical areas of 

9 the inland waterways system; and 

10 "(B) ensure efficient funding of inland wall terways projects. 

12 "{4) S'rRNl'EGIC REVII<J\\' AND GPDATE.-Not 

13 later than 5 years after the date of enactment of 

14 this subsection, and not less frequently than once 

15 every 5 years thereafter, the Secretary, m conJunc16 tion with the Users Board, shall17 "{A) submit to CongTess a strategic review 

18 of the 20-year program in effect under this sub19 section, which shall identify and explain any 

20 changes to the project-specific recommendations 

21 contained in the previous 20-year program (in22 eluding· any changes to the prioritization cn23 teria used to develop the updated recommenda24 tions); and 
108 


25114.101

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

101 

S.LC. 

1 "(B) make such revisions to the program 

2 as the Secretary and Users Board jointly con3 sider to be appropriate. 

4 "(e) PROJECT MAXAGEMENT PI.Ji\NS.-The chair5 person of the Users Board and the project development 

6 team member appointed by the chairperson under sub7 section (b)(3) shall sign the project management plan for 

8 the qualif}'ing project or the study or design of a commer9 cia! navigation feature or component of the inland water1 0 ways and inland harbors of the United States.". 

11 SEC. 7004. MAJOR REHABILITATION STANDARDS. 

12 (a) IN GI<JNERAL.-The Secretary shall develop a 

13 methodology for applying standard accounting principles 

14 when classifying activities as ma;ior rehabilitation projects. 

15 (b) EVALGATIONS.-The Secretary shall evaluate the 

16 effect of applying the methodology developed under sub17 section (a) to not less than 3 qualif:)ring projects. 

18 (c) REPORT.-The Secretary shall submit to Con19 gTess a report on the evaluation under subsection (b). 

20 SEC. 7005. EFFICIENCY OF REVENUE COLLECTION. 

21 Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment 

22 of this Act, the Comptroller General shall prepare a report 

23 on the efficiency of collecting the fuel tax for the Inland 

24 Waterways Trust Fund, ·which shall include-
109 


25114.102

CEL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

102 

S.L.C. 

( 1) an evaluation of whether current methods of 

2 collection of the fuel tax result in full compliance 

3 with requirements of the law; 

4 (2) whether alternative methods of collection 

5 would result in increased revenues into the Inland 

6 ·waterways Trust Fund; and 

7 ( 3) an evaluation of' alternative collection op8 tions. 

9 TITLE VIII-HARBOR 

10 MAINTENANCE 

11 SEC. 8001. PURPOSES. 

12 The purposes of this title are13 (1) to ensure revenues collected into the Harbor 

14 Maintenance Trust Fund are used for the intended 

l 5 purposes of the revenues; 

16 (2) to increase investment in the operation and 

17 maintenance of United States ports, which are crit18 ical for the economie competitiveness of the nation; 

19 ( 3) to promote equity among ports natiomvide; 

20 and 

21 (4) to ensure United States ports are prepared 

22 to meet modern shipping needs, including the eapa23 bility to reeeive large ships that require deeper 

24 drafts. 
110 


25114.103

CEL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

10:3 

S.hC. 

SEC. 8002. FUNDING FOR HARBOR MAINrENANCE PRO2 GRAMS. 

3 (a.) DEFINITIO:.JR.-ln this seetion: 

4 (1) liAHBOR MAIN'l'ENAXCE PROGHAMS.-Tbe 

5 term "harbor maintenance programs" means ex6 penditures under section 9505(c)(l) of the Internal 

7 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to expenditures 

8 from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund). 

9 (2) lJEVEL OP HECf<}IPTS FOH IIARBOH ;\'lAIXTE10 ;-.<AXCE.-The term "level of receipts for harbor 

11 maintenance" means the Rmount of taxes credited to 

12 the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund under section 

13 9505(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

14 for a fiscal year as set forth in the President's budg15 et baseline projection as defined in section 257 of 

16 the Balanced Budg-et and Emergency Deficit Control 

17 Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 907) for that fiscal year subIS mitted under section 1105 of title :31, ·united States 

19 Code, reduced by the amount requested in the Presi20 dent's budget for payments described in section 

21 9505(c)(:3) of the Internal H.evenue Code of 1986. 

22 (:3) TOTAL BTTDGE'l' H.ESOURC'ER.-The term 

23 "total budget resources" means the total amount 

24 made available by appropriations Acts from the Har25 bor lVIaintenance Trust Fund for a fiseal year for 
111 


25114.104

cgL12fl32 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

104 

S.I •. C. 

making expenditures under section 9505(c)(l) of the 

2 Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

3 (b) HARBOR 1\LUN'l'ENA.'\CE TRUST FTJND GGAR4 A;'\TTEE.-

5 (1) IN GENERAL.-Subjeet to paragraph (2), 

6 the total budget resources for a fiscal year shall be 

7 equal to the level of receipts for harbor maintenance 

8 for that fiscal year, which amounts shall be used 

9 only for harbor maintenance progTams. 

10 (2) RESTIUCTION.-Paragraph (1) shall only 

11 apply for a fiscal year if the guarantee under that 

12 paragraph does not result in a reduction in the total 

13 amounts made available under appropriations Acts 

14 for that fiscal year for all programs, projeets, and 

15 activities of the Civil Works Program of the Corps 

16 of Engineers other than the harbor maintenance 

17 programs. 

18 SEC. 8003. HARBOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. 

19 Section 101 (h) of the Water Resources Development 

20 Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 221l(b)) is amended21 (1) in paragraph ( 1), by striking "45 feet" and 

22 inserting "50 feet"; and 

23 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

24 "(3) OPERATION AND :YIAINTE0L\_.'\JCE ACTIVI25 TIES DEFINED.-
112 


25114.105

CEL129:l2 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

105 

"(A) SCOPE OF OPERATION ;\_;'\]) MAINTENAi'I.TCE ACTIV1TIES.-Notwithstanding any 

other provision of law (including rcg11lations 

and guidelines) and subject to subparagraph 

(B), for purposes of this subsection, operation 

and maintenance activities that arc eligible for 

the Federal cost share under paragraph (1) 

shall include-

"(i) the dredging of berths in a harbor that is accessible to a Federal channel, 

if the Federal channel has been constructed to a depth equal to the authorized 

depth of the channel; and 

"(ii) the dredging and disposal of legacy-contaminated sediments and sediments 

unsuitable for ocean disposal that-

"(I) are located in or affect the 

maintenance of Federal navigation 

channels; or 

"(II) are located in berths that 

are accessible to Federal channels. 

"(B) I~I:\UTATIONS.-

"(i) IN GENERi\L.-For each fiscal 

year, subparagraph (A) shall only apply if 

all operation and maintenance activities 
113 


25114.106

CEL129~2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

DISCUSSION DRAFI' 

106 

S.L.C. 

that are eligible for the Federal eost share 

under paragTaph (1) in a State dcseribed 

in clause (ii) have been funded. 

"(ii) STATE LL\IITATIO:\".-For each 

fiscal year, the operation and maintenance 

activities described in subparagraph (A) 

may only be carried out in a State that-

"(1) contributes not less than 2.5 

percent annually of the total funding 

of the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund eBtablished under section 9505 

of the Intemal Revenue Code of 1986; 

and 

"(II) received less than 50 percent of the total amounts collected in 

the State pursuant to section ~)505 of 

the Internal R.evenne Code of 1H86 in 

the previous :1 fiscal years. 

"(iii) PIUORITIZATIO:\".-ln allocating· 

amounts made available under this paragraph, the Secretary shall give priority to 

prQjects that have received the lowest rate 

of funding from the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust fund in previous fiscal years.". 
114 


25114.107

CJ<JL129:l2 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

107 

TITLE IX-DAM SAFETY 

2 SEC. 9001. SHORT TITLE. 

S.hC. 

3 This title may be cited as the "Dam Safety Act of 

4 2012". 

5 SEC. 9002. PURPOSE. 

6 The purpose of this title and the amendments made 

7 by this title is to reduce the risks to life and property from 

8 dam failure in the United States through the reauthoriza9 tiou of an effective national dam safety program that 

10 brings together the expertise and resources of the Federal 

11 Government and non-l<~ederal interests in achieving na12 tiona! dam safety hazard reduction. 

13 SEC. 9003. ADMINISTRATOR. 

14 (a) ll\ GENERAh-The National Dam Safety Pro15 gram Act (33 U.S.C. 467 et seq.) is amended by striking 

16 "Director" each place it appears and inserting "Adminis17 trator". 

18 (b) CONI<'OR.MING AMEND:VIENT.-Section 2 of the 

19 National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467) is 

20 amended21 (1) by striking paragraph (3); 

22 (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 

23 paragraphs (2) and (:3), respeetively; and 

24 (3) by inserting before para~:,>Taph (2) (as redcs25 ignated by paragraph (2)) the following·: 
115 


25114.108

CEL 129:12 DISCUSSION DRAFT :S.L.C. 

108 

"(1) ADMINISTRA'l'OR.-The term 'Adminis2 trator' means the Administrator of the Federal 

3 Emergency Management Agency.". 

4 SEC. 9004. INSPECTION OF DAMS; 

5 Section 3(b)(1) of the National Darn Safety Program 

6 Act (33 U.S.C. 467a(b)(1)) is amended by striking "or 

7 maintenance" and inserting "maintenance, condition, or 

8 provisions for emergency operations". 

9 SEC. 9005. NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM. 

10 (1) 0BJECTIVES.-Section S(c) of the National 

11 Dam Safety Program Act (:13 U.S.C. 467f(c)) is 

12 amended by striking paragraph ( 4) and inserting the 

13 following: 

14 "( 4) develop and implement a comprehensive 

15 dam safety hazard education and public awareness 

16 program to assist the public in preparing for, miti17 gating, responding to, and recovering· from dam inci18 dents;". 

19 (2) BOARD.-Section 8(f)(4) of the National 

20 Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467f(f)( 4)) is 

21 amended by inserting ", representatives from non22 g·overnmental organizations," after "State agencies". 
116 


25114.109

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

109 

S.L.C. 

SEC. 9006. PUBLIC AWARENESS AND OUTREACH FOR DAM 

2 SAFETY. 

3 'l'he National Dam Safety Program Aet 03:3 F.S.C. 

4 4G7 et seq.) i~; mnenderl5 (1) hy redpsignating sedions 11, 12, and 1:3 as 

6 seet.iom; 12, 1>l, nnd J 4, respeetiYel~·: nn<l 

7 (2) h~· inserting nftpr· s;c•etion 10 (:3:3 F.S.C. 

8 4l"i7g--1) the following: 

9 "SEC. 11. PUBLIC AWARENESS AND OUTREACH FOR DAM 

10 SAFETY. 

1 I '''l'he Administr·ntm·, iu eonsnltation with othe1· Ferl12 eral agPneies, StatP nnd loenl g;owrtllllPJlts. dtnn owners, 

I 3 the enwrgPncr mn nagenwnt eonummity. the priYnte s~·<:-

14 tor·, noHgm·ernmentnl organizations mHI associations, in15 stitntion~; or hig·her ednn1tion, nnd nn~· other approprintl'' 

16 entities shnll earry out a nntion\\'i(le publie awaJ't•uess ancl 

17 outreach program to assist tlw jmhlic in preparing for, 

18 rnitigaliug, n•sponding to, nnd r<•eowring from darn inci19 dents. n 

20 SEC. 9007. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

(I) NXI'IO~"\L D.UJ SM'ETY PHOGIL\:\I.-

(I\) A~~L\L .\:\I<H':-.:Ts.--8l'dion 1"Hn)(l) 

of the National Dmn Snfety Progrmn L\d (;3:3 

F.S.C. 4fi7j(a)( 1 )) (ns so rc>designate<l) 1s 

nmewled by st1·iking ''$G.fi00,000" and all tllllt 

follows throngh '·~011'' and inserting-
117 


25114.110

CtJL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT t:i.L.C. 

110 

1 "$9,200,000 for each of fiscal years 2013 

2 through 2017". 

3 (B) lYlAxri\IUM Ai\IOt;NT OF JU,LOCATION.-

4 Section 14(a)(2)(B) of the National Dam Safe5 ty Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467j(a)(2)(B)) (as 

6 so redesignated) is amended7 (i) by striking "The amount" and m8 serting the following: 

9 "(i) b: GE:\"ERAL.-The amount"; and 

10 (ii) by adding at the end the fol11 lo>'<ing: 

12 "(ii) FISCAL YEAR i01:3 AND SURSrJ13 QUENT I'"ISCAIJ YEARS.-For fiscal year 

14 2013 and each subsequent fiscal year, the 

15 amount of funds allocated to a State under 

16 this paragraph may not exceed the amount 

17 of funds committed by the State to imple18 ment dam safety activities.". 

19 (2) NA'l'IONAI, DAM INVENTORY.-Section 14(b) 

20 of the National Dam Safety Prognm1 Act (3~1 

21 U.S.C. 467j(b)) (as so redesignated) is amended by 

22 striking "$650,000" and all that follows through 

23 "2011" and inserting "$500,000 for each of fiscal 

24 years 2018 through 2017". 
118 


25114.111

CEL129:l2 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

111 

(3) PUBLIC AWARENESS.-Section 14 of the 

2 National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467j) 

3 (as so redesignated) is amended4 (A) by redesignating subsections (c) 

5 through (f) as subsections (d) through (g), re6 spectively; and 

7 (B) by inserting after subsection (b) the 

8 following: 

9 "(c) Pum,rc AWARENESS.-There is authorized to be 

10 appropriated to carry out section 1 1 $1,000,000 for each 

11 of fiscal years 2013 through 2017.". 

12 (4) RESEARCH.-Section 14(d) of the National 

13 Dam Safety Program Act (as so redesignated) is 

14 amended by striking "$1,600,000" and all that fol15 lows through "2011" and inserting "$1,450,000 for 

16 each of fiscal years 2013 through 2017". 

17 (5) DA.vi S1WE'l'Y 'l'RAINI:\'G.-Section 14(e) of 

18 the National Dam Safety Program Act (as so redes19 ignated) is amended by striking "$550,000" and all 

20 that follows through "2011" and inserting 

21 "$750,000 for each of fiscal years 2013 through 

22 2017". 

23 (6) S'J'.\FF.-Section 14(f) of the National Dam 

24 Safety Program Act (as so redesignated) is amended 

25 by striking "$700,000" and all that follows through 
119 


25114.112

CI<~L\2932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

112 

S.L.C. 

"2011" and inserting "$1,000,000 for each of fiscal 

2 years 2013 through 2017". 

3 TITLE X-INNOVATIVE 

4 FINANCING PILOT PROJECTS 

5 SEC. 10001. SHORT TITLE. 

6 This title may be cited as the "\Vater Infrastructure 

7 Finance and Innovation Act of 2012". 

8 SEC. 10002. PURPOSES. 

9 The purposes of this title are10 (1) to promote increased development of critical 

11 water resources infrastructure by establishing mldi12 tiona! opportunities for financing water resources 

13 projects; 

14 (2) to attract new investment capital to i!J.fra15 structure projects that are capable of generating rev16 enue streams through user fees or other dedicated 

17 funding sources; 

18 (3) to complement existing Federal funding 

19 sources and address budgetary constraints on the 

20 Corps of Engineers civil works progTam; and 

21 ( 4) to leverage private investment in water re22 sources infrastructure. 

23 SEC. 10003. DEFINITIONS. 

24 In this title: 
120 


25114.113

CI~L12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

113 

S.I,.C. 

(1) ADlVIIC\'ISTRATOR.-The term "Adminis2 trator" means the Administrator of the Environ3 mental Protection Agency. 

4 (2) CO:.VIMUNITY WATER SYSTEM.-The term 

5 "community water system" has the meaning given 

6 the term in section 1401 of the Safe Drinking W at.er 

7 Act (42 U.S.C. 300f'). 

8 (3) FEDERAL CREDIT INSTRUMENT.-The term 

9 "F'ederal credit instn1ment." means a secured. loan 

10 or loan guarantee authorized to be made available 

11 under this title with respect to a project. 

12 (4) l!'.'VESTME:--JT-GR.i\DE R.i\TING.-The term 

13 "investment.-gTade rating" means a rating of BBB 

14 minus, Baa3, bbb minus, BBB (low), or higher as15 signed by a rating agency to project obligations. 

16 (5) !.JENDER.-

17 (A) IN GENERAL.-The term "lender" 

18 means any non-Federal qualified institutional 

19 buyer (as defined in section 230.144A(a) of 

20 title 17, Code of Federal Regulations (or a suc21 cessor regulation), known as Rule 144A(a) of 

22 the Securities and Exchange Commission and 

23 issued. under the Securities Act of 193:3 (15 

24 U.S.C. 77a ct. seq.)). 
121 


25114.114

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

114 

S.L.C. 

(B) INCI"CSIOXS.-The term "lender" in2 cludes3 (i) a qualified retirement plan (as de4 fined in section 4974(c) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986) that is a qualified 

6 institutional buyer; and 

7 (ii) a g-overnmental plan (as defined in 

8 section 414(d) of the Intcmal Revenue 

9 Code of 1986) that is a qualified institu1 0 tiona! !myel'. 

11 (6) LOA:\ GCARi\3\'l'I<JE.-The term "loan guar12 antee" means any guarantee or other pledge by the 

13 Secretary or the Administrator to pay all or part of 

14 the principal of, and interest ou, a loan or other debt 

15 oblig-ation issued by an obligor and funded by a lend16 cr. 

17 (7) OBLIGOR.-'rhe term "obligor" means an 

18 eligible entity that is primarily liable for payment of 

19 the principal of, or interest on, a ~'ederal credit in20 stmment. 

21 (8) PR(W<:C'l' OBLIGA'l'IOX.-

22 (A) Ix GENimA.L.-The term "project obli23 gation" tilCans any note, bond, debenture, or 

24 other debt obligation issued by an obligor in 

25 connection with the financing of a project. 
122 


25114.115

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

115 

B.L.C. 

(B) Excr,cSION.-The term "project obli2 gation" does not include a Federal credit in3 strument. 

4 (9) RATING AGENCY-The term "rating agen5 cy" means a credit rating agency registered with the 

6 Securities and Exchange Commission as a nationally 

7 recognized statistical rating organization (as defined 

8 in section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 

9 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a))). 

10 (10) SECCRED LOAN.-The term "secured 

11 loan" means a direct loan or other debt obligation 

12 issued by an obligor and funded by the Secretary in 

13 eonneetion vvith the financing of a project under sec14 tion 10010. 

15 (11) STATK-The term "State" means16 (A) a State; 

17 (B) the District of Columbia; 

18 (C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; 

19 and 

20 (D) any other territory or possession of the 

21 United States. 

22 (12) STATE I:'>FRAS'l'RUCTCRE J.'INANCING AC23 TIIORITY.-Tlw term "State infrastnlCturc financing 

24 authority" means the State entity established or des25 ignated by the Governor of a State to receive a cap-
123 


25114.116

CEL129:J2 DISCUSSION DRAFT S.L.C. 

1Hi 

1 italir.ation grant provided by, or otherwise carry out 

2 the requirements of, title VI of the Federal vVater 

3 Pollution Control Act (83 U.S.C. 1381 et. seq.) or 

4 section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act ( 42 

5 U.S.C. 300j-12). 

6 (1:3) SUBSIDY AMOUNT.-The tt~rm "subsidy 

7 amount" means the amount of budget authority suf8 ficient to cover the estimated long·-term cost to the 

9 f'ederal Government of a Federal credit instrument, 

10 as calculated on a net present value basis, excluding 

11 administrative eosts ami any incidental effects on 

12 governmental receipts or outlays in accordance with 

13 the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 

14 661 et seq.). 

15 (14) SCBS'l'ANTIAL COl\IPLETIOK-The term 

16 "substantial completion", with respect to a project, 

17 means the earliest date on which a project is consid18 ered to perform the fnnctions for which the project 

19 is designed. 

20 (15) TREAT?vii<JNT WORKS.-The term "treat21 ment ·works" has the meaning given the term in sec22 tion 212 of the l<'ederal \Vater Pollution Control Act 

23 (:3:3 U.S.C. 1292). 
124 


25114.117

CEL129:J2 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

117 

SEC. 10004. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE. 

S.L.C. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary and the Adminis3 trator may provide financial assistance under this title to 

4 carry out not more than 10 pilot projects each, which shall 

5 be selected to ensure a diversity of project types and geo6 graphical locations. 

7 (b) RESPONSIBILITY.-

8 (1) SECRE'l'ARY.-The Secretary shall carry out 

9 all pilot projects under this title that are eligible 

10 projects under seetion 10007(1). 

11 (2) AmnNISTRATOR.-The Administrator shall 

12 carry out all pilot projects under this title that are 

13 elig·ible prQjects under paragraphs (2) through (8) of 

14 section 10007. 

15 SEC. 10005. APPLICATIONS. 

16 (a) IN GENERAL.-To receive assistance under this 

17 title, an eligible entity shall submit to the Secretary or 

18 the Administrator, as applicable, an application at such 

19 time, in such manner, and containing such information as 

20 the Secretary or the Administrator may require. 

21 (b) COMBINED PROJECTS.-In the case of an eligible 

22 project described in section 10007(8), the Administrator 

23 shall require the eligible entity to submit a single appliea24 tion for the combined group of projects. 
125 


25114.118

CEL129;J2 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

118 

SEC. 10006. ELIGIDLE ENTITIES. 

S.L.C. 

2 The following entities are eligible to receive assistance 

3 under this title: 

4 (1) A corporation. 

5 (2) A partnership. 

6 ( 3) A joint venture. 

7 ( 4) A trust. 

8 (5) A Federal, State, or local governmental en9 tity, agency, or instrumentality. 

10 (G) A State infrastructure financing authority. 

11 SEC. 10007. PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE. 

12 The following projects may be carried out with 

13 amounts made available under this title: 

14 (1) A project for flood control that the Sec15 retary has determined is technically sound, economi16 cally justified, and environmentally acceptable, in17 eludingIS (A) a structural or nonstructural measure 

19 to reduce flood risk, enhance stream flow, or 

20 protect natural resources; and 

21 (B) a levee, dam, tunnel, aqueduct, res22 ervoir, or other related water infrastructure. 

23 (2) 1 or more aetivitieR that are eligible for as24 RiRtance under section 603(c) of the l~'cdcral Water 

25 Pollution Control Act (3:3 U.S.C. 1383(c)), notwith-
126 


25114.119

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

119 

S.L.C. 

standing the pnblie ownership requirement under 

2 paragraph (1) of that suhseetion. 

3 (8) 1 or more aetivities described m seetion 

4 1452(a)(2) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 300j-12(a)(2)). 

6 ( 4) A projeet for enhanced energy effieiency in 

7 the operation of a public water system. 

8 ( 5) A project for aeeelerated repair and replaee9 ment of an aging water distribution faeility. 

10 (6) A braekish or sea water desalination 

11 projeet. 

12 (7) Aequisition of real property or an interest 

13 in real property for water storage, reelaimed or recy14 cled water, or ·wastewater, if the aequisition is int.e15 gral to a project deseribed in paragTaphs (1) 

16 through (6). 

17 ( 8) A eombination of projects, each of which is 

18 eligible under paragraph (2) or (8), for which a 

19 State infrastrueture financing authority submits to 

20 the Administrator a single applieation. 

21 SEC. 10008. ACTIVITIES ELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE. 

22 For purposes of this title, an elig·ible activity with re23 spect to an eligible project ineludes the eost of24 ( 1) development-phase activities, including plan25 ning, feasibility analysis, revenue forecasting, envi-
127 


25114.120

CEL129:J:2 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 SEC. 

19 

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

120 

S.L.C. 

ronmental review, permitting, preliminary engineering· and design work, and other preconstruction activities; 

(2) construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, 

and replacement activities; 

03) the acquisition of real property (including 

water rights, land relating to the project, and improvements to land), environmental mitigation, construction contingencies, and acquisition of equipment; 

( 4) capitalized interest necessary to meet market requirements, reasonably required reserve funds, 

capital issuance expenses, and other carrying costs 

during construction; and 

( 5) refinancing interim construction funding, 

long-term project obligations, or a secured loan or 

loan guarantee made under this title. 

10009. DETERMINATION OF ELIGIDILITY AND 

PROJECT SELECTION. 

20 (a) ELIGIBIIXl'Y REQCIRE;\>!E::-.I'l'S.-To be eligible to 

21 receive financial assistance under this title, a project shall 

22 meet the following criteria, as determined by the Secretary 

23 or Administrator, as applicable: 

24 ( 1) CREDITWORTHINESS.-
128 


25114.121

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

121 

S.hC. 

(A) Ix GENERAr_,.-Subject to subparagraph (B), the project shall be creditworthy, 

which shall be determined by the Secretary or 

the Administrator, as applicable, who shall ensure that any financing for the project has appropriate security features, such as a rate covenant, to ensure repayment. 

(B) PRBLIMINARY RATIXG OPINIOX LETTER-The Secretary or the Administrator, as 

applicable, shall require each project applicant 

to provide a preliminary rating opinion letter 

from at least 1 rating agency indicating· that 

the senior obligations of the project (which may 

be the F'ederal credit instrument) have the potential to achieve an investment-grade rating. 

(C) SPECIAl1 RC]_,E FOR CERTAIX COMBINED PRO.HJCTR.-The Administrator shall develop a credit evaluation process for a Federal 

credit instrument provided to a State infrastructure financing authority for a project 

under seetion 10007(8), which may inelude requiring the provision of a preliminary rating 

opinion lettPr from at least 1 rating ageney. 
129 


25114.122

CEL129:32 DISCUSSION DRAFT S.L.C. 

122 

1 (2) Et..IGIBI"E PHOJECT COSTS.-The eligible 

2 project costs of a prqject shall be reasonably antici3 pated to be not less than $20,000,000. 

4 (3) DEDICA'l'ED REVENUE SOURCES.-The Fed5 eral credit instrument for the prqject shall be repay6 able, in whole or in part, from dedicated revenue 

7 sources that also secure the project obligations. 

8 ( 4) Pt:nLIC SPO:\SORSIIIP OF PRIVA'm E:\'1'1-

9 TIES.-In the case of a project carried out by an en1 0 tity that is not a State or local government or an 

11 agency or instrumentality of a State or local govern12 ment, the project shall be publicly sponsored. 

13 (b) SELECTIOX CRI'I'ERIA.-

14 (1) ESTABI"ISIC\IEN'l'.-The Secretary or the 

15 Administrator, as applicable, shall establish criteria 

16 for the selection of prqjects that meet the eligibility 

17 requirements of subsection (a), in accordance ·with 

18 paragraph (2). 

19 (2) CRITERIA.-The selection criteria shall m20 elude the following: 

21 (A) The eJo.'ient to whieh the prqject is na22 tionally or regionally significant, with respect to 

23 the generation of economic benefits. 

24 (B) The extent to which assistance under 

25 this section would foster innovative publie-pri-
130 


25114.123

CEI~l2932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

123 

S.hC. 

vate partnerships and attract private debt or 

2 equity investment. 

3 (C) The likelihood that assistance under 

4 this section would enable the project to proceed 

5 at an earlier· date than the project would other6 wise be able to proceed. 

7 (D) The extent to which the project uses 

8 new or innovative approaches. 

9 (E) The amount of budget authority re1 0 quired to fund the "B~ederal credit instrument 

11 made available under this title. 

12 (F) The extent to which the project helps 

13 maintain or protect the emrironment. 

14 (G) The extent to which assistance under 

15 this section reduce the contribution of Federal 

16 grant assistance to the project. 

17 (3) SPECIAl, RUI,E 'B'OR CERTAI:-.J COMBII'\ED 

18 PROJECTS.-For a project described in section 

19 10007(8), the Administrator shall only consider the 

20 criteria described in subparagraphs (B) through (G) 

21 of paragraph (2). 

22 (c) FEDERAL HEQUIREMEN'rS.-Nothing in this sec23 tion supersedes the applicability of other requirements of 

24 Federal law (including regulations). 
131 


25114.124

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

124 

SEC. 10010. SECURED LOANS. 

2 (a) ArmEE7~m:-.:Ts.-

3 (1) I:-.: m::-.:IUL\L.-Snhject to paragraphs (2) 

4 through ( 4), the Seeretm-y or the Administrator, as 

5 applicable, may enter into agTeements with 1 or 

6 more obligors to make seeur·ed loans, the proceeds of 

7 which shall he uspd8 (A) to finauee eligible projed costs of any 

9 jll'()jed selpeted under sedion lOOml; 

10 (13) to refinauce interim eonstrnetion fill naneing· of eligible projeet costs of any project 

12 selected nuder section IOOOD; or 

13 (C) to refiunnee tong-tenn projed obliga14 tions or Pederal credit instrmnents, if that refi15 naneing provides additional funding eapal:ity for 

16 the eompletion, enhancement, m· expansion of 

17 any project thatIS (i) is selc>eted nuder sc>etion 1 0009; or 

I 9 (ii) otherwise meets the requirements 

20 of seetion 100(HJ. 

21 (2) !JH!I'IWI'IO"-' 0:-.: REFJ:-.:,\:-.:CI:-.:U OF r:-.:'l'ElUM 

22 co:-.:STIWC'riO:-.: FI:-.:A:-.:CI"-'G.-A secured loan under 

23 rmragraph (1) shall uot be nsed to refinance interim 

24 construction finnneing- under parngn1ph (1)(13) later 

25 than 1 year after the clat<' of substantial completion 

26 of the applic•able projeet. 
132 


25114.125

CEL12932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

125 

S.LC. 

(8) RISK ASSESSi.\IENT.-Before entering into 

2 an agreement under this subsection for a secured 

3 loan, the Secretary or the Administrator, as applica4 ble, in consultation ·with the Director of the Office 

5 of Management and Budget and each rating agency 

6 providing a preliminary rating opinion letter under 

7 section 10009(a)(1)(B), shall determine an appro8 priate capital reserve subsidy amount for the secured 

9 loan, taking into account each such preliminary ratIO ing opinion letter. 

11 ( 4) INVESTMENT-GRADE RATING REQUIRE12 ME~'r.-The execution of a secured loan under this 

13 section shall be contingent on receipt by the senior 

14 obligations of the project of an investment-grade rat15 mg;. 

16 (b) TERi.\fS AND Lii.\UTATIO~S.-

17 (1) IN GBJNERAL.-A secured loan provided for 

18 a project under this section shall be subject to such 

19 terms and conditions, and contain such covenants, 

20 representations, warranties, and requirements (in21 eluding requirements for audits), as the Secretary or 

22 the Administrator, as applicable, determines to be 

23 appropriate. 
133 


25114.126

DISCUSSION DRAFT S.L.C. 

126 

(2) lVL\XI:VIU.:.Vl AMOlJNT.-The amount of a se2 cured loan under this section shall not exceed the 

3 lesser of----

4 (A) an amount equal to 49 percent of the 

5 reasonably anticipated eligible project costs; and 

6 (B) if the secur·ed loan does not receive an 

7 inYestment-grade rating, the amount of the sen8 ior project obligations of the project. 

9 (3) PAniE:\'T.-A secm·ed loan under this sec10 tion11 (A) shall he payable, in ·whole or in part, 

12 from State or local taxes, user fees, or other 

13 dedicated revenue sources that also secure the 

14 senior project obligations of the relevant 

15 project; 

16 (B) shall include a rate covenant, coverage 

17 requirement, or similar security feature sup18 porting the projeet obligations; and 

19 (C) may have a lien on revenues described 

20 in subparagn1ph (A), subject to any lien secur21 ing project obligations. 

22 ( 4) INTEREST RATE.-The interest rate on a 

23 secured loan under this section shall be not less than 

24 the yield on United States Treasury securities of a 
134 


25114.127

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

127 

S.hC. 

similar maturity to the maturity of the secured loan 

2 on the date of execution of the loan agreement. 

3 (5) lVlATURITY DATE.-

4 (A) IK GE:\'ERAL.-The final maturity date 

5 of a secured loan under this section shall be not 

6 later than 85 years after the date of substantial 

7 completion of the relevant project. 

8 (B) SPECIAL RUI,E FOR STATE INI<'fu\-

9 STRUCTURE I•'I:\"ANCING AUTIIORITIES.-The 

10 final maturity date of a secured loan to a State 

11 infrastructure financing authority under this 

12 section shall be not later than 85 years after 

13 the date on which amounts are first disbursed. 

14 (6) No:--:s1:noRDIXATIOX.-A secured loan 

15 under this section shall not he subordinated to the 

16 claims of any holder of project obligations in the 

17 event of bankruptc~', insolvency, or liquidation of the 

18 obligor of the project. 

19 (7) PEE8.-The Secretary or the Adminis20 trator, as applicable, may establish fees at a level 

21 sufficient to cover all or a portion of the costs to the 

22 :B,ederal Government of making a secured loan under 

23 this section. 

24 (H) NON-I•'EDERAL SIL\RE.-The proceeds of a 

25 sPrured loan unrler this sertion may be used to pay 
135 


25114.128

c~~Ll2932 DISCUSSION DRAFT 

128 

S.L.C. 

1 any non-Federal share of project costs required if 

2 the loan is repayable from non-Federal funds. 

3 (9) 1\1Ax:rlVICM FEDERAL ll'-'VOINEl\IEXT.-F'or 

4 each project for which assistance is provided under 

5 this title, the total amount of Federal assistance 

6 shall not exceed 80 percent of the total project cost. 

7 (c) REPAYNIENT.-

8 (1) SCIIEDCLE.-'l'he Secretary or the Admin9 istrator, as applicable, shall establish a repayment 

10 schedule for each secured loan provided under this 

11 section, based on the projected cash flow from 

12 project revenues and other repayment sources. 

13 (2) COMl\IENCEMENT.-

14 (A) I~ GENERAI-.-Scheduled loan repay15 ments of principal or interest on a secured loan 

16 under this section shall commence not later 

17 than 5 years after the date of substantial com18 pletion of the project. 

19 (B) SPECIAL RULE B'OR STA'l'E II\'l:-'RA20 STRUCTCRE I<'INANCING ACTHORITIES.-Sched21 uled loan repa:~-wents of principal or interest on 

22 a secured loan to a State infrastructure financ23 ing authority under thiR title shall commence 

24 not later than 5 years after the date on which 

25 amounts are firRt disbursed. 
136 


25114.129

CNL12932 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

129 

(3) DEF'ERRJ<JD PAYJ\IENTS.-

S.L.C. 

(A) AUTIIORIZATIO;\.-If, at any time 

after the date of substantial completion of a 

project for which a secured loan is provided 

under this section, the project is unable to generate sufficient revenues to pay the scheduled 

loan repayments of principal and interest on the 

secured loan, the Secretary or the Administrator, as applicable, sul:(ject to subparagraph 

(C), may allow the obligor to add unpaid principal and interest to the outstanding balance of 

the secured loan. 

(B) I;..;TEREST.-An)' payment deferred 

under subparagraph (A) shall-

(i) continue to accrue interest in accordance 'vith subsection (b)( 4) until fully 

repaid; and 

(ii) be scheduled to be amortized over 

the remaining term of the secured loan. 

(C) CRTTERIA.-

(i) IN GEXERAL.-Any payment deferral under subparagraph (A) shall be contingent on the project meeting such criteria. as the Secretary or the Administrator, as applicable, may establish. 
137 


25114.130

Cl<JL12982 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

130 

S.L.C. 

(ii) REPAY~IEX'l' S'l'ANDAHDS.-'l'he 

criteria establiRhed under elauRe (i) Rhall 

include standards for reasonable assurance 

of repayment. 

( 4) PREPXYlVIE:\'1'.-

(A) USE (W EXCESS HEVENUES.-Any excess revenues that remain after satisfYing 

scheduled debt service requirements on the 

pn~ject obligations and secured loan and all deposit requirements under the terms of any tmst 

agTeement, bond resolution, or similar agreement securing project obligations may be applied annually to prepay a secured loan under 

this section without penalty. 

(D) USE OF PHOCEEDS OF REPI16 NANCING.-A secured loan under this section 

17 may be prepaid at any time ·without penalty 

18 from the proceeds of refinancing from non-Fecl19 eral funding sources. 

20 (d) SALE OP SECl!RED LO.AXS.-

21 (1) IN GENERAL.-Subject to paragraph (2), as 

22 soon as practicable after the date of substantial 

23 completion of a project and after pro-viding· a notice 

24 to the obligor, the Secretary or the Administrator, as 

25 applicable, may sell to another entity or reoffer into 
138 


25114.131

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

131 

S.L.C. 

the capital markets a secured loan for a prqjeet 

2 under this section, if the Secretary or the Adminis3 trator, as applicable, determines that the sale or re4 offering can be made on favorable terms. 

5 (2) COXSE?\'r OF OBLIGOR-In making a sale 

6 or reoffer·ing· under paragraph (1 ), the Seeretary or 

7 the Administrator, as applicable, may not ehange the 

8 original terms and eonditions of the secured. loan 

9 v.rithout the written consent of the obligor. 

10 (e) J10AN GUARA.NTEES.-

11 (1) IN GK\'gRAf~.-The Secretary or the Admin12 istmtor, as applicable, may pro,ide a loan guarantee 

13 to a lender in lien of making a secured loan under 

14 this section, if the Seeretary or the Administrator, 

15 as applicable, determines that the budgetary eost of 

16 the loan guarantee is substantially the same as that 

17 of a secured loan. 

18 (2) TBRl\IS.-The terms of a loan guarantee 

19 provided under this subsection shall bP eonsistent 

20 ;.vith the terms established in this section for a se21 cured loan, except that the r-ate on the guaranteed 

22 loan and any prPpayment features shall be neg·o23 tinted bet,veen the obligor and the lender, with the 

24 ronsent of tlw Se<•.retar·y or the Administrator, as 

25 applieable. 
139 


25114.132

('EI.,J2'J:l2 DISCUSSION DRAFT ':l.L.C. 

1:32 

SEC. 10011. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION. 

2 (a) HE(~CIHE.\!Eo'\T.-'l'he Sc:et'f'tm·~· or tlw Adminis3 trator, as applienble, shall establish a Hniform s~·stl'm to 

4 service the Peden1l eredit instrunwnts made nvailnhle 

5 under this title. 

6 (b) FEE~.-

7 (1) lo'\ GEo'\EK\L.-Tlw 8eeretm-:-;· or the Admin8 istrator, as appli(•able, ma~· collect and spend ft>es, 

9 contingent on authority being proYided in appropria10 tions Aets, Ht 11 lewl that is suffieient. to eover-· 

ll (AJ the eosts of serTiees of expert firms re12 tained pm·smmt to subsection (d); nnd 

13 (B) all or a portion of the eosts to the 

14 Federal Government of servieiug the I<'ederal 

15 eredit instmnwnts provided under this title. 

16 (e) SimVICER17 (1) 1:-.: OEo'\ER\L.-The Se('rl'tary or the Admin18 istrntor, as appli(•nble. may appoint n f'imuH'ial eutity 

19 to assist tile Secretary or tlw Adrniuistratm· in sen·-

20 ieiug the Fed era I eredit instnunents rwovided 1mder 

21 this title. 

22 (2) Dn'IES.-A serTil~er appointed nuder para23 graph ( 1) shall aet as the ag·r~nt for the Se(•retary or 

24 the Admiuistrat.o1·, as applieable. 

25 (:-3) F'EE.-A servieer appointed un(ler para26 gTaph (1) shall reeeiw a seJYieing fee, sultjeet to ap-
140 


25114.133

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

133 

S.hC. 

proval by the Secretary or the Administrator, as ap2 plicable. 

3 (d) ASSIS'rAXCE FRO:NI EXPERTS.-The Secretary or 

4 the Administrator, as applicable, may retain the services, 

5 including counsel, of organizations and entities with exper6 tise in the field of municipal and project finance to assist 

7 in the underwriting and servicing of Federal credit instru8 ments provided under this title. 

9 (e) APPI,ICABILITY OF 0'I'IIEH l.JAWS.-Section 513 

10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 

11 1372) applies to the construction of a project carried out, 

12 in whole or in part, with assistance made available through 

13 a Federal credit instrument under this title in the same 

14 manner that section applies to a treatment works for 

15 which a gTant is made available under that Act. 

16 SEC. 10012. STATE AND LOCAL PERMITS. 

17 The provision of financial assistance for project under 

18 this title shall not19 (1) relieve any recipient of the assiRtance of any 

20 obligation to obtain any required State or local per21 mit or approval with respect to the project; 

22 (2) limit the right of any unit of State or local 

23 government to approve or rer,rulate any rate of re24 turn on private equit~· invested in the project; or 
141 


25114.134

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

134 

H.L.C. 

1 (3) otherwise supersede any State or local law 

2 (including any regulation) applicable to the construc3 tion or operation of the project. 

4 SEC. 10013. REGULATIONS. 

5 The Secretary or the Administrator, as applicable, 

6 may promulgate such regulations as the Secretary or Ad7 ministrator determines to be appropriate to carry out this 

8 title. 

9 SEC. 10014. FUNDING. 

10 (a) IN GENERAio.-There is authorized to be approIt priated to each of the Secretary and the Administrator 

12 to carry out this title $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 

13 2013 through 2017, to remain available until expended. 

14 (b) ADMIXISTRATIVE CosTs.-Of the funds made 

15 available to carry out this title, the Secretary or the Ad16 rninistrator, as applicable, may use for the administration 

17 of this title not more than $2,200,000 for each of fiscal 

18 years 2013 throug·h 2017. 

19 SEC. 10015. REPORT TO CONGRESS. 

20 Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment 

21 of this Aet, and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary 

22 or the Administrator, as applicable, shall submit to the 

23 Committee on Environment and Public 'Vorks of the Sen24 ate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastrue25 ture of the House of l{epresentatives a report summa-
142 


25114.135

DISCUSSION DRAFT 

135 

s.r,.c. 

rizing the financial performance of the projects that are 

2 receiving, or have received, assistance under this title, in3 eluding a recommendation as to whether the objectives of 

4 this title arc being met. 
143 

Senator BOXER. This provision directs the Corps to work with the 

National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the options to reducing 

risks associated with future disasters, identify the infrastructure 

investments we need and explore potential funding sources for 

these investments. We also ask for GAO review of Corps policies 

and practices related to flood control and to drought, to ensure that 

the Corps is taking appropriate measures to prepare for and respond to these events. 

Very importantly, the provision also provides new authority to 

the Corps to conduct post-disaster watershed assessments and implementation of critical flood control without being stalled by bureaucratic delays and adherence to several different laws. This 

would allow them, in the wake of a disaster such as Katrina or 

Sandy, to move forward when there is clear evidence of a problem 

that we know how to fix. 

So the last point that I want to make that I am excited about 

is we have set up something called WIFIA, which is based on 

TIFIA, which is a way to get the Federal Government to assist the 

localities that have funding for these important infrastructure 

projects, to get that funding up front, no risk to the Federal Government. And it really has about a 30 to 1 leverage. So we come 

in small on this, just as a way to see if it works. But we are excited 

about this concept. 

So I hope my colleagues feel that this first draft is a good start. 

It is only a first draft; I want to underscore that. The final bill is 

going to be very different. It is going to reflect every member’s 

views, I assure you that. 

Again, I am very grateful to Senators Inhofe and Vitter for taking the lead in getting this letter to me. Because this letter says 

to me, we are ready to work; we are ready to cooperate. That is 

what the people want. We showed we could do it in the highway 

bill. Believe me, we all were together on that. And I think we are 

going to do it on WRDA. I am excited about it. 

And with that, I turn to my Ranking Member. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

First, for a little clarification, a lot of people are not aware of the 

fact that Republicans have different regulations and rules than 

Democrats do. Because of that, we do have a 6-year limitation on 

being a Ranking Member or a Chairman, depending on whether a 

majority or minority. And of course, that is why you are seeking 

a change. But I want to make sure everyone understands, I plan 

to continue on this Committee and be very active. I have already 

talked to Senator Vitter, and we have seen some areas where I 

could probably take the leadership and work very well with him. 

So anyway, as everyone knows, the Chairman and I have not 

seen eye to eye on a lot of issues. But we do on infrastructure. And 

I think back, we came together with our colleagues to pass the 

highway bill. Everybody said we couldn’t do that; remember that? 

Senator BOXER. That is right. 

Senator INHOFE. But we did. We just stayed with it. Now this 

Committee is turning its attention to the nation’s water resources 

144 

infrastructure. Like other types of infrastructure, water resources 

infrastructure provides a good return on our investment in the 

form of economic benefits, job creation, and helps provide protection from flooding and other natural disasters. 

The Water Resources Development Act, the WRDA bill, authorizes the studies and projects and policies that change the nation’s 

pressing needs. It is supposed to be done every 2 years. That was 

what we have done in the past; we have tried to do. Yet the last 

one was 5 years ago. It was in 2007. And at that time, I was in 

the minority and also back in the minority back in 2000, I just remembered. 

But it didn’t make any difference. Because when it gets to infrastructure, we all want the same thing. I often say that I have enjoyed the ranking of the most conservative member from time to 

time, and always hasten to say that I may be, but I am a big 

spender in two areas, national defense and infrastructure. Because 

if we don’t do it, nobody else is going to do it. 

In my home State of Oklahoma, we have our share of water resources challenges that run the gamut from flood control to inland 

navigation. That is kind of a best kept secret; people talk about 

their ports, well, we have the most inland port in my State of Oklahoma. It comes all the way to Tulsa, or to Catoosa. 

So we are very much interested in that. And we know that there 

are others, such as Senator Alexander and certainly Senator Graham, who have interest in this, as well as Senator Vitter in some 

of our ports. We also have the inland water ports, and that is very 

significant. 

So I am pleased that the Committee is taking up the critical step 

toward the development of a WRDA bill by having today’s legislative hearing. It is a good idea to have this during this lame duck 

session because it lets people know, it reminds them that we are 

going to move forward with this. We are not just talking about it; 

we are going to do it. 

So Chairman Boxer is to be commended for producing a draft. As 

many of us know, often putting pen to paper and kick starting this 

process can be a challenge. However, as with any legislative proposal, there are things that I like, things that need to be improved, 

and there are some things I am not so serious about. 

Unfortunately, this election didn’t go as I would have liked it, 

and I think the Chairman disagrees with me. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Nonetheless, as far as this effort is concerned, 

it is not going to change that. 

Senator BOXER. No. 

Senator INHOFE. We are going to be working together, and certainly Senator Vitter has been my friend for a long time, he has 

a good grasp on all these issues. I can’t think of any areas where 

we really have a strong disagreement. So we will continue forward 

as if the changes weren’t made. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

I would like to start by commending you, Madam Chairman, for your leadership 

and dedication to addressing the nation’s infrastructure challenges. 

145 

Everyone knows that the Chairman and I don’t always see eye to eye, but infrastructure is one of the issues that we do agree on. As a result, the Chairman and 

I have formed a strong partnership to develop comprehensive, bipartisan infrastructure legislation. Most recently, we came together with our colleagues to pass a highway bill despite numerous challenges. Not everyone thought we could get it done, 

but we proved them wrong. 

Now, this Committee is turning its attention to the nation’s water resources infrastructure. Like other types of infrastructure, water resources infrastructure provides 

a good return on our investment in the form of economic benefits, job creation, and 

helping provide protection from flooding and other natural disasters. 

A Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) authorizes studies, projects, and 

policy changes to address the nation’s pressing water resources challenges. Ideally, 

Congress should pass a WRDA bill every 2 years. Unfortunately, WRDA was last 

enacted in November 2007—5 years ago. Since then, not only have our nation’s 

water resources policy issues grown exponentially, but there are numerous studies 

and projects across the country awaiting congressional authorization. 

In my home State of Oklahoma, we have our own share of water resources challenges. These run the gamut from flood control to inland navigation to water supply. 

Oklahoma’s—and the nation’s—water resources issues, studies, and projects cannot 

afford to be kept waiting due to congressional inaction. 

So, I am pleased that the Committee is taking a critical step toward the development of the next WRDA bill by having today’s legislative hearing on the Chairman’s 

draft. I would like to thank our witnesses for testifying before us this morning. 

I believe that this draft is a good start. Chairman Boxer is to be commended for 

producing a draft; as many of us know, often putting pen to paper and kick-starting 

this process can be challenging. However, as with any legislative proposal, there are 

things that I like, there are things that need to be improved, and there are things 

that I have serious concerns with. Our witnesses are here today to provide their 

feedback on the draft in order to inform our thinking on how to best address the 

nation’s water resources challenges. I hope our witnesses will be candid in their 

commentary and point out anything they feel was left out of the draft. With the valuable information gained from this hearing, I expect that the Committee’s work on 

this bill will continue into next year. 

Unfortunately, this year’s election did not go as I would have liked. I am sure the 

Chairman disagrees with me on this. However, infrastructure advocates can rest assured that they have a strong ally in my friend, Senator Vitter, who will become 

Ranking Member of this Committee next year. I am confident that he and the 

Chairman will continue the tradition of bipartisanship as they work to address the 

nation’s infrastructure challenges. And I will continue to play a pivotal role as a 

senior member of this Committee. 

Thank you, and I look forward to hearing the witnesses’ testimony. 

Senator BOXER. Well, my friend, thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Oh, yes, one last thing. Senator Alexander was 

planning to be here and has a rather lengthy statement. He asked 

that I include it in the record. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Alexander follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

I want to thank Senator Boxer for working to draft a bill to reauthorize the Water 

Resources and Development Act (WRDA). 

Passing a WRDA bill is something this country desperately needs in order to improve the way we operate our waterways, manage flooding, and protect our wetlands. 

Although there are good things in this bill, unfortunately this bill does very little 

to address the real problems with either the Inland Waterways Trust Fund or the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

At a time when we are struggling to help our economy grow, it’s important to 

manage our infrastructure in a way that makes it easier and cheaper for Americans 

to run their businesses. 

The President has stated that it’s his goal to double U.S. exports by 2014. I think 

this is a smart goal, and I hope that it is shared by all of us in the Congress. However, to achieve the President’s goal will require that we improve both of the waterVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:47 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25114.TXT SONYA
146 

ways’ trust funds so that we can support fiscally responsible investment in our nation’s ports and waterways. 

Any WRDA bill that Congress considers must address the issue that Olmstead 

Lock is consuming the vast majority of the nation’s lock funding. The fact is while 

focusing on one lock project we are failing to adequately maintain and replace our 

other locks and we run the risk of shutting down huge sections of our country to 

inland navigation. 

Without inland navigation, the number of heavy trucks on our nation’s roads will 

increase dramatically. Those increases will further clog our country’s interstates, result in more wear and tear on our highways, and increase road maintenance costs. 

What this Committee should be doing is investing in our waterways, reducing 

transit time by barge, dramatically increasing fuel economy for heavy freight, and 

reducing the number of heavy trucks on our nation’s interstates by investing in our 

waterways. 

This bill also fails to allow for needed investment in American ports. In 2014 the 

newly expanded Panama Canal is set to open, paving the way for larger ships on 

the East Coast. These ships will be deeper, carry more cargo, and become a major 

part of international trade. 

These larger ships are going to use the expanded Panama Canal regardless of 

whether or not our U.S. ports can accommodate them. If the U.S. ports aren’t big 

enough, the post-Panama Canal expansion ships will simply offload in the Caribbean, and other countries will benefit, and U.S. ports will lose trade and jobs. 

We know about this problem; we know that this bill is the place to address the 

problem—we should not avoid addressing the issue and put it off to another day. 

I am concerned that this bill doesn’t create a path to expanding our ports, and 

it doesn’t address the problems with the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

My hope is that before there is a vote on Senator Boxer’s proposal there will be 

an opportunity to modify her bill to address some of the shortcomings with how our 

waterways operate. 

Senator BOXER. We will turn to Senator Merkley, who I note has 

his own bill on WIFIA, and we are very excited about that, because 

we have included a very similar version into the draft. 

Go ahead, Senator. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and 

Senator Inhofe, thank you for your service as Ranking Member. 

And congratulations, Senator Vitter. 

This particular bill is a great one to kind of start the conversations, because this emphasis on infrastructure is felt all around the 

country. We have so many counties and cities wrestling with either 

replacing aging infrastructure or upgrading infrastructure to meet 

modern standards, or preparing infrastructure to enable the economic expansion of the community. So in all three cases, the bill 

is often very, very high. 

So I want to highlight two pieces of this legislation that I particularly appreciate. One is indeed the pilot project for WIFIA. The 

full bill is Senate Bill 3626, and I would love to work with Members to take a look at that. 

As Chair Boxer mentioned, it is modeled on the successful TIFIA 

program. And whether it be water supply or water treatment, these 

are just critical infrastructure projects. 

I am going to shorten this so we can get on with other opening 

statements and the hearing. But I also wanted to say that there 

are other aspects I hope we wrestle with as we consider the WIFIA 

pilot. Whether we should just keep a financial cap but not a number cap, because that may prove an artificial limit. There may be 

147 

well more than 10 projects around the country that would be useful 

pilot projects and still fit within the financial structure. 

Also recognition of cost efficient green infrastructure in terms of 

wastewater management, stormwater management, which is proving very effective in expanded use around the country. And taking 

a look at including Buy America provisions that keep our taxpayer 

dollars here, right at home, so they circulate in our own economy 

rather than going overseas to create wealth and jobs overseas, 

rather than wealth and jobs here at home. 

So I also wanted to spotlight the effort that Senator Baucus first 

introduced to allow Army Corps to perform levee certifications. The 

short version is it is 5 to 10 times more expensive for my small 

communities in Oregon to go through the private contractor route 

than to utilize the existing expertise of nearby Army Corps. That 

is a huge efficiency for our small towns and communities. I certainly appreciate the inclusion of a framework for that, and it is 

something I will continue to advocate for, because it is so critical 

that these levees get certified. 

The uncertainty for the businesses, the uncertainty for the homeowners who might be selling their homes, is huge when you have 

these uncertified levees and the inability to afford to go the current 

route. 

Thank you very much. I look forward to working with everyone 

on this bill. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you for your help, as everybody has 

worked so hard, so far. 

Senator Vitter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, for all your leadership, for calling this hearing, and for your draft. And special 

thanks to my Ranking Member for his very, very strong but practical and productive leadership as Ranking Member of this Committee. I know all of us, not only on the Republican side, but on 

the Committee, really, really appreciate that service, and are going 

to count on that continuing service and leadership on the Committee. 

A lasting legacy of both of you on this Committee is to come together, to bridge partisan divides on important national priorities 

like WRDA bills, like transportation bills. That is exactly what we 

want to continue with this new WRDA. That is what helped pass 

a good, solid WRDA 2007. That is what passed a highway bill recently, against all odds, against all the predictions of the pundits. 

And that is what is going to pass this new WRDA bill. So we all 

want to look forward to continuing that tradition. 

Senator BOXER. Absolutely. 

Senator VITTER. That is part of what all of us on the Republican 

side wanted to communicate in this letter to you, Chairman, that 

you alluded to. We are very committed to continuing that tradition, 

to coming together, to getting full input and to producing a good, 

solid, responsible, bipartisan WRDA bill. In doing that, as you 

know, we also highlighted four overarching priorities of ours that 

148 

you have very graciously focused on and acknowledged. I just want 

to list those, because they are very important to all of us. 

First, reforms that expedite and improve the Corps’ project delivery process. That process is just downright broken in a lot of instances, where project delivery takes two decades or more in many 

instances. 

Second—and Chairman Boxer, you talked about the solutions 

that address the policy and funding challenges facing the Inland 

Waterway Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

We need to use those supposedly dedicated revenues for the purposes for which they are intended: dredging waterways, keeping 

commerce flowing. As everybody knows, there are regularly—much 

of it is regularly stolen from those so-called trust funds and used 

for unrelated purposes. And we need to stop that, because if we 

don’t, that is a tax on commerce. That leads directly to short loading ships; that is basically just a tax on commerce. 

Third, oversight of the Corps’ implementation, guidance, and internal policies. We need to make sure that the Corps is acting appropriately there. And fourth, prioritization of water resources 

projects. Particularly in this environment of fiscal constraint and 

no earmarks, we need to give the Corps the appropriate criteria to 

prioritize water projects. I think that is going to be a big part of 

the new WRDA bill. So we look forward to following up on all of 

these priorities. 

Also, Madam Chair, you mentioned the devastation of Hurricane 

Sandy. All of our hearts go out to all of those affected. I know a 

lot of folks will be visiting those areas today. And we certainly 

want to include those folks in this process, because Corps project 

delivery now impacts them more than ever before. 

I am happy to be gaining allies in terms of helping streamline 

the Corps process. I never wanted it to happen this way, but I am 

happy to be gaining those allies. We lived through that in Katrina, 

even more recently, on an obviously much, much smaller scale with 

Isaac. So we will move forward together to improve and streamline 

that process. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

I just want to say, we are going to have one more hearing in this 

so-called lame duck on Sandy, just to get input from those on the 

ground as to what happened there, which will help us. I am going 

to save my remarks about Senator Inhofe and my welcoming remarks to Senator Vitter for that particular occasion. Because I 

don’t want to do that now. All I can say is that I have had a partner here who has just been amazing when it comes to working together on infrastructure. The rest of it is another story. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. But we both agree to disagree with respect and 

admiration. 

Senator INHOFE. But it shouldn’t go unnoticed, Madam Chairman, that my replacement has his green tie on. 

Senator BOXER. Oh, well, that is a good sign, David. Thank you. 

And I have my green sweater on. We did not call each other on a 

wardrobe selection today. 

149 

But anyway, I will save my remarks for that. Because it is a 

very, in many ways we have worked together so long as partners 

here. And it has been such an interesting experience for both of us, 

and a learning experience. I think most of all, it has benefited a 

lot of folks, this collaboration, in this Committee and of course as 

we hope, in the country from our work that we have all been able 

to do. 

Well, we have a colleague who has gone through, as David is 

going through, just a horrific time right now. I am so proud that 

Frank is on this Committee, along with Kirsten Gillibrand, they 

have gone through this, just as David Vitter went through his experience. So we can really hear from them what is happening. 

Senator. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

New Jersey was hit with a devastation that now, a debate exists, 

it is not important, but it does reflect something, and that is 

whether this was the worst storm in a decade or in the history of 

our State. That is how fierce it was. And this is the second in a 

series that we have had in just a couple of years. We had Hurricane Irene in 2011, and the President made his first visit there. He 

came again recently with Sandy. What we see is the devastation, 

not just of lots of homes, but the total infrastructure of the State. 

We are hard at work trying to fix what we can to make sure that 

life is reasonably livable for lots of people who were displaced. 

As a matter of fact, at one point—now, my State I think is well 

known as the most densely populated State in the country. We had 

2 and a half million people without power. And there is nothing 

worse than not having the power to light the way, to keep food reasonably fresh, to be able to get around. We have a very large senior 

population. And life became substantially more difficult. 

And I thank you, Madam Chairman, for moving this legislation 

up to the front. The Water Resources Development Act is about 

strengthening our water infrastructure. Nowhere have we been 

more reminded of the need to improve it than in my State of New 

Jersey. Little more than 2 weeks ago Superstorm Sandy slammed 

into New Jersey with such massive force; could have never been 

anticipated. We saw railroad stations with 6 feet of water in the 

station. It crippled life as we know it substantially. 

The storm claimed the lives of at least 119 people throughout the 

country, including 33 people from the State of New Jersey. 

Throughout my State, we have seen catastrophic damage caused by 

Superstorm Sandy, which collided with infrastructure unprepared 

for this force. For example, damage from Sandy caused the largest 

port on the east coast, serving more than one-third of the country, 

to be shut down for more than a week. And it is not just the economy. The economy includes work; the economy includes productivity. All of these things were totally impaired. 

The storm sounded the alarm that the Federal Government must 

invest in infrastructure not to only recover from this storm, but to 

build the infrastructure in such a way, stronger, so that we are 

prepared for the next one, which seems inevitably will be on its 

150 

way. Up and down the New Jersey shore, storm surges have destroyed neighborhoods, ruined businesses, displaced families. The 

boardwalks that many of us grew up enjoying have been swept 

away along with the homes and the memories of New Jersey. We 

look at a placard here to show what happens in places along the 

way, so fierce it just tore off one part of this house. Of course, the 

building is no longer suitable for use. We have another one here. 

However, the silver lining is that early assessments show that 

areas of the coast that had finished Army Corps’ beach projects 

were not damaged as badly as the areas that did not have Army 

Corps projects in place. This shows that wider beaches and dunes 

reduce storm damage. We need to build more of these projects to 

reduce future losses. But some of the Army Corps projects themselves were damaged severely during the storm. Currently, the 

Corps only repairs these damaged projects to their previous condition. Well, we learned that the previous condition is not sufficient. 

And I believe that we need to give the Corps the authority to build 

those projects back better than they were before. 

Now, during Sandy, we also saw outdated water infrastructure 

lead to two water treatment facilities breaking down, millions of 

gallons of sewage leaking into Newark Bay as a result. And Newark Bay also borders our largest city in New Jersey. Shouldn’t happen. There is no excuse not to have modernized water infrastructure. 

And as we move forward with WRDA, I want to work with you, 

Madam Chairman, and our colleagues. I think we learned a lesson 

in the last few weeks that goes beyond just looking at water infrastructure in the normal operation of politics. We are all in this together. And what we had in New Jersey by way of flood damage 

is something compared to volcano damage in other States, to 

droughts in other States. All of us—there isn’t a State here that 

is immune from some kind of a natural disaster. And we have to 

face up to it. It is everybody’s responsibility. We are all in this together. And we have to wake up to what is required, funding, in 

terms of movement on legislation, so that we can get along. 

Superstorm Sandy was unprecedented. But scientists tell us that 

storms like this will become more and more frequent. A new 

WRDA bill must equip us with the tools to take on the enormous 

challenges ahead as we undertake this task. 

I look forward to working together to pass a strong WRDA bill, 

so that New Jersey and other States have what they need to recover and our country is ready when the next storm strikes. And 

once again, I mention the fact that we work together. We were able 

to get over the chasm that keeps us fighting for the wrong kinds 

of things. And boy, I will tell you, I welcome it. The gesture that 

we saw, for instance, in the State of New Jersey, where a very 

strong Republican Governor, Chris Christie, and the President of 

the United States got together and showed that we are not each 

independent of the other, but that we must be together. It was a 

reassuring factor throughout, and a spiritual uplift for our people. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

I know people felt that way when they saw us together, too; it 

lifted their spirits. 

151 

So now we are going to turn to Senator Johanns. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE JOHANNS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Senator JOHANNS. Madam Chair, thank you. So much of what I 

wanted to say has been covered by Senator Inhofe and Senator Vitter very, very well. So I won’t repeat that. 

I think the Senator is absolutely right. WRDA is important to 

every single State in the United States. Not only to the members 

of this Committee, but every single State. You think about Nebraska, of course, we are in the center of the country. So the hurricane, the storm that just occurred of course isn’t going to impact 

a State like Nebraska. 

But we have massive flooding at times, and at other times, unbelievable drought. Two years ago, the entire Missouri River Valley 

was filled in historic flooding. It wiped out farms, wiped out homes, 

massive amount of damage. Last year, we went through unbelievable drought, heat and dry weather. So WRDA is just important to 

all of us. 

There is one thing that I wanted to highlight, and I want to 

thank you, Madam Chair, because I do know that this is on your 

radar screen, and in your draft bill you have language that is an 

attempt to try to deal with this issue. We want to work with you 

to hopefully improve on that language. 

I am referring to section 1003 in the draft bill. And it attempts 

to address the concern of projects that reach their statutory limit. 

We have a couple of those in Nebraska. 

Senator BOXER. We all do. 

Senator JOHANNS. Yes, I think most States have this same problem. 

So literally, the project can stall because the statutory language 

prevents any further expenditure in the area. We want to try to 

find a solution to that. And like I said, I appreciate your attempt 

to deal with that in this draft language. We will have some suggestions that we will work with your staff and with you, Madam 

Chair, to hopefully improve on that language. 

Senator BOXER. Let me just say publicly what I told you privately: absolutely. Because we have the same goal. If your staff 

feels that the language doesn’t do the job, absolutely. So we can get 

that done in the next couple of days. 

Senator JOHANNS. Great. I will wrap up with this. I was very, 

very pleased to be a supporter of that highway bill, not only in 

Committee, but on the floor. I have talked about it a number of 

times. I have pointed to that bill and said, notwithstanding all of 

the rancor and partisanship, here is a good example of how things 

can get done. It is my hope that we embrace WRDA with the same 

bipartisan enthusiasm, to get a bill done, get it to the floor and get 

it passed. It is important to all of us, and my hope is we can work 

together to get it done. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Senator Boozman. 

152 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. Certainly my spirits are uplifted when I see you and Senator Inhofe together. We appreciate you all together having this hearing today. 

The civil works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is 

vital to the strength of our country. Recreation, navigation, hydropower, flood control, irrigation, water supply, all of these things 

benefit not only the State of Arkansas, but our whole country. Our 

manufacturers, farmers, businesses, in order for them to succeed in 

a competitive world where 95 percent of all customers are competitors are overseas. The Water Resources Development Act is the tool 

that enables us to reshape the Corps’ civil works program to meet 

the changing needs and conditions we need to get back to regular 

consideration of these bills. 

In particular, I am interested in strengthening the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, so that we don’t allow the deterioration of our 

incredible inland waterway system. We in Arkansas feel the pain 

of underfunding today. The consequences are certainly there in Arkansas. We have seen the Corps cutting back service on our inland 

waterways like the Washita River and the Arkansas River. We 

have to fix this. We also need a mechanism, and I think this is very 

important, to authorize new projects and existing authorizations. I 

know both of you all have been a real champion of that. 

From water supply and irrigation projects to navigation and ecosystem restoration priorities, projects across Arkansas, but all 

across America, are not receiving the attention that they deserve. 

We need to protect the jurisdiction of the Committee and defend 

the oversight role of Congress. Congress as a whole should not surrender all authority over Federal spending to this Administration 

or to any other future Administration, whether it be Republican or 

Democrat. Hopefully we can work together and figure out a way, 

a bipartisan way forward to get us out from underneath that situation. 

A WRDA bill can make the Corps more efficient while ensuring 

we have the resources to maintain and improve our water infrastructure. Again, I thank the witnesses very much for being here 

today. I look forward to your testimony. 

Senator BOXER. Very good. 

Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I would like to echo the comments heard on both sides of the 

aisle. I agree with my colleagues who believe that moving forward 

with the WRDA bill is important for our communities. The bill you 

have put forward is a good first step in that process. Issues such 

as flood mitigation are very important to my State of Wyoming. I 

believe we need to eliminate the barriers to constructing and maintaining levees and to completing flood control projects that keep 

our communities safe. 

In 1985 the town of Baggs, Wyoming, faced a major flood. The 

entire town had to be evacuated, and it was over a million dollars’ 

153 

worth of damage done. In mid-May 2008 Baggs faced another potential major flood. The Wyoming National Guard was called in to 

assist, as well as the Wyoming Department of Homeland Security. 

At the request of the Department of Homeland Security, the 

Army Corps Sacramento office sent an official who was able to 

oversee the reinforcement of existing berms and the construction of 

new ones. This time, Baggs didn’t need to be evacuated and the 

damage was minimal. Baggs isn’t the only town in Wyoming to 

need assistance to protect itself from the threat of flooding. In the 

town of Greybull, there are levees that are Army Corps-built but 

locally maintained. In Diamondville, there are locally built levees 

that are locally maintained. 

A lot of the levees in places like Worland, Laramie, Jackson 

Hole, are in one or the other category. The Sheridan flood control 

project on Goose Creek and the Greybull levees participate in the 

Corps’ program called Rehabilitation and Inspection Program, RIP. 

By participating in this program, the Corps occasionally inspects 

these levees to ensure that the cities are keeping them in good 

order. But if catastrophic events occur, these levees will be eligible 

for Federal funds to rebuild them after the disaster. 

So in Wyoming, we try to be as proactive as we can be. But in 

towns like Baggs and Greybull and Diamondville and Worland, repairs can be very expensive. Many of my colleagues in Wyoming, 

officials have praised the emergency assistance that Wyoming has 

received from the Corps during the floods of 2010 and 2011. They 

built several temporary flood walls and sent about 25 personnel to 

Lander, Wyoming, during the 2010 event. It cost an estimated $5 million to fight that flood. After the 

floods, the Popo Agie Conservation District, Freemont County Commission, the city of Lander all entered into an agreement with the 

Corps to do flood mitigation planning in and around the Middle 

Fork River, which runs through the town of Lander. This project 

would involve measures to reduce flooding in Lander and reduce 

the need for emergency response during times of high water. 

So projects like this are in the planning phase. We need to move 

forward as expeditiously as possible. We must address priorities. I 

believe there are provisions in this bill that need to be reworked, 

strengthened, some eliminated. But this draft bill is an important 

first step, and I look forward, Madam Chairman, to working with 

you to move the bill diligently through a bipartisan process that respects regular order. Thank you so much for your efforts. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Barrasso, let me just say I really appreciate your examples. Because in my opening statement, I pointed 

out that even though we have lots of problems with the Corps, and 

people could testify to that, where it didn’t work as it was supposed 

to, in 2010, with all the problems nationwide, they figure that the 

Corps projects that were built prevented $28 billion of damage nationwide. Yes. 

So these investments that we make that are expensive, there is 

no doubt, look at what happened in Katrina. I was talking to Senator Vitter, asking him for a ballpark. I don’t even want to say 

what he said, because he said, don’t quote me on this, but it is in 

the tens of billions, let’s put it that way, the upper end. And when 

we look at what happened in Sandy. 

154 

So for us, this WRDA bill is such an opportunity to help us save 

money at the end of the day. And this ban on earmarks that Senator Boozman alluded to, the power given to the Administration or 

any future Administration, is something that Senator Inhofe and I 

have agreed from the start was not the way to go. It is what it is. 

But what we are trying to do in this bill, through many of the 

provisions, is make sure that the Corps goes the places where the 

money is needed. Eventually I think we are going to have to revisit 

this whole thing. 

But let’s work together in this bill to make sure that we have a 

check and balance on what projects get funded, and we are very 

clear in directing through standards where the money goes. 

Senator BOOZMAN. And I agree with that, totally. 

Senator BOXER. Good. I am really glad. 

And let me say, we are going to go to the panel. Because of an 

airplane flight, I am going to have to leave earlier than I would 

like, around 20 of. And Senator Whitehouse has agreed to take the 

gavel for me. If he is not here, I will ask other Senators on our 

other side to take the gavel. But we are very interested in your 

comments, and we will move to Stephen Curtis, Board Member and 

At-Large Director, American Society of Civil Engineers. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN A. CURTIS, P.E., M.ASCE, BOARD 

MEMBER AND AT-LARGE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF 

CIVIL ENGINEERS 

Mr. CURTIS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member 

Inhofe, members of the Committee. It is an honor for me to appear 

before the Committee today on behalf of the American Society of 

Civil Engineers to discuss the Water Resources Development Act of 

2012. 

ASCE commends the Committee for moving forward on legislation for our nation’s vital water resources infrastructure. Currently, 

the United States does not have a national safety program for levees. Many levees are deeded to local governments or associations 

who may not maintain them or even recognize the risks. Additionally, there is currently no dependable inventory of the significant 

number of levees in the United States. 

While flooding from Hurricane Katrina demonstrated the need 

for consistent, up to date standards for levees, the nation still 

awaits a national levee safety program. The Federal Government 

must accept the responsibility for the safety of all federally funded 

levees, and should be working to create a national levee safety program modeled on the successful national dam safety program and 

the recommendations of the National Committee on Levee Safety. 

ASCE commends the Committee for establishing nationwide requirements to protect the health and welfare of citizens from the 

effects of levee failures. Title VI would take the first steps toward 

establishing a national levee safety program. While ASCE has had 

some constructive comments about ways to improve the design of 

the program, the discussion draft is an excellent starting point. 

Section 6003, which lays out definitions, needs to be clarified in 

order to make clear that the language does not exclude any levee 

structure that is not part of the Federal flood reduction system. As 

155 

written, the language might be mis-read to understand that a large 

number of levees in the United States are excluded, thus weakening the program. 

ASCE strongly believes that a majority of levees in the United 

States need to be within the National Levee Safety Program. 

Therefore, a clarification on section 6003 would guarantee that no 

critical levee is excluded. 

Section 6004 would require the establishment of a set of voluntary, comprehensive, national levee safety guidelines. However, 

States—not the Federal Government—should have primary authority for implementation of the national levee safety program within 

their borders. A levee safety program will be more effective if 

States tailor their programs to meet local needs. Federal laws 

should encourage State governments to create levee safety programs and complete the national inventory of levees. 

One additional provision for a new levee safety program would 

be the inclusion of a maintenance of effort clause for the States. 

The National Dam Safety Program has benefited from such a 

clause because it has held States accountable for continuing to appropriate funding. 

ASCE also commends the Committee for adding the Dam Safety 

Act of 2012 as a separate title in WRDA 2012. This bipartisan language in the draft bill would authorize a national dam safety program through 2016 at $13.9 million annually, while providing 

grants to improve State dam safety programs. This legislation recognizes that the Federal Government plays a vital role in ensuring 

that States improve their dam safety programs. 

Finally, the current trend toward reduced investment in our 

ports and harbors has led to ever greater balances in the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund. By September 2013 the Office of Management and Budget estimates that the trust fund will have a balance of more than $6 billion. ASCE applauds section 8002 for stating that ‘‘the total budget resources for a fiscal year shall be equal 

to the level of receipts for harbor maintenance that fiscal year, 

which amounts shall be used only for harbor maintenance.’’ 

It is important that any legislation requires that all funds received by the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund be appropriated 

each year to ensure that U.S. ports are prepared to meet modern 

shipping needs. Including language that appropriations are not 

taken from other Corps of Engineer programs is also critical. However, while the EPW Committee does not have the tax jurisdiction 

for the trust fund, ASCE would like to make clear our concern that 

we have not yet seen language creating a financing mechanism 

which will guarantee funds are used for harbor maintenance. 

One last note before I conclude. ASCE strongly supports the creation of the WIFIA program as one financing mechanism for water 

resources projects. We look forward to working with this Committee as such a program is analyzed. 

Thank you, Senator Boxer. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Curtis follows:] 

156 


25114.136

ASCE 

AMERICAN SOCIETY Of CIVIL ENGINEERS 

TESTIMONY OF 

STEPHEN CURTIS, P.E. 

ON BEHALF OF 

Washington Office 

101 Constitution Ave., N.W. 

Suite 375 East 

Washington, D.C 2000 I 

(202) 789-7850 

Fax: (202) 789-7859 

Web: http://www.ascc.org 

THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS 

BEFORE THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

FOR A LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON 

THE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2012 

NOVEMBER 15, 2012 
157 


25114.137

Madam Chairwoman, Senator lnhofe, and Members of the Committee: 

It is an honor for me to appear before this committee on behalf of the American Society of Civil 

Engineers (ASCE) 1 to discuss the importance of water resources projects to our nation's overall 

economic health. 

Page I 

ASCE commends the Environment and Public Works Committee for holding a hearing today on the 

Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of2012 and for moving forward in the legislative process. 

The Society is pleased to present to the Committee our views on investing in the nation's water resources 

infrastructure and the impact that this infrastructure has on the nation's ability to compete in a global 

economy. A Water Resources Development Act that fosters economic growth and job creation through 

policies that strengthen U.S. infrastructure will allow the nation to remain competitive in the Twenty-First 

Century. 

THE IMP ACT OF UNDER-INVESTING IN OUR NATION'S PORTS AND INLAND 

WATERWAYS 

Aging infrastructure for marine ports and inland waterways threatens more than I million U.S.jobs 

according to ASCE's latest Failure to Aci economic study on the nation's ports released on September 

13,2012. Between now and 2020, investment needs in the nation's marine ports and inland waterways 

sector total $30 billion, while planned expenditures are about $14 billion, leaving a total investment gap 

of nearly $16 billion. This investment gap is for what would be considered the federal responsibility. The 

ASCE report does not address the landside connections or the "inside the fence" infrastructure that is the 

responsibility of the port authority. 

The nation's marine ports and inland waterways are critical links that make international commerce 

possible. However, with the scheduled expansion of the Panama Canal by 2015, the average size of 

container ships is likely to increase significantly, affecting the operations at most of the major U.S. ports 

that handle containerized cargo and requiring both sectors to modernize. Needed investment in marine 

ports includes harbor and channel dredging, while inland waterways require new or rehabilitated lock and 

dam facilities. 

The United States has 300 commercial ports, 12,000 miles of inland and intra-coastal waterways and 

about 240 lock chambers, which carry more than 70 percent of U.S. imports by tonnage and just over half 

of our imports by value. To remain competitive on a global scale, U.S. marine ports and inland waterways 

will require investment in the coming decades beyond the $14.4 billion currently expected. ASCE reports 

that with an additional investment of$1 5.8 billion between now and 2020, the U.S. can eliminate this 

drag on economic growth and protect: 

• $270 billion in U.S. exports. 

$697 billion in GOP. 

738,000 jobs in 2020. 

• $872 billion in personal income, or $770 per year for households. 

1 ASCE was founded in I 852 and is the country's oldest national civil engineering organization. It represents 

141,000 civil engineers individually in private practice, government, industry, and academia who are dedicated to 

the advancement of the science and profession of civil engineering. ASCE is a non-profit educational and 

professional society organized under Part 1.50l(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. 

1 www.asce.org/failuretoac\ 
158 


25114.138

Page 2 

Unless America's infrastructure investment gaps are filled, transporting goods will become costlier, prices 

will rise, and the United States will become less competitive in the global market. As a result, 

employment, personal income, and GOP will all fall due to inaction. 

We now discuss the specific provisions of the Committee draft bill in the order of importance that we 

have assigned to the reforms we believe are necessary to Corps' Civil Works program approach to water 

resources projects. The foremost among them is a national levee safety program. 

A. LEVEE SAFETY (TITLE VI) 

SECTION 6003-Definitions 

Currently, there is no national safety program for federal or state levees. Many privately built levees are 

deeded to local governments or associations who do not maintain them or even recognize the risks. There 

is no dependable catalog of the location, ownership, condition, or hazard potential of most levees in the 

United States. Flooding from Hurricane Katrina, which devastated the city of New Orleans in August 

2005, demonstrated the need for consistent, up-to-date standards for levees based upon reliable 

engineering data on their location, function, and condition. 

As a matter of policy, ASCE supports the enactment of federal and state legislation and regulations to 

establish minimum nationwide requirements to protect the health and welfare of citizens from the 

catastrophic effects of levee failures. The national levee safety program should be modeled on the 

successful National Dam Safety Program. The federal government must accept the responsibility for the 

safety of all federally funded and regulated levees. 

Title VI of the draft bill would establish an incomplete National Levee Safety Program. ASCE believes 

title VI needs to be revised to improve the vigor of the proposed levee safety program. 

It appears that section 6003(7) (C) (IV) (1), the bill would exclude from the definition of a levee any 

structure "that is not part of a federal flood damage reduction system." At present the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE) has specific authorities for approximately 2,000 levees, or 14,000 miles 

nationwide 3 

"There is still a large universe of private and other non-USACE levees that have not been inventoried or 

inspected. The National Committee on Levee Safety (NCLS) [sic] has estimated that there may be more 

than I 00,000 miles of levees nationwide, many of which have not been inspected or inventoried. The 

precise size of this 'universe of levees,' where the levees are located, their condition, or the consequences 

of poor performance is currently unknown."' 

Section 6003 may omit the vast majority of levees in the United States from the levee safety program by 

defining the majority of all levees out of existence. Eliminating a large portion of the nation's levees 

would be unacceptable to ASCE, and we would like further clarification if this is in fact the case. While 

we agree that the federal government must accept responsibility only for federally built levees, we 

strongly believe that ;ill levees in the United States--federal, state, and local-need to be within the ambit 

of a national levee safety program. Such a program needs to address the physical condition of every 

3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Levee Myths and Facts, 

http:! /www. usace .army .m i 1/M issions/Civi I W orks/LeveeSafetyProgram/LeveeM yth sandFacts.aspx 

' Ibid. 
159 


25114.139

Page 3 

known mile of federal, state, and local levees to be truly effective. Therefore section 6003(7) (C) (iv) (!) 

should be amended to include all levees in the definition of a levee. 

We concur, however, in the provisions (section 6003(C) (iv) (IV)-(V)) that limit the definition of a levee 

to areas with a population of fewer than SO individuals and l ,000 acres. 

Federal law should require the federal and state governments to conduct mandatory safety programs for 

all levees and complete the national inventory of levees begun by the USACE.5 State governments 

should be encouraged to enact legislation under a national safety program requirement to establish an 

appropriate entity to undertake a program of levee safety for non-federal levees. The National Flood 

Insurance Program should map all areas potentially flooded by a levee breach and identify these as special 

flood areas to better communicate risks and encourage affected property owners to seek appropriate 

protection. 

The nation must use all the tools available to reduce damages from hurricanes and major storms. This 

means the use of structural methods, such as levees, flood walls, and dams, but also non-structural 

approaches, such as flood-resistant design, voluntary relocation of homes and businesses from floodprone areas, the revitalization of wetlands for storage, and the use of natural barriers to storm surges. 

SECTION 6004-National Levee Safety Program 

Section 6004(c) (I) would require the Secretary of the Army to establish "a set of voluntary, 

comprehensive, national levee safety guidelines." We concur with the Committee on Levee Safety6 that 

that "states, not the federal government, should have primary authority for implementation of a National 

Levee Safety Program within their borders, and a National Levee Safety Program will be more effective if 

states tailor their levee safety programs to meet local needs and allow for regional and state variations, 

while meeting national standards and objectives."' 

But while states are able to organize and oversee their own levee safety programs under state legal 

authorities, WRDA should enact mandatory minimum national guidelines and safeguards for the states to 

follow. 

An additional provision that would be beneficial for a newly created Levee Safety Program would be the 

inclusion of maintenance of effort clause for the states. The National Dam Safety Program has benefited 

from such a clause, because it has held states accountable for continuing to appropriate funding for their 

state dam safety program. One success of the clause for the Dam Safety Program was in Michigan when 

the governor wanted to zero out funding for the darn safety program. Once Michigan was notified that 

federal funding was contingent on the state maintaining funding for the program the state appropriated 

funds back to dam safety. Levees could benefit from the same funding assurance. While ASCE 

commends the Committee for taking steps to create a National Levee Safety Program, states will need a 

strong federal partner as programs develop. 

5 http:/inld.usace.army.miliegis!t'lp••471: I: 

6 Often erroneously referred to as the "National Committee on Levee Safety.'' 

7 Recommendations for a National Levee Safety Program, h(!p:i_l}y,!Y_lv.lcvccsafety.org/rec statelcvee.cfm 
160 


25114.140

Page 4 

B. DAM SAFETY (TITLE IX) 

ASCE commends the Committee for adding the Dam Safety Act of 2012 as a separate title in WRDA 

2012. The bipartisan language, originally introduced by Senators Akaka, Boozman, Whitehouse, and 

Crapo, would reauthorize the National Dam Safety Program through 2016 at $13.9 million annually, 

while providing grants to improve state dam safety programs through training, technical assistance, public 

awareness, inspection, and research. 

Only about II percent ofthe nation's dams are owned, operated, or regulated by the federal 

government. State governments are responsible for ensuring the safety of most dams. Unfortunately, 

many state programs are underfunded and understaffed. This legislation recognizes that the federal 

government plays a vital role in maintaining and inspecting dams wherever they may be located. Under 

FEMA's leadership, the National Dam Safety Program is dedicated to protecting the lives of American 

citizens and their property from the risks associated with the development, operation, and maintenance of 

America's dams. 

C. HARBOR MAINTENANCE (TITLE VIII) 

The dredging of the nation's ports and harbors has suffered from years of under investment in a system 

that is critical to America's ability to compete in the global marketplace. For Fiscal Year 2013 the 

administration has requested $839 million be appropriated from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 

(HMTF}----only 50 percent of total estimated revenues. Total revenues are now estimated at $1.659 

billion for FY 2013. The FY 2013 budget request does not come close to meeting the requirements of the 

nation's ports and harbors, which have an annual need for maintenance dredging of between $1.3 billion 

and $1.6 billion, according to the Army Corps of Engineers. 

This trend toward reduced investments in our ports and harbors has led to ever greater balances in the 

HMTF, and the unexpended balance in the Trust Fund is growing, with a bookkeeping balance of more 

than $6 billion by September 30, 2013, the Office of Management and Budget reports. 

Therefore, ASCE is pleased to see that the Committee included language that will restore trust to the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

SECTION 8002- Funding for Harbor Maintenance Programs 

ASCE applauds Section 8002(b) (I) stating that "the total budget resources for a fiscal year shall be equal 

to the level of receipts for harbor maintenance for that fiscal year, which amounts shall be used only for 

harbor maintenance." By providing a provision requiring the total of all appropriations from the HMTF 

each fiscal year be equal to all revenues received by the HMTF each year the nation can work toward 

ensuring that US ports are prepared to meet modern shipping needs. 

Paragraph Section 8002(b X2) is also a critical inclusion since it will guarantee that appropriations are not 

taken from other Corps of Engineers programs due to the potential increased funding for the HMTF. 

SECTION 8003- Harbor Maintenance and Operations 

Finally, ASCE supports the deepening and widening of ship channels, as necessary, to accommodate new, 

larger ships and the continued maintenance dredging of ship channels for the efficient handling of 

maritime commerce. ASCE also supports programs that limit erosion and sedimentation in ports, harbors 

and waterways. 
161 


25114.141

Page5 

D. INNOVATIVE FINANCING PILOT PROJECTS (TITLE X) 

ASCE has been an advocate for a Water Infrastructure Finance Innovations Authority (WIFIA), modeled 

after the successful Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, for years and is happy to 

see such language included in WRDA 2012. A WIFIA account that would access funds from the U.S. 

Treasury at Treasury rates and use those funds to support loans and other credit mechanisms for water 

projects provides states and public and private entities with another alternative for funding our growing 

water infrastructure needs. 

Providing $50 million annually for fiscal years 2013 through 2017 for water resources and wastewater 

projects, which could be leveraged for perhaps $500 million to $1 billion annually, would allow for major 

improvements to the nation's water infrastructure. Additionally, the inclusion of a report to Congress 

after two years is a positive way to reassess the program and see if it could be updated in a way that 

would better benefit projects. 

E. INLAND WATERWAYS (TITLE VII) 

SECTION 7003- Project Delivery Process Reforms 

According to the Inland Waterways Users Board, large project cost overruns and delays in project 

schedules on the waterways have drawn down the Inland Waterways Trust Fund balance. Section 7003 is 

taking steps in the right direction by working to improve the "likelihood of on-time and on-budget 

completion of qualifYing projects." Developing pilot projects which could evaluate more efficient 

processes or procedures for the benefit or the nation's inland waterways has the ability to gather 

information on faster project completion. 

ASCE, however, would also argue that project completion delays also result from a federal budgeting and 

appropriations model that provides funding in annual and often-insufficient increments rather than a more 

reliable multi-year funding mechanism that would provide the certainty needed to more efficiently 

contract and build these capital projects. Creating a system which would allow water resources projects 

not to be reliant on the often unreliable annual appropriations process could cut some of the red tape 

standing in the way of inland waterways projects. 

Next, ASCE approves of language in Section 7003(d)(l), which calls on the Inland Waterways User 

Board to "develop and submit to Congress a report describing, a 20-year program for making capital 

improvements on the inland and intracoastal waterways, based on the application of objective, national, 

project selection prioritization criteria." Creating a long term priority list for the inland waterways 

projects will allow for a systematic approach for making the necessary repairs. 

SECTION 7005 Efficiency of Revenue Collection 

ASCE is disappointed to see that WRDA 2012 will not directly address the declining revenues in the trust 

fund. While assessing the efficiency of collecting the current fuel tax and deciding whether alternative 

methods of collection would result in increased revenue does hint at a problem in current Inland 

Waterways Trust Fund revenues, overall it essentially punts making a decision on a new revenue raiser 

for two years. 

The tax rate for the trust fund has been 20 cents per gallon since 1995. ASCE believes that an increase in 

the waterways user fee is long overdue, and we concur in the recommendation ftom the Inland 

Waterways User Board that the current fee be increased to between six and nine cents a gallon. ASCE 

also stresses that any increase in the Inland Waterways User fee includes a provision to index that fee to 
162 


25114.142

Page 6 

the consumer price index (CPI) and be adjusted every two years. We further recommend that any diesel 

fuel tax revenues received by the IWTF be "firewalled" to establish discretionary spending limits and to 

reserve the IWTF revenues exclusively for the reconstruction of the system's aging infrastructure. 

F. WATER RESOURCES POLICY REFORMS (TITLE II) 

SECTION 2022 Post Disaster Watershed Assessments 

ASCE strongly supports Section 2022 on post disaster watershed assessment. America's coastal statesthose states bordering on the Atlantic, Pacific, or Arctic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, Long Island Sound, 

and one or more of the Great Lakes-<xmtain vital ecological and economic resources. We support the 

provision that would allow for assessments identifYing future flood risk reduction projects or to 

rehabilitate damaged infrastructure that can reduce future risks, will allow for stronger, more resilient, 

coastlines. 

SECTION 2003-Independent Peer Review 

In 2007, Congress enacted the most recent Water Resources Development Act. Section 2034 of that Act 

provided that project studies must be subject to peer review by an independent panel of experts. Section 

2003 of the draft bill makes certain changes to section 2034 ofWRDA 2007. The amendments would 

require the Corps' to publish (I) its reasons for not requiring an independent peer review and (2) the 

completed project reviews themselves. 

The proposed legislation ignores significant weaknesses in the current law. The 2007 Act established two 

categories for independent peer review-project studies for which independent peer review is mandatory, 

and project studies for which such review is discretionary. It also limited the mandatory review of 

projects having an estimated total cost of more than $45 million, project studies for which the governor of 

an affected state requests an independent peer review, and project studies that the Chief of Engineers 

determined are controversial. In determining whether a project is controversial, the Chief of Engineers 

must consider whether there is significant public dispute as to the size, nature, or effects of the proposed 

project, and whether there is significant public dispute as to the economic or environmental costs or 

benefits of the proposed project. 

ASCE objected to the provisions that allowed the Corps to determine that certain project studies are 

exempt from an independent peer review and to the requirement that limits peer reviews to projects 

costing at least $45 million. In January 2010, the Corps issued guidelines to implement the outside peer 

review requirement. The guidelines followed the law and limited peer review to select projects. In 

addition, the guidelines continue the Corps practice of subjecting all projects to a Corps-only review 

called an "agency internal review." 

All peer reviews of civil works projects must be independent from the USACE. ASCE believes that 

independent peer reviews should be conducted on every water resources project built by Corps of 

Engineers in which performance is critical to the public health, safety and welfare; the reliability of 

performance under emergency conditions is critical; innovative materials or techniques are used; for 

projects lacking redundancy in the design; or for projects that have unique construction sequencing or a 

short or overlapping design and construction schedule. 

The Committee should amend section 2003 of the draft bill to repeal the cost limitation in section 2034 

and to require that every water resources project carried out by the Corps undergo an independent peer 

review. Moreover, the bill should prohibit all use of the "agency internal review" procedure now in 

Corps policy. 
163 


25114.143

SECTION 2016- Project Acceleration 

Project delays can significantly increase the cost of water resources projects. Continuing the 3-3-3 process 

at the Corps of Engineers will be an effective way to continue to move projects ahead in an 18 month 

period. 

SECTION 2023- Levee Certification 

Section 2023 of the draft bill would give the Corps of Engineers the discretion to carry out an 

evaluation of non-federal levee systems and "certifY" that these systems meet the prescribed designs for 

those levees. The certification requirements would be carried out under the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) program in 44 C.F.R. § 65. 10. 

ASCE has recommended that FEMA amend its National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP) regulation at 44 C.F.R. § 65.10 that requires a Professional Engineer (P.E.) to certify a 

levee's compliance with its design to require only that a P.E. make a "compliance determination" 

in the development ofNFIP insurance rates. 

FEMA ought to adopt a hazard-ranking system for NFIP rating maps that is based on 

either the maximum flood that will likely be experienced in an area (the Probable Maximum 

Flood), or a locally established plan for development, land use, building codes, emergency 

preparedness (especially warning, evacuation, and risk communication), as well as an efficient 

and orderly system of indemnification for the inevitable losses when levees fail or are 

overtopped. 

In order for FEMA to accredit a levee on its NFIP maps, a Professional Engineer must 

certify that the system complies with all the requirements established by FEMA at 44 CFR 65.10 

or a federal agency with levee design and construction qualifications may certify that the levee 

has been adequately designed and constructed to provide protection against the base flood 

elevation. 

The FEMA rule mandating certification of non-federal levees requires a Professional 

Engineer to certify a document that inadvertently might mislead the public with respect to public 

safety and place the engineer in serious ethical and legal jeopardy is contrary to the ASCE Canon 

of Ethics and good public policy. 

The Committee should an1end section 2023 of the draft bill to change the reference to 

"levee certification" to ''compliance determination." This will avoid giving the false impression 

that a Professional Engineer has guaranteed that the levee will not fail-a guarantee no engineer 

can ethically render as such a guarantee is beyond the engineer's ability to predict the future. 

A fundamental canon of the Code of Ethics of ASCE declares that engineers shall hold 

paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. The solution to levee safety and floodrisk reduction must be developed within the complex context of community development, land 

use, building codes, emergency preparedness (especially warning, evacuation, and risk 

communication). Levee accreditation under the FEMA regulation is a technical finding for the 

NFIP that is not in any way a representation that any accredited levee will provide for the safety, 

health, and welfare of the public. 
164 


25114.144

Page 8 

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, ASCE applauds the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for taking strides to 

address our nation's again water resources. Deferring water resource projects creates costs that 

reverberate throughout our economy, causing exports and GOP to fall, threatening U.S.jobs, causing a 

drop in personal income, and putting those who live behind a dam or levee at increased risk. Including the 

creation of a national levee safety program, the reauthorization of the national dam safety program and 

correcting spending shortfalls out of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund are critical elements to a final 

WRDA package. ASCF. looks forward to working with the Senate Environment and Public Works 

Committee as you move forward on this legislation. 

Thank you, Senator Boxer. This concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 
165 


25114.145

ASCE 

Questions from Senator Boxer 

Washington Office 

101 Constitution Ave., N.W. Ste. 375 East 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

{202)789-78SO 

Fax: {202} 789-7859 

1. The draft bill includes provisions for a WIFIA program jar drinking water and wastewater 

infrastructure projects. Da you believe this would be a useful tool far advancing construction af 

important water infrastructure projects? 

The United States is facing a more than $400 billion shortfall in water infrastructure funding 

over the next 20 years according to the Congressional Budget office. Therefore, it will take 

innovation and increased funding at all levels of government to effectively address the nation's 

water infrastructure funding needs. Forth is reason ASCE strongly supports the creation of a 

WIFIA program for drinking water and wastewater projects. 

Since FY 2005, the TIFIA program for transportation projects has leveraged $122 million in 

annual funding into $2.2 billion annually. With water and wastewater revenue collection 

systems already in place through usage rates and charge fees on their customers, water would 

be a natural fit for a WIFIA program. In fact, over 90 percent of water projects across the nation 

have the appropriate financing profile to participate in a WIFIA program. 

2 In your testimony you support the creation of the National Levee Safety Program and have made 

suggestions for improving the program. Can you expand on what additional features you feel will 

be most important to strengthening this new program? 

ASCE has been a strong advocate for the creation of a National Levee Safety Program that is 

modeled on the successful Dam Safety Program. Seven years after Hurricane Katrina the nation 

still does not have a National Levee Safety Program that can assist states with levee safety 

efforts and the national levee database is far from completion. 

The nation must use all the tools available to reduce damages from hurricanes and major 

storms. This means the use of structural methods, such as levees, flood walls, and dams, but also 

non-structural approaches, such as flood-resistant design, voluntary relocation of homes and 

businesses from flood-prone areas, the revitalization of wetlands for storage, and the use of 

natural barriers to storm surges. 

WRDA 2012 should also require the Comptroller General, in consultation with the Secretary of 

the Army, to study the potential benefits of formally uniting the National Dam Safety Program 

with the National Levee Safety Program. The study should examine: 
166 


25114.146

The potential to improve the protection of the general public health, safety, and welfare 

from dam and levee failures through a unified dam and levee safety program; 

The administrative and budgetary efficiencies to be achieved in the unification ofthe 

national dam and levee safety programs; and 

Any other factors the Comptroller determines will assist the Congress in assessing the 

benefits of the integration of the two programs. 

3. The draft bill includes provisions for helping ensure the complete expenditures of the HMTF. Con 

you explain the importance of the HMTF to the operations and maintenance of our Nation's 

ports ond harbors and the consequences of not adequately investing in port infrastructure? 

The dredging of the nation's ports and harbors has suffered from years of under investment in a 

system that is critical to America's ability to compete in the global marketplace. For fiscal Year 

2013 the administration has requested $839 million be appropriated from the HMTF-only 50 

percent of total estimated revenues. Total revenues are now estimated at $1.659 billion for FY 

2013. The busiest U.S. harbors are presently under maintained. The Corps of Engineers 

estimates that full channel dimensions at the nation's busiest 59 ports are available less than 35 

percent of the time. This situation can increase the cost of shipping as vessels carry less cargo in 

order to reduce their draft or wait for high tide before transiting a harbor. It could also increase 

the risk of a ship grounding or collision. 

The FY 2013 budget request does not come close to meeting the requirements of the nation's 

ports and harbors, which have an annual need for maintenance dredging of between $1.3 billion 

and $1.6 billion, according to the Army Corps of Engineers. 

This trend toward reduced investments in our ports and harbors has led to ever greater 

balances in the HMTF, and the unexpended balance in the Trust Fund is growing with a 

bookkeeping balance of more than $6 billion by September 30, 2013, the Office of Management 

and Budget reports. 

Therefore, ASCE supports the language in the draft WRDA bill that requires the total of all 

appropriations from the HMTF each fiscal year be equal to all revenues received by the HMTF 

each year. Such legislation would require Congress to create a mechanism to ensure the 

equitable distribution of HMTF monies so that federal assistance would go to the ports in 

greatest need. This provision would establish a policy for increased expenditures from the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust fund to ensure that annual revenues collected are utilized to meet 

the nation's navigation maintenance dredging needs. 

In ASCE's recent Failure to Act report on the nation's marine ports, inland waterways, and 

airports costs attributable to delays in the nation's inland waterways system were $33 billion in 

2010, and it is expected to increase to nearly $49 billion by 2020. With an additional investment 

of $15.8 billion between now and 2020, the U.S. can protect: 
167 


25114.147

$270 billion in U.S. exports; 

$697 billion in GDP; 

• 738,000 jobs in 2020; and 

$872 billion in personal income, or $770 per year for households through 2020. 

Questions from Senator lnhofe 

1. What, if any, policy priorities of change to current law that are important to your organization 

are not addressed in this draft? How would you suggest we modify the draft to reflect your 

concerns? 

ASCE was pleased with the initial draft WRDA language, however there are some additional 

water resources issues we would like to see addressed. 

First, forty-seven percent of all locks maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were 

classified as functionally obsolete in 2006. Assuming that no new locks are built within the next 

20 years, by 2020, another 93 existing locks will be obsolete-rendering more than 8 out of 

every 10 locks now in service outdated. The need for increased investment at the federal level is 

compelling. 

However, the tax rate for the trust fund has been 20 cents per gallon since 1995. ASCE believes 

that an increase in the waterways user fee is long overdue, and we concur in the 

recommendation that the current fee be increased to between six and nine cents a gallon. We 

must also stress that any increase in the Inland Waterways User fee include a provision to index 

that fee to the consumer price index (CPI) and be adjusted every two years. We further 

recommend that any diesel fuel tax revenues received by the IWTF be "firewalled" to establish 

discretionary spending limits and to reserve the IWTF revenues exclusively for the 

reconstruction of the system's aging infrastructure. 

Next, ASCE has been a strong advocate for the creation of a National Dam Rehabilitation and 

Repair Act for the nation's non-federal, high-hazard, dams. There are currently nearly 14,000 

high-hazard dams in this country, and nearly 2,000 of those are classified as deficient. Creating a 

national program, which can provide funding for those high-hazard dams in greatest need, can 

protect the public by preventing dam failures in the future. ASCE urges the creation of a 

program that will provide a stable, long-term funding source for the repair and rehabilitation of 

dams, as well as legislation that will protect the public health, safety, and welfare from the 

catastrophic effects of levee or dam failures. 

Finally, ASCE would recommend that the Senate urge the federal government to complete 

revisions on the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related 

land Resources Implementation Studies of 1983 (Principles and Guidelines or P&G), the central 

planning document employed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for justifying major 
168 


25114.148

civil works projects. ASCE strongly recommends that the federal government pursue an 

interagency, multi disciplined, collaborative effort to revise the current P&G to incorporate risk 

assessment for public health and safety, improved quantification of environmental benefits and 

a watershed or systems approach. 

2 I am pleased ta the Chair included a Sense af Congress an Project Acceleration. However, I would 

like ta take this a step further and include legislative language. What does your organization 

recommend? 

Project delays can significantly increase the cost of water resources projects. Therefore, ASCE 

urges the creation of strategies to expedite the regulatory review process for infrastructure 

projects at federal, state and local levels. The goal must be to allow critical infrastructure 

projects to proceed in a timely manner, while protecting the environment. 

ASCE would recommend looking at the legislative language included in MAP-21 on project 

acceleration. MAP-21 includes program reforms designed to reduce project delivery time and 

costs while protecting the environment. Examples of improvements include: expanding the use 

of innovative contracting methods; creating dispute resolution procedures; reducing 

bureaucratic hurdles for projects with no significant environmental impact; encouraging early 

coordination between relevant agencies to avoid delays later in the review process; and 

accelerating project delivery decisions within specified deadlines. 

3. Same have suggested that the Civil Works Program needs to be transformed ta ensure it 

continues ta effectively address the nation's water resources challenges. Do you have any 

recommendations that the Committee can consider far this WRDA bill in order to lay a 

foundation for future challenges ta the Civil Works Program? 

The foundation of the Corps of Engineers Civil Works program rests on projects related to 

navigation, environmental restoration, and flood mitigation. Each of these project types is 

critical to our nation's ability to compete in a global marketplace, however appropriations from 

Congress do not equal the importance of the work that the Corps does. The current instability in 

funding leads to large project delays, doubling or tripling the time it takes to complete a project 

and therefore significantly increasing the price tag. 

Currently the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been faced with reduced appropriations over the 

past several years. In fact, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reported recently that 

the Civil Works program faces a reduction of $505 million in FY 2013 under the sequestration 

authority of the Budget Control Act of 2011, which would be across the board cuts of roughly 

eight percent. 

WRDA 2012 can be used as a vehicle to increase authorization levels for vital Civil Works 

programs and ensure that programs are authorized over the upcoming years. 
169 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much for your constructive advice to us. 

Next, Terry Sullivan, State Director, Rhode Island Chapter, The 

Nature Conservancy. 

Welcome, Mr. Sullivan. 

STATEMENT OF TERRY SULLIVAN, STATE DIRECTOR, 

RHODE ISLAND CHAPTER, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Water 

Resources Development Act of 2012. The bill can improve the 

health and security of our nation’s water resources and the diverse 

benefits that they provide to all Americans. We appreciate your 

leadership, along with the Ranking Minority Member and other 

members of the Committee for moving this important piece of legislation forward. 

As the Director of the Rhode Island State Chapter of The Nature 

Conservancy, I appreciate the change to express our thoughts as 

Rhode Island and neighboring States recover from the devastating 

effects of Hurricane Sandy. First and foremost, my thoughts and 

prayers are with those people throughout the region who continue 

to suffer from a lack of adequate shelter, heat for their home, and 

running water. Sandy was a mighty storm, and it hurt a lot of people. 

The provisions of this bill, if enacted, will make a difference in 

a number of important ways, including helping to reduce the impacts of increasingly violent weather events now affecting the lives 

of so many Americans. This bill also takes important steps toward 

modernizing our water resource infrastructure and putting it on a 

more sustainable financial footing. 

The Nature Conservancy is an international non-profit whose 

mission is to conserve the lands and waters upon which all life depends. We have been engaged in water resource issues across the 

U.S. for many years. In fact, we sponsor more projects with the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers than any other non-profit organization. 

My comments today will focus on four areas of particular interest 

to the Conservancy: improving the ability to address water resources in an integrated and comprehensive manner as the best 

way to cost effectively manage our water resource infrastructure; 

strengthening support for the restoration of natural systems so 

Americans can continue to enjoy the economic and social benefits 

these systems provide, including their ability to help deal with the 

threats of intensified storms, floods, and droughts; finding new 

ways to finance and fund water resource investments that allow a 

wide range of partners to participate in developing and managing 

these projects; and making a number of important changes to existing policies that will improve the Corps’ ability to achieve our national water resource goals, as articulated by this Congress. 

We have reached a critical point in how this nation is going to 

plan and manage investments in our nation’s water resources. On 

the one hand, the impacts of changing weather patterns are making the importance of sound water management clearer than ever. 

170 

At the same time, the tremendous backlog of funding for authorized projects and the fiscal limitations on future spending compel 

us to find more cost effective ways of doing business. This WRDA 

bill can be an important step in addressing those challenges. 

While our country has built water resource projects usually one 

at a time, we now recognize that it is the cumulative effects of our 

investment in many projects that determine their environmental 

and economic benefits and impacts. We are pleased to see this bill 

more comprehensively address the implementation and funding of 

projects related to navigation, flood control, environmental restoration, dam operations, and safety. This means planning and managing on a watershed basis and making investment based on 

broader collective needs of many stakeholders in a watershed. 

Toward this end, we support the provisions of Section 2012 Dam 

Optimization, which would facilitate evaluation of dam operations 

in a watershed context and allow reoperation of dams to better 

take into account their multiple purposes and benefits in conjunction with functions of flood plains, wetlands, and estuaries that are 

part of those watersheds. In addition, we support the authorization 

of the NAS, National Academy of Sciences, to undertake a study 

on how we can be more effective in managing our water resources 

related to floods and droughts and support the new authority to 

undertake watershed scale studies related to post-disaster emergencies. 

We must integrate the role of healthy and functioning natural futures into river and coastal management. Restoring natural flood 

plains and wetlands can improve water storage practices and help 

reduce the impacts of floods while increasing the flexibility and the 

management of reservoirs and other water infrastructure. On our 

coasts, it is now clear that restoration and conservation of coastal 

features, marshes, barrier beaches, coastal ponds, oyster reefs, and 

seagrass beds are [unclear] important in reducing the impacts of 

storms. 

Given this, we strongly support reauthorization of the restoration 

projects in the Everglades, the Louisiana wetlands, coastal Mississippi, and Chesapeake Bay. The Nature Conservancy also supports increasing the authority for continuing authority programs 

contained in title II of the draft bill. And we support the new authority for a North Atlantic coastal planning project contained in 

section 5002 of the draft WRDA bill that would provide the Corps 

with the ability to plan and implement restoration projects in the 

whole North Atlantic Coast, from Maine to Virginia. This new authority can serve as a model for region-wide coastal planning from 

the Corps. 

The Nature Conservancy’s public opinion polls show that virtually all Americans, regardless of their political affiliation, believe 

strongly that care of the nation’s water resources is an important 

priority. In these difficult fiscal times, we can only make progress 

on this priority by organizations, Government agencies, and the 

private sector working together. We believe the WRDA 2012 bill is 

an important step in this direction. We look forward to working 

with the Committee, the Corps, with navigation, flood safety, and 

other organizations in advancing its provisions. 

171 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today, and we look 

forward to submitting more detailed written comments. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:] 

172 


25114.149

The Nature ~1!~ Conservancy 'ilf!! Worldwide Office 

4245 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 1 DO 

Arlington, VA 22203 

Tel (703) 841-5300 nature.org 

Fax (703) 555-11 t 1 

Protecting nature. Preserving life~ 

Introduction 

Testimony from Terrence Sullivan 

Director, Rhode Island Chapter 

The Nature Conservancy 

For A Hearing On 

Water Resources Development Act 2012: Legislative Issues 

Before 

The Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

November 15, 2012 

Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Water 

Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2012. This bill can improve the health and security of our 

nation's water resources and the diverse benefits that they provide to all Americans. We appreciate your 

leadership, along with the ranking minority member and the other members of the committee, for moving 

this important piece of legislation forward. 

As the Director of the Rhode Island state chapter of The Nature Conservancy, I appreciate the chance to 

express our thoughts as Rhode Island and neighboring states recover from the devastating effects of 

Hurricane Sandy. The provisions of this bill, if enacted, will make a difference in a number of important 

ways; including helping reduce the impacts of the increasingly violent weather events now affecting the 

lives of so many Americans. 

This bill takes important steps toward modernizing our water resource infrastructure and putting it on a 

more sustainable financial footing. 

The Nature Conservancy is an international, nonprofit organization whose mission is to conserve the 

lands and waters on which all life depends. We have been engaged in water resources issues across the 

U.S. for many years. In fact, we sponsor more projects with the US Army Corps of Engineers than any 

other non-profit organization. 

My comments today will focus on four areas of particular interest to TNC: 

• Improving the ability to address water resources in an integrated and comprehensive manner as the best 

way to cost-effectively manage our water resource infrastructure. 

• Strengthening support for the restoration of natural systems so Americans can continue to enjoy the 

economic and social benefits these systems provide including their ability to help deal with the threats of 

intensifying storms, floods, and droughts. 

• Finding new ways to finance and fund water resources investments that allow a wide range of partners 

to participate in developing and building these projects. 
173 


25114.150

• Making a number of important changes to existing policies that will improve their ability to achieve our 

national water resource goals as articulated by this Congress. 

We have reached a critical point in how this nation is going to plan for and manage investments in our 

nation's water resources. On the one hand the impacts of changing weather patterns are making the 

importance of sound water management clearer than ever. At the same time the tremendous backlog of 

funding for authorized projects and the fiscal limitations on future spending compel us to find more costeffective ways of doing business. This WRDA bill can be an important step in addressing these 

challenges. 

Managing infrastructure in a more comprehensive way 

While our country has built water resource projects usually one at time, we now recognize that it's the 

cumulative effect of our investment in many projects that detennine their environmental and economic 

benefits and impacts. We are pleased to see this bill more comprehensively address the implementation 

and funding of projects related to navigation, flood control, environmental restoration and dam operations 

and dam safety. This means planning and managing on a watershed basis and making investments based 

on broader, collective needs of the many stakeholders in a watershed. 

Toward this end, we supp<Jrt the provisions of Section 2012, Dam Optimization, which would facilitate 

evaluation of dam operations in a watershed context and allow re-operation of dams to better take into 

account their multiple purposes and benefits in conjunction with the function of floodplains, wetlands and 

estuaries that are part of those larger watersheds. In addition, we support the authorization for the 

National Academy of Science to undertake a study on how we can more effectively manage our water 

resources related to floods and droughts and support the new authority to undertake watershed scale 

studies related to post disaster emergencies. 

Restoring natural systems to benefit people and nature 

We must integrate the role of healthy and functioning natural features into river and coastal management. 

Restoring natural floodplain and wetlands areas can improve water storage practices and help reduce the 

impacts of floods while increasing the flexihility in the management of reservoirs and other water 

infrastructure. On our coasts, it is now clear that restoration and conservation of coastal features--

marshes, barrier beach, coastal ponds, oyster reefs and sea grass beds are critically important in reducing 

the impacts of storms. Tbese natural systems also provide important economic benefits. like support of 

coastal fisheries and sustaining recreational fishing and hunting. 

Given this, we strongly support re-authorization ofthe restoration projects in the Everglades, the 

Louisiana Wetlands, Coastal Mississippi and Chesapeake Bay. The Nature Conservancy also supports 

the increases in authority for the Continuing Authorities Programs contained in Title II of the draft bill. 

And we support the new authority for a North Atlantic coastal planning project contained in Sec. 5002 of 

the draft WRDA bill that would provide the Corps with the ability to plan and implement restoration 

projects in the whole North Atlantic coast from Maine to Virginia. This new authority can serve as a 

model for region-wide coastal planning throughout the Corps. 

Financing water resources investments and welcoming a wider range of partners to participate in 

developing and building these projects 

The Nature Conservancy supports identifying new ways of financing water resource projects including 

both traditional and green infrastructure. The innovative finance provisions in the bill provide a good 

foundation on which to build such approaches. 

We also support the sections that would allow non-federal entities to be more effective partners. The 

Nature Conservancy has been a non-federal cost-share sponsor on a number of Section 1135 and Section 

2 
174 


25114.151

206 ecosystem restorations. We endorse those provisions in Title II of the bill that make such partnerships 

easier, that make private contributions to projects less cumbersome and that address the special concerns 

of natural system restoration. Similarly, Section 2019 of the bill has very good provisions that allow for a 

Non-Federal Project Implementation Pilot Program. The draft also has provisions to evaluate alternatives 

for the decentralization of the project planning, management and decision-making process for certain 

kinds of corps projects. 

Changing existing policies 

The Nature Conservancy is working increasingly with the US Anny Corps of Engineers in its 

international mission. The Corps is the largest manager of water resources in the world and as such is 

recognized as a leader whose advice and expertise are often sought around the world. 

The Conservancy recommends the committee consider including new language to increase the utility of 

section 234 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2323a). This authority 

addresses interagency and international suppmt, and enables the Corps to pmticipatc with Federal or 

international organizations and foreign governments to address problems of national significance related 

to water resources, infrastructure development, and environmental protection. 

There are, finally, many other important policy initiatives in this bill, including the requirement that the 

Corps revisit its levee vegetation management policy, improvements to the mitigation policy related to 

Corps civil works projects, and related to implementation of biological opinions. All make important 

improvements to the existing policies. 

Conclusion 

The Nature Conservancy's public opinion surveys show that virtually all Americans, regardless of their 

political affiliations, believe strongly that care of the nation's water resources is an important priority. In 

these difficult fiscal times, we can only make progress on this priority by organizations, government 

agencies and the private sector working together. We believe the WRDA 2012 bill is an important step in 

this direction. We look forward to working with the Committee, the Corps, with navigation, flood safety 

and other organizations in advancing its provisions. Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. 

We look forward to submitting more detailed written comments. 

3 
175 


25114.152

Senator Boxer Question #I 

Question: In your testimony you discuss the fact that ecosystem restoration projects can also 

have other important benefits especially related to extreme weather events. Can you elaborate on 

some of these other benefits and how they can mitigate extreme weather impacts? 

Answer: By strengthening support for the restoration of natural systems, Americans can continue 

to enjoy the economic and social benefits these systems provide including their ability to help 

deal with the threats of intensifying storms, floods, and droughts. 

I) The use of natural infrastructure is an effective long-term solution to make people, 

infrastructure and natural systems less vulnerable. While risk reduction strategies will vary 

based on location, natural infrastructure can provide a cost et1ective means of reducing overall 

risk to infrastructure and people. Utilizing natural infrastructure for climate resilience can 

include augmenting existing habitats through conservation strategies; protecting and restoring 

habitats to enhance flood mitigation and ecosystem services; creating new habitat such as oyster 

reefs and artificial wetlands; and integrating natural systems into hard intrastructure (and vice 

versa) to provide long-term ecological and climate benefits. In addition to flood control, 

ecosystems provide many economically beneficial services that support and protect humans and 

nature such as filtering pollutants, erosion control, production of fish and shellfish, and clean 

drinking water. They also provide recreational, aesthetic and potential property value benefits. 

Moreover, natural infrastructure has lower long-term maintenance costs than "grey" 

infrastructure. 

2) Restoring natural floodplain areas for the purposes of flood attenuation and water storage are 

two important strategies for meeting tlood control needs and mitigating against drought while 

increasing the flexibility in the management of our reservoirs and other water infrastructure. 

Allowing floodplains to receive flood waters during high water events reduces the stress on all 

flood control structures. Also, by allocating flood storage to the tloodplain instead of reservoirs, 

space capacity in the reservoirs currently allocated to tlood control or drought response can be 

converted into storing water to supply cities and farms, generating hydroelectric power, and 

releasing improved environmental flows into downstream ecosystems. Moreover, floods that are 

allowed to return to their natural floodplains recharge underlying aquifers, which slowly release 

higher quality groundwater back to the river as cool, steady base !lows. Similar approaches are 

needed that evaluate all needs in a coastal area or river basin and seek to incorporate the value of 

intact natural ecosystems into meeting human needs. 

2 
176 


25114.153

Senator Boxer Question #2 

Question: In your testimony you support the comprehensive management of our water 

infi'astructure. Can you explain how the dam optimization provision in the draft might be used 

jar enhancing water inji·astructure operations and benefits? What efficiencies can be gained by 

reevaluating the management of existing infrastructure? 

Answer: Most of the nation's multi-purpose dams were authorized, designed, and constructed 

more than a half century ago, with modest to no changes in operations since, despite 

considerable shifts in water and energy demands, food production, and land use patterns. The 

provision for dam optimization contained in Title !I, Section 20 I 2 will greatly support 

modernizing the use of these legacy assets, and provide for increased socioeconomic benefits. 

1) Based on more than a decade of science-based, collaboration with the US Army Corps of 

Engineers, we believe the dam optimization provision would enable changes in dam operations 

and downstream floodplain management that would significantly reduce flood risk, enhance 

water supply, increase hydropower generation, expand recreation, and restore ecosystem health 

and services on tens of thousands of river miles across the nation. Select examples include: 

(a) Green River (Kentucky): The Louisville District re-designed their releases to both 

improve mussel populations, water quality and other environmental benefits and 

in the process achieved six weeks per year of additional reservoir recreation 

access and an increase in related jobs, resulting in a 40% increase in direct 

economic activity since dam reoperation in 2002. 

(b) Mokelumne River (California): We undertook a study which showed the potential 

to increase water supply storage by up to 50,000 acre-feet, enough when full to 

meet the annual water needs of 450,000 people in the region, while also 

maintaining t1ood protection, increasing hydropower generation, and supporting 

endangered species recovery. 

(c) Savannah River (Georgia/South Carolina): A related study showed the potential to 

modify dam operations to increase hydropower revenue by $12M per year, 

reservoir recreation value by $3M per year, and time spent above drought 

reservoir levels by 55 days per year, while also improving downstream 

environmental conditions. 

Benefits such as these would be more readily achieved if this new authority on dam optimization 

was combined with improved protection of floodplains and extended the ability of the Corps to 

obtain downstream flood easements from willing land-owners. 

3 
177 


25114.154

Senator Boxer Question #3 

Question: The draft bill includes provisions increasing per project funding levels for some 

Cominulng Authority Programs. Can you describe why these increases are important and how 

they will benefit the Corps' ecosystem restoration work? 

Answer: The increased per project funding levels proposed in Title II, sec. 2005 would diminish 

risk for Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) and other non-federal sponsors. Risk reduction 

is a significant challenge for the non-profit sector. This increase in federal contribution will 

permit NGO's to commit more funds while understanding that the risk of unforeseen cost 

overruns may be equitably shared. It also provides the opportunity for greater leverage of private 

funding in completing important ecosystem restoration and protection, as well as improving the 

environment in areas where US Army Corps of Engineer projects contributed to the degradation. 

It invites more private sector participation in these important programs. 

The additional funding level opens opportunities for larger scale projects that may also deliver 

enhanced ecosystem benefits. This is particularly useful if these projects are combined in a 

manner that supports a watershed scale approach to restoration. 

As the US Army Corps of Engineers largest non-profit sponsor of projects, The Nature 

Conservancy has over a decade of experience in partnering to restore important ecosystems 

across the country. We are proud of this work, and would strive to learn from this exemplary 

relationship so that other NGO's might also endeavor to engage in similar opportunities. We 

recommend several additional provisions in the WRDA that will allow non-federal entities to be 

more effective partners. We believe changes are needed to address the sponsorship challenges to 

non-profit organizations, and the unique requirements of ecosystem restoration. Please see our 

detailed recommendation in our response to Senator Inhofe's first question (paragraph 5). 

4 
178 


25114.155

Senator Boxer Question #4 

Question: Your testimony supported modifications in the bill to the requirements for mitigation 

of civil works projects. Can you please expand on what improvements are necessary to 

mitigation practices? Also, how can these improvements help more quickly advance civil works 

projects? 

Answer: The Nature Conservancy believes that the key aspects of a successful mitigation 

program for civil works projects include: 

I) Clarity of legislative requirements and alignment between legislative language and Corps 

guidance and regulations; 

2) Strong and effective oversight by Congress of the implementation of mitigation by the Corps 

to ensure compliance with applicable provisions of law; 

3) Selection, design, and implementation of mitigation actions on a watershed basis that reflects 

the best science and best data regarding the status and needs of the watershed and that fully 

conforms to the mitigation standards and policies established by the Corps' regulatory program; 

4) Early planning for mitigation as an integral aspect of project planning and accomplishing 

mitigation in advance of or concurrently with project construction. 

A mitigation program that fully reflects those key aspects will result in greatly enhanced 

ecological outcomes, reduced cost and fewer delays in completing civil works projects, and more 

informed and effective Congressional oversight. 

The Nature Conservancy supports the provisions of section 2002 of the Discussion Draft 

(amending section 2283 of title 33 of the US Code). However, we believe that similar and 

parallel changes in section 2283 would avoid the potential confusion and ambiguity that could be 

created by modifying the provisions of section 2283(d)(l) without making conforming changes 

elsewhere in the section. We also suggest several other changes to clarify the existing 

requirement to adopt a watershed approach to mitigation planning and action and to clearly state 

that mitigation is a valuable means of achieving the interim and long term goals reflected in 

section 2317 of title 33, US Code. See the attached for the specific additional changes to section 

2283 of title 33, US Code that we recommend. 

The Nature Conservancy also supports the provisions of section 2007 of the Discussion Draft 

that would amend the provisions of section 2283a of title 33, US Code and that would further 

clarify and strengthen the requirements for reports to Congress detailing the status of mitigation 

associated with civil works projects. The changes proposed in section 2007 would enhance the 

information available to Congress in performing Congress' vital oversight role, the second key 

5 
179 


25114.156

aspect of a successful mitigation program. However, we believe that additional specificity with 

regard to the information relating to the status of mitigation that is required to be submitted to 

Congress (and available to the public) would even further strengthen oversight, which would 

improve the planning for and implementation of mitigation and assist in ensuring full compliance 

with applicable laws and regulations. Such improvements will in turn reduce the cost of and 

reduce delays in completing civil works projects. See the attached for the specific additional 

changes to section 2283a of title 33, US Code that we recommend. 

Contemporary understanding of the science of mitigation strongly suggests that the most 

effective way to ensure that mitigation is effective and sustainable is to use a watershed 

approach, the third key element of a successful mitigation program. That basic approach was 

adopted in the amendments to section 2283 of title 33, US Code adopted as section 2036(a) of 

WRDA 2007, and would be further strengthened by adoption of section 2002 of the Discussion 

Draft and the additional changes to that section that we recommend above. 

However, successful application of the watershed approach depends on having sufficient data on 

the current status of and needs of the watershed. Accordingly, The Nature Conservancy 

recommends several changes to the provisions of section 2267a of title 33, US Code relating to 

watershed assessments conducted or assisted by the Corps. See the attached for the specific 

recommended changes, including a cost-saving requirement to consider existing assessments 

prepared by or with the participation of federal, state, tribal, or local governments and a 

requirement that such assessments address aspects especially relevant to the design and 

implementation of an effective watershed approach to mitigation. 

The remaining key aspect of a successful mitigation program involves adopting advance or 

concurrent mitigation measures as required by the current provisions of section 2283 of title 33, 

US Code. We have been advised by officials ofthe Corps that the timing of the availability of 

construction funds makes accomplishing advance mitigation infeasible as a practical matter. We 

note that section 2285 of title 33, US Code, enacted as section 908 of WRDA 1986, establishes 

an ·'Environmental Protection and Mitigation Fund'' designed to provide funding for advance 

mitigation for civil works projects, with provisions for reimbursement to the fund from the ''first 

appropriation made for construction, including planning and designing, of such project[s]." We 

understand that this fund has never been capitalized. In order to allow this fund to serve the 

purpose intended, and to allow the Corps to take advantage of the cost reduction and time 

savings associated with the use of advance mitigation, we suggest one possible approach to the 

capitalization of the fund through the amendments to section 2283 reflected in the attached. 

Research and pilot projects in other contexts involving the requirement to mitigate for the impact 

of projects on wetlands and other ecological resources support a conclusion that adoption of the 

recommendations discussed above would help more quickly advance civil works projects and 

lower the costs associated with such mitigation. For example, in North Carolina, the state's 

Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) was established to expedite Department of 

Transportation (DOT) projects. EEP undertakes watershed planning, which is used to guide 

siting of compensation for transportation projects. North Carolina reports that, since 2003, there 

have been no delays in DOT projects because of a lack of mitigation, facilitating over $10 billion 

in project implementation. Advanced mitigation planning has also been used in San Diego to 

6 
180 


25114.157

meet the mitigation demand for projects that impact wetlands and species. The San Diego 

Association of Governments notes that a recent acquisition project will yield considerable costs 

savings. In Oregon, the state Department of Transportation (ODOT) used these concepts to 

assist in the implementation of an over $1.3 billion dollar program to repair or replace over 300 

bridges in the state. ODOT reports that it achieved an almost 20 percent savings in project 

implementation cost. 

7 
181 


25114.158

Senator Inhofe Question #I: 

Question: What, if any, policy priorities or changes are important to your organization are not 

addressed in this draft? How would you suggest we modi6· the draft to reflect your concerns? 

Answer: The Nature Conservancy advocates a number of policy changes to current law as 

detailed in our response below. We should, however, start by assuring that projects are being 

implemented that are consistent with existing national water resources policy. 

I) The next WRDA should ensure all federal investments in water resources meet the national 

water policy established in the WRDA 2007 which require all projects to reflect national 

priorities, encourage economic development, and protect the environment by: 

(a) Seeking to maximize sustainable economic development; 

(b) Seeking to avoid the unwise use of floodplains and flood-prone areas; 

(c) Protecting and restoring the functions of natural systems and mitigating any 

unavoidable damage to natural systems (sec 2031, WRDA 2007). 

This WRDA should include language requiring the Chief of Engineers reports explicitly evaluate 

project and project alternatives to demonstrate they meet this three part test. Changes that will 

enhance the way the nation manages it vital water resources include the following: 

2) Modernize Flood Recovery Options- while quick recovery from floods is critical we 

shouldn't be spending funds on replacing flood control structures that actually worsen 

downstrean1 floods. We recommend modifying PL 84-99 (33 U.S.C. 701n) to allow the 

consideration realignment or setting back of existing levees in addition to replacing levees. 

Often realigning an existing levee can eliminate pinch points in the flood way that are the 

location oflevee failures, and can raise flood stages downstream. Also, in cases of repeated 

levee failures or where existing levee alignments create significant pinch points or other risks, 

the Chief of Engineers (rather than just the landowner as is the case now) should be able to 

initiate consideration of options to reduce long-term risks and repair costs. We have attached 

some suggested language changes. 

3) National Levee Safety Program- We are pleased to see the inclusion of a national levee safety 

program in the draft bill (Title VI) and agree that the structural integrity and safety of levees 

across the country is a pressing need. We increasingly understand the role that natural features 

like floodplains, beaches and dunes play in attenuating flood risks. Therefore, we recommend 

that the scope and context of the proposed program be broadened to include a more holistic 

approach to flood risk reduction. Specifically, we recommend: 

8 
182 


25114.159

(a) The evaluation and criteria (Sec. 6004) of levees should be broadened to include 

an assessment of the context in which a specific levee is sitting (e.g. protecting a 

city, a suburb or an agricultural area), and whether its alignment and position are 

appropriate. Some levees fail or are damaged on a repeated basis because of how 

and where they were built. Others may unnecessarily raise flood stages and flood 

risks downstream. Nature-based solutions may be an important element of flood 

risk reduction. Therefore, the inventory of levees should evaluate these factors 

and identify those whose location, position or necessity may need to be reconsidered. 

(b) The technical assistance (Sec 6004) to States and tribes should be broadened to 

include information and assistance on how to evaluate all options, including 

structural and non-structural options, to reduce flood risks. Community safety 

involves more than the structural integrity of levees. 

(c) The advisory board (Sec. 6005) is narrowly constituted and scoped. Currently the 

Board includes only levee safety experts and no representation from risk 

management, river management, coastal or environmental experts. In addition, 

the scope of review is too limited. We are concerned that it doesn't adequately 

address issues related to environmental improvement and management that are 

integral to levee performance. 

4) Mitigation for Civil Works Projects -Additional authority is required in order to allow the 

Corps to fully participate in watershed-level planning for advanced mitigation, funded through 

general O&M funding not tied to specific projects or locations. Second, the Corps needs 

additional authority, applicable generally to all Corps civil works projects, that allows the Corps 

to apply the mitigation approaches specified in the Corps' 2008 rule implementing section 404 of 

the Clean Water Act, which calls for mitigation to be based on a watershed approach, and 

establishes a hierarchy of preference among available options for such mitigation. Please see our 

response to Senator Boxer's question #4 on mitigation policy for further elaboration. 

5) Non-profit Entity Project Sponsorship (Continuing Authorities Program)- We recommend 

additional provisions that will allow non-federal entities to be more effective partners. While 

we support those provisions in Title II of the bill that make such partnerships easier, and make 

private contributions to projects Jess cumbersome, we believe a new WRDA should consider 

rectification of the following issues: 

(a) Liability and Indemnification- The current requirements place all liability for 

damages arising from the implementation and operation of the project and for 

environmental contamination on the non-federal sponsor. 

(b) Operations and Maintenance- The non-federal sponsors are required to operate, 

maintain, repair, replace and rehabilitate (OMRR&R) the project in perpetuity. 

The goal for many ecosystem restoration projects is to establish conditions that 

won't need continual repair, replacement or rehabilitation. 

9 
183 


25114.160

(c) Regulatory Activities- Current agreements require non-federal sponsors to prevent 

encroachments on a project including prescribing and enforcing regulations. 

Nonprofit organizations, which have no regulatory powers, cannot make or 

enforce regulations and, ifnonprofits do not own real estate interests tor the 

project, they will have no authority to prevent encroachments. 

(d) Total Project Costs- Currently total project costs are not known until after a 

Project Partnership Agreement (PPA) is signed. Also, since CAP programs have 

statutory limits, increased costs above this limit are borne solely by the nonfederal sponsor. We recommend changes to ensure project costs continue to be 

shared; changes proposed in Title II, sec. 2005 should help in this matter. 

(e) Non-Cash Cost-Share for "In-Water" Restoration Projects- We recommend 

expanding the ability to use the protection of lands critical to protection of 'inwater' projects like oyster reef restoration for consideration as in-kind 

contributions to the cost-share requirements of projects. Congress has specifically 

addressed the eligibility of non-cash match in WRDA authorizing language at 

least once before for the Passaic River Main stem project. WRDA 1992 allowed 

state or other non-federal interests to acquire adjacent lands or those which 

provided drainage and allowed the value of those lands to count towards the nonfederal share. Qualified land conservation or restoration projects that are near 

(but not necessarily adjacent) to oyster restoration sites could qualify as the nonfederal cost share tor a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Chesapeake Bay Oyster 

Recovery construction project. 

6) Interagency & International Support 

We recommend including new language to increase the ability of the Corps to provide 

interagency and international support through changes to section 234 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2323a). These changes will further enable the Corps to 

participate with Federal or international organizations and foreign governments to address 

problems of international significance related to water resources, infrastructure development, and 

environmental protection. Actions pursuant to this authority have been valuable in bringing the 

expertise of the Corps to projects addressing freshwater management issues in a variety of 

circumstances, including, for example, a project funded by US AID for the Magdalena River in 

Colombia. We have attached some specific language changes. 

10 
184 


25114.161

Senator Inhofe Question #2 

Question: I am pleased that the Chair included a Sense of Congress on Project Acceleration. 

However, I would like to take this a step further and include legislative language. What does 

your organization recommend? 

Answer: We agree that shortening the time from feasibility studies to project implementation is a 

high priority- delays can be wasteful, costing taxpayers and impeding the completion of vital 

water infrastructure. At the same time, we don't want to short-circuit the scoping and evaluation 

of alternatives that will produce projects that will best meet the needs of our nation today, and for 

our children and grandchildren. We think tying project acceleration to defining and meeting 

identified watershed needs and priorities would ensure these projects meet the most pressing 

needs of our nation. 

I) Integrated Project Review-The US Army Corps of Engineers has indicated that as part of their 

plan to transform Civil Works, the planning phase can be shortened by utilizing a method being 

referred to as 3X3X3. We encourage this approach and believe use of joint teams of 

Headquarters, Division and District staff early in project development can accelerate final project 

delivery. 

2) Alternative Financing Pilot Projects-We recommend including an additional provision to 

promote innovative finance approaches to project delivery that authorizes and directs the 

Secretary to undertake up to 3 pilot projects that demonstrate the potential for alternative 

approaches to project delivery, funding, and finance. A similar demonstration of alternative 

approaches for transportation projects was authorized in Congress in 1996 Transportation Equity 

Act for the 21st Century (Sec. 1216 of TEA- 21) and led to the highly successful program. The 

pilots should focus on priority projects with completed Chief of Engineer's reports that would 

otherwise not receive adequate funding to ensure completion within I 0 years. These pilots 

would facilitate the development of the financing mechanism outlined in the discussion draft of 

WRDA 2012 (Sec. X) which provides for low interest loans and other credit assistance to 

projects. The pilots proposed in this section would ensure that the US ACE has the ability to 

clearly define sources of revenues to repay these loans, and to apply effective practices in project 

delivery. We have attached some language modeled on the 1996 TEA-21 statute. 

3) Private Hydropower on USACE structures-We believe there is significant potential for nonfederal entities, both public and private, to develop clean, carbon-free hydropower at existing 

Corps facilities. We recommend the Committee look at how the Sec. 408 reviews are conducted 

to consider addition of private hydropower to USACE dams. We recommend including changes 

that make development of such projects a priority for the Corps, and establish accelerated and 

reasonable time lines for review of such projects in coordination with the other approvals such 

projects require. 

II 
185 


25114.162

Senator lnhofe Question #3 

Question: Some have suggested that it is time to transform the Civil Works Program in order Ia 

ensure that it continues Ia effectively and efficiently provide and manage water resources 

projects. What are some fonvard-looking recommendations that/he Committee can consider 

inc01porating into this WRDA bill in order to lay a .foundation for future changes? 

Answer: Instituting Watershed Based Management- We need to firmly establish watersheds as 

the foundation for addressing our nation's infrastructure management challenges. Central to this 

approach is setting clear goals and desired outcomes at the watershed scale and developing clear 

measures that help us make sure we achieve these goals. Where such plans exist or can be 

created, projects should be evaluated on their ability to help achieve these defined watershed 

scale goals and outcomes. The following actions will lay a foundation for future changes in the 

Civil Works Program, and we believe the WRDA bill should include provisions that will 

facilitate moving to an integrated watershed-based approach to infrastructure management: 

I) Complete an inventory of all existing and authorized Corps projects and use the criteria listed 

below to place them in the following categories: 

(a) Existing projects that should be maintained and operated as currently designed 

(b) Existing projects that should be maintained but should be modified/operated to 

better achieve multiple benefits; what are the major changes that are required? 

(c) Existing projects that should be abandoned or conveyed to others without 

financial support as no longer having federal interest. 

(d) Proposed/authorized projects that should proceed based on the currently 

authorized purposes and design 

(e) Proposed/authorized projects that should proceed based on changed purposes and 

design 

(0 Proposed/authorized projects that should be abandoned as no longer cost-effective 

(g) Criteria 

i. Is the project fulfilling its authorized purposes? 

ii. Are there other purposes that the project could fulfill if its construction or 

operation were modified? 

iii. Is the project a safety hazard in its current condition? 

12 
186 


25114.163

iv. Do changing external conditions affect the viability/purposes of the 

project? 

v. Does the project continue to have local/public support? 

vi. Can revenues from the project be increased? As currently designed and 

operated? With modified operations? 

vii. Does the project have adverse or positive environmental impacts? 

viii. Can construction or renovation produce revenues that could allow private 

financing? 

ix. Is there some other responsible party who could operate the project? 

2) Modernizing Infrastructure Operations- Establish a "dam optimization" initiative that takes 

those projects identified in "b", above, which include existing Corps dams, and analyzes whether 

the dam could be physically modified or operated differently to produce greater benefits for 

multiple purposes without incurring greater adverse environmental impacts. 

3) Alternative Financing Options-Establish a framework for new financing that would provide 

greater flexibility to the US Army Corps of Engineers to seek private or other financing for all or 

parts of projects. Without reliable and sustainable funding we will not be able to meet the 

challenges in water infrastructure as outlined by the American Society of Civil Engineers. We 

recommend the Corps move toward a sustainable funding structure whereby revenues generated 

by USACE facilities and project users are reinvested in our water resources and water 

infrastructure. Currently the Corps infrastructure and associated user fees, including 

hydropower, harbor maintenance, inland waterways and recreation, generate almost $6 billion 

annually for the US treasury. These funds should be available for recapitalization of 

economically and environmentally critical projects. Finally, we should look at innovative finance 

mechanisms that use the federal investment to leverage private capital. See our proposal 

regarding pilot projects in response to Senator Inhofc's question# 2 above. Together with 

continued appropriations at current levels we could provide predictable and sustainable funding 

to enhance the Corps ability to meet the nation's water resource needs. 

13 
187 


25114.164

Attachment to Responses to Questions from the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

December 14, 2012 

Proposed Legislative Additions and Amendments. 

In Response to Senator Boxer's Question #4 

Mitigation Policy: Please see separate redline proposals on modification to 33 USC Section 2267a; 33 

USC Section 2283; 33 USC Section 2283a and 33 USC Section 2285 (attached} 

In Response to Senator lnhofe's Question #l 

2) Modernize Flood Recovery Options 

We propose the following language changes to ensure PL84-99 provides the USACE and local sponsors 

with flexibility to allow for certain improvements to existing structures during repair and rehabilitation 

following damage from a flood to reduce future risks and costs associated with those projects. 

EMERGENCY RESPONSE.-Section S(a}(l) of the Act entitled "An Act authorizing the construction of 

certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes", approved August 

18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n(a}(1)), as amended, is further amended by adding to the first sentence after the 

word extending the words "setting back, re-alignment" and adding after the words non-structural 

alternative the phrase "or levee set-backs and re-alignments,". We also propose the addition of 

language to further assure the Chief of Engineers considers non-structural options related to hurricane 

and coastal damage where warranted. 

The amended section would read: 

§ 70ln. Emergency response to natural disasters 

(a) Emergency fund 

(1) There is authorized an emergency fund to be expended in preparation for emergency response to 

any natural disaster, in flood fighting and rescue operations, or in the repair or restoration of any flood 

control work threatened or destroyed by flood, including the strengthening, raising, extending, setting 

back, re-alignment or other modification thereof as may be necessary in the discretion of the Chief of 

Engineers for the adequate functioning of the work for flood control, or In implementation of 

nonstructural alternatives or levee set-backs and re-alignments, to the repair or restoration of such 

flood control work if requested or approved by the non-Federal sponsor; 

(2) in the repair and restoration of any federally authorized hurricane or shore protective structure 

damaged or destroyed by wind, wave, or water action of other than an ordinary nature or In 

Implementation of nonstructural alternatives when in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers such 
188 


25114.165

repair and restoration or implementation of nonstructural alternatives is warranted for the adequate 

functioning oft he structure for hurricane or shore protection." 

(a) Emergency fund 

The amended section would read: 

33 USC Sec. 701b-11. Flood, hurricane, and shore protection projects 

(a) General considerations; nonstructural alternatives 

In the survey, planning, or design by any Federal agency of any project involving flood, hurricane, and 

shore protection, including protection from coastal storm surge, consideration shall be given to 

nonstructural alternatives to prevent or reduce flood damages including, but not limited to, levee setbacks and realignments, flood proofing of structures; flood plain regulation; acquisition of flood plain 

lands for recreational, fish and wildlife, restoration of coastal wetlands and other natural systems, 

restoration of oyster reefs, and other public purposes; and relocation with a view toward formulating 

the most economically, socially, and environmentally acceptable means of reducing or preventing flood 

damages. 

(b) Non-Federal participation through nonstructural alternatives; limitation 

Where a nonstructural alternative is recommended, non-Federal participation shall be comparable to 

the value of lands, easements, and rights-of-way which would have been required of non-Federal 

interests under section 701c of this title, for structural protection measures, but in no event shall exceed 

20 per centum of the project costs. 

In Response to Senator lnhofe's Question #1 

6) Corps P;utnerships on International Water Resources Efforts 

33 USC§ 2323a. Interagency and international support authority 

{Section 234, WRDA 1996) 

{a) In general 

The Secretary may engage in activities {including contracting) in support of any Federal department or 

agency, non-governmental organizations, international organizations, or foreign governments to 

address problems of national significance to the United States. 

(b) Consultation 

The Secretary may engage in activities in support of international organizations or foreign governments 

only after consulting with the Department of State. 
189 


25114.166

(c) Use of Corps' expertise 

The Secretary may use the technical and managerial expertise of the Corps of Engineers to address 

domestic and international problems related to water resources, infrastructure development, and 

environmental protection and restoration. 

(d) Funding 

There are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section for fiscal year 2013 and 

each fiscal year thereafter. The Secretary may accept and expend additional funds from Federal 

departments or agencies, non-governmental organizations, international organizations, or foreign 

governments to carry out this section. 

In Response to Senator lnhofe's Question #2 

2) Water Resource Project Construction, Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program 

The purpose ofthis section is to authorize and direct the Secretary to undertake up to 3 pilot projects 

that demonstrate the potential for alternative approaches to project delivery, funding, and finance to 

meet the water resource needs of the nation. The section authorizes the Secretary to identify an 

innovative and efficient means of project delivery for select projects which already have an approved 

Chief of Engineer's report. A similar demonstration of alternative approaches for transportation 

projects was authorized in Congress in 1996 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (Sec. 1216 of 

TEA- 21}. 

The pilots focus on priority projects that would otherwise not receive adequate funding to ensure 

completion within 10 years and would focus on high value and high intensity systems, including 

navigation, hydropower, and flood control systems. These pilots would facilitate and provide additional 

value to the financing mechanism outlined in the discussion draft of WRDA 2012 (Sec. X} which provides 

for low interest loans and other credit assistance to projects. The pilots proposed in this section would 

ensure that the USACE has the ability to clearly define sources of revenues to repay these loans, and to 

apply effective practices in project delivery. Established sources of revenue together with investmentgrade project delivery structures would work to attract private equity to invest in these projects 

leveraging Federal investment through Public Private Partnerships. These pilots would also demonstrate 

cost savings through engaging private partners, investing in lower-cost green infrastructure alternatives, 

or both. 
190 


25114.167

In Response to Senator lnhofe's Question #1 

6) Corps Partnerships on International Water Resources Efforts 

33 USC§ 2323a. Interagency and international support authority 

(Section 234, WRDA 1996) 

(a) In general 

The Secretary may engage in activities (including contracting) in support of any Federal department or 

agency, non-governmental organizations, international organizations, or foreign governments to 

address problems of national significance to the United States. 

(b) Consultation 

The Secretary may engage in activities in support of international organizations or foreign governments 

only after consulting with the Department of State. 

(c) Use of Corps' expertise 
191 


25114.168

The Secretary may use the technical and managerial expertise of the Corps of Engineers to address 

domestic and international problems related to water resources, infrastructure development, and 

environmental protection and restoration. 

(d) Funding 

There are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section for fiscal year 2013 and 

each fiscal year thereafter. The Secretary may accept and expend additional funds from Federal 

departments or agencies, non-governmental organizations, international organizations, or foreign 

governments to carry out this section. 

33 USC § 2323a. Interagency and international support authority 

(Section 234, WRDA 1996) 

(a) In general 

The Secretary may engage in activities (including contracting) in support of any Federal 

department or agency, non-governmental organizations, international organizations, or foreign 

governments to address problems of national significance to the United States. 

(b) Consultation 

The Secretary may engage in activities in support of international organizations or foreign 

governments only after consulting with the Department of State. 

(c) Use of Corps' expertise 

The Secretary may use the technical and managerial expertise of the Corps of Engineers to 

address domestic and international problems related to water resources, infrastructure 

development, and environmental protection and restoration. 

(d) Funding 

There are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section for fiscal year 

2012 and each fiscal year thereafter. The Secretary may accept and expend additional funds 

from Federal departments or agencies, non-governmental organizations, international 

organizations, or foreign governments to carry out this section. 

Flood 

33 USC Sec. 70lb-ll. Flood, hurricane, and shore protection projects (TNC 

proposed new language in our September input to E:PW highlighted in yellow, 

proposed additional changes shown in red hut not highlighted.) 

(a) General considerations; nonstructural alternatives 

In the survey, planning, or design by any Federal agency of any project 

lnvolvlng flood, hurricane, and shore protection, including protection from 

coastal storm surge, consideration shall be given to nonstructural 

alternatives to prevent or reduce damages including, but not limited to, 

,l'eVe~::: ~et-baCks:\a:n'Q' :te'aligitm'en'fSt' flood proofing of structures; flood plain 

regulation; acquisition of flood plain lands for recreational, fish and 

wildlife, restoration of coastal wetlands and other natural systems, 

restoration of oyster reefs, and other public purposes; and relocation with a 
192 


25114.169

view toward formulating the most economically, socially, and environmentally 

acceptable means of reducing or preventing damages. 

(b) Non-Federal participation through nonstructural alternatives; 

limitation 

Where a nonstructural alternative is recommended, non-Federal 

participation shall be comparable to the value of lands, easements, and 

rights-of-way which would have been required of non-Federal interests under 

section 70lc of this title, for structural protection measures 1 but in no 

event shall exceed 20 per centum of the project costs. 
193 


25114.170

33 tJSC Sec. 2267a 

901 

-EXPCITETITLE 33 - NAVIGATION A.ND NA.VIGABLE WATERS 

CHAPTER 36 - WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT 

SUBCHAPTER IV - WA.TER RESOURCES STtJDIES 

Sec. 2267a. Watershed and river basin assessments 

(a) In general 

01/03/2012 (112-

The 

watersheds 

may assess the water resources needs of river basins and 

the United States, l.ncluding needs rela.ting to -

(l) ecosystem protection a.nd restoration; 

(2) flood da.mage reduction; 

(3) navigation and ports; 

(4) watershed protection; 

{5) water supply; -.,..,-1--f• 

(6) drought preparedness;. 

17\ sources of wilter::,hed impairment· CJnd 

(81 the need~ of f!sh ond wild!ife. 

(b) Cooperation 

An assessment under subsection (a} of this section shall be carried out in 

cooperation and coordination with 
194 


25114.171

(1) the Secretary of t.hc 1nterior; 

[2) the Secretary of Agriculture; 

the Secretar-y of Commer-ce; 

{4) the Administrator of the 'Environmental Protect.lon Agtmcy; and 

(5} the heads of other 01pprapriate agencles. 

(c:) Consultation 

out an Oissessment under subsuction {a} of this section, the 

S-ecreta.ry 

.:J.__ consult with FederaL tribO!l, State, interstate, and local 

(d) Prio:rity river basins and watersheds 

lo river basins 01nd watersheds for assessment under this 

shall give prion.ty Lo -

(1) the Delaware River- basin; 

(2) the Kenh1cky River basin; 

(3) the Potomac River bd51n; 

the Susquehanna F.i ver basin; 

[5) the Willamette River bc~.o;;in; 

'l'uscar01was River Basin, Ohio; 

(7) Sc1uk Riv-er Basin, Snohomish cmd Skagit Counties, Washington; 

(8) N~agdra River Basin, New York; 

!So) Gene~HH> River Basin, New Yo:rlt; dtld 

(10) Wh:r.te P.:r.ver Bas1n, A.rk-'lnsc~s and M1s.scuri. 

(e) Acceptance of contributions 
195 


25114.172

In carry1ng out an assessment under subsection (a) of th1s sect.1_on, the 

accept contributions, 1n cash or .l_n kind, from Fedet;al, tribal, 

State, and local governmental entities to the extent: that the 

Secretary determines that the contributions will fac1l.1_tate completion of the 

{f) Cost-sharing requirements 

( 1) Non-Federal share 

The non-Federal share of the costs of an assessment carr1ed out under this 

section on or after December 11, 2000, shall be 25 percent. 

(2) Credit 

(A) In general 

Subject to subparagraph 

non-Federal share of an a<>sessment 

the Secretary may credit toward the 

this section the cost of services, 

materials, supplies, or other in-kind contrjbutlons pro<.>ided by the nonf:<'ederal interests for the assessment. 

{B) Maximum amount of credit 

The credit under subparagraph (A) may not exceed an amount equal to 

25 percent of the costs of the assessment. 

L. 

114, title 

L. 99-662, title 

title Sec. 

Nov. 

Nov. 17, 

Dec. 11, U4 

2007, 121 Stat 1074.) 

Stac. 4164; Pub. 

Pub. t,. 110-

2007 Subsec. (d) (6) to (10). Sec. 2010(1), added pars. (6) 

to (10). Subsec. (f) Pub. L. 110-114, Sec. , added paL (1) and 

struck out heading text of former par. (1). Text read as follows: "The 

non-Federal share of the costs of an assessment carried out under th~s 

section shall be 50 percent." Subsec. (g). Pub. L. Sec. 2010(3), 

struck out heading and text of subsec. (g). Text read as "There is 

authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000 

2000- Pub, L. 1D6-541 amended section catchline and text generally. Prior to 

amendment, section read as follows: 

"(a) The Secretary, in coord1nation with the Secretary of the Interior and in 

consultation wi!.h approprLate Federal, and local agenc1es, lS 

authorized to study the water resources of river basins and of 

the United States. The Secretaries shall report the results of such 

Congress not later than October 1, l9S8. 
196 


25114.173

"(b) 1n 

sect~on, shall consult with StatB, .1-nte:::state, and local 

governmental ent:it.J.cs. 

"(c) There is authorized to be 

beginning after September 30, 

$5, 000 for fiscal years 

section." 
197 


25114.174

{a) Steps to be taken pr:ior to or: concurrently with construction 

{1) In the case of any water resources 

be constructed by the Secretary before, on, or 

which is authorized to 

November 17, 1986, 

construction of which has not commenced as of November 17, 1986, and which 

necess1-tates the mltigatlon of 

(A) shall be undertaken or before any construction of the 

project {other than such ecquia,ion) commences, or 

(2) For the purposes of this subsection, 

November 17, 1986, on which more than 50 percent 

author1zed before 

land needed for the 

exclus1-ve of mitigation lands, has been acquired shall be deemed to 

cornrnenced construction under this subsection. 

(b) Acquisition of lands or interests in lands for: mitigation 

{A) acq[ui,;iclon under this paragraph shall not be by condemnation in 

the case of 

10 percent 

of Noverr.ber 

(B) ecg<u";Rlon of ~oJater, or interests therein, under this paragraph, 

shall not be condemnation. 
198 


25114.175

Whenever, after hls revie~o~, the Secretary determines that such 

features under this subsection are likely to require condemnation 

under subparagraph (A) or (Il) of paragraph (l) of this subsection, the 

Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on such proposed modification, 

together with his recommendations. 

(c) Allocation of mitigation costs 

Costs incurred after November 17, 1986, including lands, easements, 

project costs are shared or reimbursed, except that when such costs are 

covered contracts entered into prior to November 17, 1986, such costs 

shall recove~:ed WJ.t.hout the consent of the non-Federal J.nte.rests or 

until such contracts are complJ.ed with or .renegotiated. 

(d) Mitigation plans as part of project proposals 

(l) In general 

After November 17, 1986, the Secretary shall not submit any proposal 

for the author.:u.atlon of any water resources project to Congress lfl any 

(21 ~, •esign of mJ.tigation projects 

(3) Mitigation requirements 

(A) In general 
199 


25114.176

{Bl Inclllsi.ons 

paragr<lph 

plan for ~ water resources projeC't under: 

for roonitor1ng the implementation and ecolo<;~ical 

rueasu.:e, H\cludlng the cost and duration of any 

a dosiguation of the entities 

monit-oring; 

(il) the criter.iet for ecolog1-en.l su.:-cess by which th8 mitigation 

will be BValuated and determined t.o be successful based on replacement of 

lost functions and values of tht~ habitat, lUcl.uding hydrolog1c and vegetat1ve 

cha r:dcter is tics; 

{iii) a description of the land and interests in land to be 

and the basis for d. determination that the 

dud interests are for acquisition; 

(I) the types and amount of restoration activities to be 

conducted; 

{II) the physical action to be undertaken to achieve the 

m1tigation w~thin the watershed 1n which such losses occur .:~nd, in 

any case 10 the mitigation will occur outside the wa.tershed, a deta.i led 

explanation fo:r unde•ta}:ing the m:1tigation outside the ~o~atershed; and 

the functions and values that will result !rom the 

mitigation plan; 

(v) a contingency pl~n for taking corrective actions in cas>2s in 

which roonitor.lng demonst.rates that measures are not achieving 

ecological c;uccess in dccordanceo with under clause \Li). 

(C) Rec;ponsibility for monitoring 

for 

agreement 

of t ~t le 42. 

(4) Determination of success 
200 


25114.177

(A) In general 

plan under this subsection shall be considered to be 

(J) 

ach1eved under t.he plan, as dP.te:r:mi.ned by mon1tor1-ng 

(3)iB)(i._). 

{B) Consllltation 

In determin1ng whether a mitigation plan is :~1Uc:cessf1.1l 1;nde:r: 

subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall consult with appropi:iatE.' 

Federal ager!CJ.es dnd each State in Wh1ch the projE;>ct is locatEd on 

at least the following: 

'l'he 

which the report is 

success of the n>itigation as of the date on 

that 

(ii) The likelihood that the mitigation ~o.~ill achieve EJcologic,'ll 

as defined in the nn tigation plan, 

(iii J The projected time line for achieving that success, 

P.ny recommendattons for improving the likelihood of success. 

(5} Monitoring 

monitoring shall continue unt:J.l it has been demon:strat:.ad 

has met the ecological success cr1 tiEl ria.. 

(e) First enhancement costs as Federal costs 

In those- cases when 1::he Secretilry, as part of any repo!."t to 

recommends activities to enhance fish and wildlife resources, the 

of s1.1ch enhancenwnt shilll be a Yedcrill cost when 

such enhancement provides benefits tbat are detennincd to be 

be;~efits to spec~es that are- identified by the Na.tl.O:>Jal 

Marine as of Diltional econom1c importance, that a.re 

.subject to treat.les or international convention to which the State'> is 

a party, and anadromous fish; 

U.S .C. 1531, ct seq.), or 

(3) such activities are loc<.:lted on lands managed as a national 

wildlife refug«!. 

When benefits of enhancement do not qual1.£y under the sentence, 

25 percent of such first costs of enhilnc:ement shall be by nonFederal interests under il schedule .telmbursument by the 

Secretary. Not more than 80 percent the non-rederal share of such first 
201 


25114.178

costs may be satJ.sfied thr:-ough in-kind contrJ.butions, facilitJ.es, 

supplies, and servJ.ces that <~re necessary to car:-r:-y out the 

project. The non-~eder:-al share of oper:-ation, maintenance, and rehabilitation 

of activities to enhance fJ.sh and wildlife resources shall be 25 percent. 

(f) National benefits from enhancement measures for; Atchafalaya Floodway 

System and Mississippi Delta Region pr:ojects 

this section. 

of 

by Public 

authorized 

(g) Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act supplementation 

be deemed to supplement the ceepo<dlcility 

pursuant to the Fish and 

and nothing J.n this 

100 Stat. 4186; Pub. 

Stat.4852; Pub. L. 

L. 
202 


25114.179

33 USC Sec. 2283a. Status report 

(l) In general 

Concutrent with the President's submission to congxess of the 

Presid~nt's for appropri<J.tions £or the Civil Works Program for a 

fiscal yeax, SP.creta.ry shall submit to the Coro.:uittee of 

Repcetentativ" and the 

constr:-uction of 

t.1.tle, the status such 

under subsection {d) (4) (B) of such s8ct:ion. 

(2) Projeo;:-ts included 

1'he status report shall include the .~tatus of -

(A) i'ill projects that are under const.t:uction as of the date of the 

report; 

(Bl all projects for:- which the President requests fundJ ng for the 

next fiscal yo;w.r; 

that have 

havo"! not 

or completed c:onst.ruction, but 

under section 2283 of this t.:ttle;·,~ 

.@fiNPoRMATlON tNCLu;;>Eo,~ln reporting th.e statt~s o! all pmlec.t~"'-' ,.,.,,_, ""' 

im:.th!il.rejilort, the Se:c:retary shall 

.(A;) 1;1se a. uniform methodology fdr determining too status of all projects 

iriC!uded in lhe.repert: 

(B)' use a methodology that describes both•'!,. qualitalfve and quantltati1te 

status fer all•projectsin li'lJ'> report:~ 

(C) specify for each project which compensatory mitigation mechanism A~t.,-~~~~_t_::_c_ ______ ) 

(mitigation bank. in-lieu-fee program or permittee-responsible mitigation) 

was used to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirement 
203 


25114.180

(D) identify for each pro1ect the entity or entities that are responsible for 

providing all aspects of long-term protection of the project: 

(E) provide tor each project the location of the 1m pact site and 

compensation site in a geospatial format· and 

([G) provide specific dates for and parlicipants·in·the consultations 

requiretl. under section006( d)(4)(8) of the Water Resources Development 

Act tJf19S6 {33l:J S.C. 2283~d)(4)(B)). 

Availability of information 

'I'he Secr:etary shall rnake information contained in the status report 
204 


25114.181

33 usc s.,c. 2285 01/03/2012 (112-90) 

.Sec. 2265. Envtronmental Protection and Mitig31:ion Fund 

de.'llgnJ.ng, of such project, 

(Pub. L. 99-662, title IX, Sec. 908, t~ov. 17, 1985, 100 Stc>Jt. 4188.) 
205 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Our next speaker is Amy Larson, Esq., President, National Waterways Conference, Inc. 

STATEMENT OF AMY W. LARSON, ESQ., PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

NATIONAL WATERWAYS CONFERENCE, INC. 

Ms. LARSON. Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe, and 

distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the Water Resources Development Act of 2012. The Conference would like to thank Chairman 

Boxer for her leadership in developing WRDA 2012 as well as Senator Inhofe and this Committee for its long tradition of cooperation 

and collaboration in addressing the nation’s critical water resources 

needs. 

There is much in the draft to support in furtherance of a comprehensive and robust program. But in the interest of time and 

given the depth and detail, rather than go through section by section, my goal today will be to offer some comments on the overarching policies. We look forward to working with the Committee 

as it further delves into this process. 

You will note in my written statement comments on why we believe the Corps projects should not be considered earmarks. In the 

interest of time, I had deleted that section from my testimony this 

morning. But I would like to take the opportunity to support the 

comments made already and encourage the Congress that this is 

the opportunity to rethink how our nation invests in our nation’s 

water resources. 

Turning to title VI, the Levee Safety program. The importance 

of well built and well maintained levees cannot be understated. 

Levees are both abundant and integral to economic development 

and flood risk reduction in hundreds of large and small communities, industrial zones, urban areas, agricultural regions, and vitally strategic zones in the United States. To that end, we strongly 

support the legislation’s call for a one-time inventory and inspection of all levees identified in the National Levee Data Base as a 

critical first step to the establishment of a successful levee safety 

program. 

The baseline information garnered from such an inventory, including much of the non-Federal stock of levees, should then be included and maintained in an expanded data base in order to address critical safety issues, the true cost of good levee stewardship 

and the state of individual levees. And that can inform our priorities and provide data for a much needed assessment and decisionmaking. 

We agree with the proviso that the States and Indian tribes are 

uniquely positioned to oversee, coordinate, and regulate both local 

and regional levee systems. And we recommend that levee safety 

guidelines developed pursuant to this legislation preserve State 

and local government prerogatives, so that these guidelines truly 

do serve as guides. 

We support the appointment of an administrator for a program 

within the Corps of Engineers whose sole duty is the management 

of that program. And while we appreciate the intent behind the 

creation of a national levee safety advisory board, at this point we 

206 

suggest that perhaps it is premature to stand up that board. Let’s 

first do the full assessment to frame our understanding of system 

locations, conditions, and the national risk situation, and then determine how to frame and focus the work of such a board. 

The draft calls for the Comptroller General to prepare a report 

on possibilities for alignment of Federal programs to provide incentives and disincentives to promote shared responsibility. While we 

support efforts to enhance levee safety, we are very concerned 

about what disincentives might mean under this directive. We cannot penalize people who live in communities near the water or behind levees. Rather, we should fully identify and assess the problems through the completion of the inventory discussed above and 

then work through an open, informed, and systematic approach to 

bring deficient flood control structures to a level of protection we 

can live with and afford. 

In that regard, the theme of shared responsibility between Federal, State, and local government is threaded through the discussion draft. We share the sentiment but believe that for hundreds 

of leveed areas and millions of Americans, shared responsibility 

must mean more than simply increased Government oversight and 

standard setting. It must also include shared responsibility for actual infrastructure improvements and support of comprehensive 

flood safety. 

Turning to inland waterways, as we previously discussed this 

morning, ensuring the reliability of our inland waterways is essential to maintaining the nation’s economic and environmental wellbeing and competitive position within the global economy. To that 

end, we generally support the proposed reforms for project delivery 

applicable to the construction and major rehab of these projects, 

consistent with the process set forth by the Inland Waterways 

Users Board in the Capital Development Plan. 

Also integral to the project delivery reforms is the need to ensure 

sufficient funding for these important projects. While a proposal to 

increase the revenue in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund is not 

considered as part of this draft legislation, we would encourage the 

Committee, along with the Finance Committee and the Senate as 

a whole, to give careful consideration to the other proposals under 

development, to ensure a long-term funding mechanism to ensure 

the continued reliability of the nation’s inland waterway system. 

I see that I am just about out of time. But before ending, I would 

like to turn to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

Senator BOXER. I am going to ask you to summarize that piece. 

Ms. LARSON. We urge support for legislation that ensures that 

revenues collected are used for their intended purposes. That is a 

good summary, and I will save project acceleration to the question 

time. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Larson follows:] 

207 


25114.182

•

NATIONAL 

WATERWAYS 

CONFERENCE 

Testimony of 

Amy W. Larson, Esq. 

President and CEO 

National Waterways Conference, Inc. 

1100 North Glebe Road 

Suite 1010 

Arlington, VA 22201 

703-224-8007 

Before the 

United States Senate 

Committee of Environment and Public Works 

Hearing on the Water Resources Development Act of2012 

Thursday, November 15,2012 

10:30 AM EST 

406 Dirksen Senate Office Building 
208 


25114.183

Introduction 

Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, and distinguished members of the Senate 

Committee on Environment and Public Works, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to 

discuss the "Water Resources Development Act of2012." 

My name is Amy Larson and I am the President of the National Waterways Conference. 

The Conference would like to thank Chairman Boxer for her leadership in developing WRDA 

2012, as well as Ranking Member Inhofe and this Committee, for its long tradition of 

cooperation and collaboration in addressing the nation's critical water resources needs. 

Established in 1960, the Conference is the only national organization to advocate in favor 

of national policy and laws that recognize the vital importance of America's water resources 

infrastructure to our nation's well-being and quality of life. Supporting a sound balance between 

economic and human needs and environmental and ecological considerations, our mission is to 

effect common sense policies and programs, recognizing the public value of our nation's water 

resources and their contribution to public safety, a competitive economy, national security, 

environmental quality and energy conservation. Conference membership is comprised of the full 

spectrum of water resources stakeholders, including flood control associations, levee boards, 

waterways shippers and carriers, industry and regional associations. port authorities. shipyards, 

dredging contractors, regional water supply districts, engineering consultants, and state and local 

governments. In that regard, our membership is keenly interested in the enactment of 

comprehensive water resources legislation and we look forward to working with the Committee 

as we move forward in this process. 

As this Committee well knows, reliable, well-maintained water resources infrastructure is 

fundamental to America's economic and environmental well-being, and is essential to 

maintaining our nation's competitive position within the global economy. Our water resources 

infrastructure provides life-saving flood control, abundant water supplies, shore protection, 

water-based recreation, environmental restoration, and hydropower production, essential to our 

2 
209 


25114.184

economic well-being. Moreover, waterways transportation is the safest, most energy-efficient 

and environmentally sound mode of transportation. 

With that in mind, I would like to offer a general, over-arching comment on the draft 

legislation, before addressing specific provisions. It would appear that the drafting of various 

provisions throughout the bill has been hampered by the moratorium on earmarks. While efforts 

in Congress to eliminate wasteful spending arc laudable, and especially important given today's 

fiscal challenges, deferring to the Executive Branch complete decision-making as to which 

projects should be authorized or receive funding, how much (if any) funding should be allotted to 

each, and all related priority decisions, has resulted in the stoppage or delay of critical projects. 

Moreover, the Administration's priorities, as articulated in the budget, have not been established 

through an open, deliberative process, in contrast to the open process used by this Committee in 

developing past WRDAs. 

Projects such as those undertaken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are different 

from other Federal programs in several respects: each project is formulated separately to address 

a separate and discrete problem: projects are individually considered and recommended by the 

Administration and arc authorized separately by the Congress based on the benefits accruing 

from each one; each project comprises a separate and distinct Federal investment decision 

generally independent of other projects and is, therefore, subject to individual appropriations; 

and, each project also comprises a separate and distinct non-Federal investment decision since 

non-Federal sponsors agree to pay significant portions of project costs. 

It is important to note that water resources projects are scrutinized, arguably, to a greater 

extent than any other capital investment program in the government through highly detailed 

studies. Proposed projects are subjected to comprehensive analyses using merit-based criteria, an 

integral component of which includes extensive public involvement wherein public input is 

widely sought and incorporated at frequent intervals. The Water Resources Development Act of 

1986 imposed significant increases in non-Federal cost-sharing and other items oflocal 

cooperation, and the 1996 WRDA increased these non-Federal cost-sharing responsibilities still 

further. The water resources project approval process was strengthened in WRDA 07 through a 

3 
210 


25114.185

series of reforms, including the requirement that each project be subjected to an external 

independent peer review. 

Historically, Congress authorizes projects that meet very rigorous tests, specifically, 

those that survive very detailed analyses and which non-Federal governments support through 

contributions of substantial shares of project costs. These decisions have been made in a 

collaborative manner, subject to a consultative, deliberative process, involving all stakeholders 

and their representatives. We would respectfully suggest that this Committee, by means of its 

open and deliberative process, and whose members have the benefit of first-hand knowledge of 

the importance of particular projects to their states, is the appropriate forum in which to make 

these major investment decisions, and we would encourage the Congress to reconsider how this 

country invests in the nation's water resources infrastructure. 

Analysis of the Discussion Draft 

We appreciate the opportunity to offer these initial comments on the draft legislation. 

Given the complexity of the draft, particularly the numerous policy reforms in Title II, my 

testimony first looks at major program proposals, and then offers some preliminary comments on 

Title II at the end. We look forward to working with the Committee to provide additional input 

as it works to refine this legislation. 

Title I 

As previously mentioned, we believe that the Congress is best suited to make the 

individual, discrete investment decisions regarding our nation's water resources. 

Title IV would similarly grant to the Secretary the discretion whether to initiate water 

resources studies. We believe it is in the best interest of the nation that these decisions be made 

in the open and transparent legislative process that has traditionally been used in the 

development of water resources legislation. 

4 
211 


25114.186

Title VI -Levee Safety 

Title VI of the bill, a furtherance of the Levee Safety Act passed by Congress as part of 

the 2007 WRDA, would begin the actual establishment of a comprehensive levee safety 

program. This part of the Chairman's discussion draft also takes into account draft 

recommendations made to Congress by the National Committee on Levee Safety in 2009. 

The importance of well-built and well-maintained levees cannot be tmderstated. Levees 

are both abundant and integral to economic development and flood risk reduction in hundreds of 

large and small communities, industrial zones, urban areas, agricultural regions, and vitally 

strategic zones around the United States. The National Committee on Levee Safety estimates 

that tens of millions of people live and work in leveed areas. By some estimates, nearly 50 

percent of Americans live in counties with levees or related flood protection infrastructure. 

Corps of Engineers' levee systems provide a 6:1 return ratio on flood damages prevented 

compared to initial costs, and the Mississippi River and Tributaries system provides a 34:1 return 

on investment ratio. 

Levees also serve an important role in our nation's energy framework by protecting many 

power plant facilities, as well as the oil, gas and petrochemical industries along the Texas and 

Louisiana Gulf coast and the agri-business economy throughout California's Central Valley, the 

Mississippi Delta Region and the Midwest. Well-conceived levees, tloodwalls and appurtenant 

infrastructure protect fire and police departments, hospitals, and schools. They are critical to the 

viability of our overall public infrastructure network, protecting other infrastructure, including 

roads. bridges, railroads. port facilities and wastewater treatment plants. 

Levee infrastructure. like our aviation, water and wastewater, transit, dams and 

waterways transport. is in need of attention. Effective and improved management of levees is 

necessary for the continued enjoyment of the economic, societal and cultural benefits yielded by 

this public works investment. For that reason. we applaud the Chainnan for including a levee 

safety proposal to begin a critical public dialogue. 

5 
212 


25114.187

As the legislation calls for, a one-time inventory and inspection of all levees identified in 

the national levee database is a critical first step to the establishment of a successful levee safety 

program. The baseline information garnered from such an inventory, including much of the nonfederal stock of levees, should then be included and maintained in an expanded national levee 

database in order that critical safety issues, true costs of good levee stewardship, and the state of 

individual levees can inform priorities and provide data for needed assessments and decisionmaking. 

The draft stipulates that the states and Indian tribes are uniquely positioned to oversee, 

coordinate and regulate local and regional levee systems. Our organization and many others are 

still thinking through delegated authority, but we would recommend that any levee safety 

guidelines developed pursuant to the legislation must preserve state and local government 

prerogatives, so that such guidelines could properly serve as a "guide" for states, but the 

decisions on whether to adopt and implement should be left to the discretion of the states. 

Further, the provisions requiring the Secretary to establish such guidelines should be amended to 

require that they be developed consistent with the public notice and due process requirements of 

the Administrative Procedure Act. Given that participation in the grant program to be 

established under this title calls tor adherence to the guidelines, principles of fairness would 

dictate that those guidelines be developed through an open and transparent process. 

Given the critical importance oflevees throughout the country, we support the 

appointment of an administrator of the levee safety program, within the Corps of Engineers, 

whose sole duty is the management of that program. We also appreciate the intent behind the 

creation of the National Levee Safety Advisory Board to provide advice on consistent 

approaches to levee safety, to monitor levee safety and to assess the effectiveness of the national 

program. However, given the fiscal constraints facing the nation, we believe it would be 

premature to stand up the Board before completion of the inventory and inspection of the 

nation's levees. The results of the inspection, which will increase our understanding oflevcc 

system locations, conditions, and the national flood risk situation, could then be used to 

determine whether such a Board is necessary, and if so, to help frame and focus its work. 

6 
213 


25114.188

The draft calls for the Comptroller General to prepare a report on the possibilities for 

alignment of Federal programs to provide incentives and "disincentives" to promote shared 

responsibility for levee safety and to encourage the development of strong levee safety programs. 

While we support efforts to enhance levee safety, we arc concerned about what possible 

"disincentives" might be contemplated by this directive. 

Water resource development for transportation, manufacturing, irrigation, and recreation 

has always been a part of this country's heritage and will continue to be for future generations. 

We cannot penalize people who live in communities near the water or behind levees. Rather, we 

should fully identify and assess the problems through completion of the inventory discussed 

above, and then work through an open, informed, systematic approach to bring deficient flood 

control structures to a level of protection we can live with and afford. 

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) reauthorization, enacted over the summer 

as a part of this committee's MAP-21 transportation reauthorization, was stripped of a provision 

that would have mandated flood insurance purchase and imposed land use restrictions for all 

property owners behind levees and dams, regardless of their federal rating. Our organization 

worked closely with numerous members of the Senate, including members of this committee, to 

eliminate this arbitrary and punitive "residual risk" provision. It should not be the policy of the 

United States to discourage existing and future economic activity in areas protected by sound 

levees, dams and other flood control infrastructure. Many of our Nation's most fertile lands and 

economically strategic assets lie in areas now protected by well-conceived levees and dams. 

Rather than identify disincentives that would result in significant economic harm, we would 

instead suggest the adoption of incentivized approaches to provide direct assistance and 

conditional flexibility to "'good actor" communities who are diligently working to bring their 

deficient levees into compliance with changed Federal requirements. The Army Corps' "SWIF" 

program to allow non-federal sponsors the opportunity to maintain PL 84-99 eligibility, for 

example, is the sort of post-Katrina transitioning that we are convinced works best to protect 

lives, property, and federal taxpayer interests. We understand that the National Levee Issues 

Alliance has provided committee staff with draft language to facilitate these incentivizcd 

approaches and we would support this kind of initiative. 

7 
214 


25114.189

Finally, the theme of"shared responsibility" between the Federal, state and local 

governments is threaded through the discussion draft. We share this sentiment, but believe that 

for hundreds of leveed areas and millions of Americans, "shared responsibility" must mean more 

than just increased government oversight and standard-setting for levees. It must also include 

shared responsibility for the financing of actual infrastructure improvements in support of 

comprehensive flood safety. 

Title VII- Inland Waterways 

Title VII of the draft legislation sets forth various provisions designed to improve the 

reliability of the inland waterways to ensure our nation's river system continues to operate as an 

affordable, reliable, energy-efficient and environmentally friendly mode oftransport. 

Our inland waterways serve as the backbone of the nation's transportation system, 

ensuring domestic and international trade opportunities, and low-cost, environmentally sound 

movement of goods. More than 600 million tons of cargo including agricultural products, 

petroleum, chemicals, coal, iron, steel, and other raw materials moves on the waterways at a 

cost that is typically 2 to 3 times lower than other modes of transportation, translating into an 

annual savings of $7 billion for America's economy. A typical IS-barge tow carries the 

equivalent of216 rail cars or 1,050 large semi tractor-trailer trucks, and generates fewer 

emissions than the other modes. 

As this Committee knows, ensuring the reliability of our inland waterways is essential to 

maintaining the nation's economic and environmental well-being and competitive position in the 

global economy. To that end, we generally support the proposed reforms to the project delivery 

process applicable to the construction and major rehabilitation of the nation's aging locks and 

dams, based upon the Capital Development Plan endorsed by the Inland Waterways Users 

Board. The details of many of the proposed reforms would need to be further clarified and 

refined, including what kind of formal training and certification would be required for project 

managers, on what basis the Chief of Engineers would certify project managers, and the duties 

8 
215 


25114.190

and responsibilities of the users board representative appointed to serve on a project development 

team. We would recommend that the Secretary be directed to consult with the Users Board in 

implementing these requirements. We would also recommend that the required report on the 

study, design or construction of navigation projects be semi-annually rather than quarterly, given 

the various provisions elsewhere in the draft legislation concerning both the need to streamline 

the planning and project delivery process along with the possible imposition of additional 

burdens prolonging the process. 

Integral to the project delivery reforms is the need to ensure sufficient funding for these 

important projects. While a proposal to increase the revenue in the Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund is not considered in the draft legislation, we would encourage this Committee, along with 

the Finance Committee and the Senate as a whole, to give careful consideration to other 

proposals under development to enact a long-term funding solution to ensure the continued 

reliability of the nation's inland waterways. Revitalization of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, 

together with the reforms to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund discussed below, would 

position America's ports and waterways to take advantage of the tremendous opportunities 

offered by the Panama Canal Expansion. 

Title VIII -Harbor Maintenance 

Title VIII of the draft addresses harbor maintenance. As this Committee knows, the 

nation's ports and harbors arc critical components of our transportation infrastructure, and 

regular maintenance is required to ensure their efficient use. The Harbor Maintenance Tax is 

intended for that specific purpose, and annual revenues from the tax arc generally about $1.5 

billion annually. However, only about $800 million- half of the revenue collected- is used for 

its intended purpose. 

As a consequence, the nearly I ,000 federal ports and harbors have not been adequately 

maintained, and indeed, those ports that handle nearly 90 percent of commercial traffic are 

dredged to their authorized depths and widths only 35 percent ofthe time. This chronic failure to 

provide sufficient funding has resulted in channels getting narrower and shallower due to 

9 
216 


25114.191

inadequate dredging, which has resulted in ships having to light-load, increasing the cost of 

shipping, the risk of vessel groundings, collisions, and pollution incidents. 

With 13 million jobs and $4 trillion in economic activity dependent on these ports and 

harbors, we cannot let them fall into further disrepair. Because waterborne transportation is 

often the least expensive means oftransporting vital commodities and goods, maintaining this 

essential infrastructure bolsters our economic competitiveness and strengthens the economy. 

We strongly support legislation that would ensure that the revenues collected into the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund are used for their intended purposes. We agree that the proper 

expenditure of such receipts should not result in a reduction in funding for other projects and 

programs in the Corps of Engineers' civil works program. We would further caution against any 

expansion of the activities that would be eligible for funding under this proposal until such time 

as there is a mechanism that ensures that the revenues collected will be used for the intended 

purposes. Otherwise, simply shifting the already scarce resources in a chronically underfunded 

program would only serve to further undermine the stability of our critical water resources 

infrastructure. The draft Senate legislation we were asked to review includes a conditional 

guarantee regarding I IMTF spending, but it is not clear how this language would work. 

Title II 

Section 2016, Project Acceleration 

We appreciate the Committee's concerns about the Corps' planning process in Section 

20 I 6, Project Acceleration. Many of our members are local sponsors who have been frustrated 

with increased costs and delays in the completion of feasibility studies. We applaud the Corps' 

efforts to streamline this process through its "3x3x3" program, (feasibility studies completed in 

no more than 3 years, at a cost of no more than $3 million, and three levels of engagement). W c 

would also recommend, as the Corps continues to refine its planning process, that it develop 

additional guidance on what elements can be eliminated from the current process and still 

produce a valuable study, because simply mandating a shorter time-frame and a lower cost will 

not reform the process. In that regard, we would be concerned that imposing a requirement to 

10 
217 


25114.192

complete studies within 3 years irrespective of the availability of funds, previous statutory 

requirements, new requirements in this legislation. and without consideration of the appropriate 

scope of a study (including economic, environmental and engineering requirements), would 

undermine the planning process rather than improve it. 

Our non-Federal sponsors are exploring various alternatives that may help to streamline 

the planning process, while still producing a report that is sufficient to stand up to legal, 

environmental and economic challenges. Fundamentally, in order to effectuate meaningful 

refonns, the Corps must be relieved ofthe burden of examining any issue or permutation that 

could possibly arise, regardless of how realistic or unrealistic. This would help curtail the 

excessive data collection and analysis that have significantly hampered the process. These 

threshold. and systemic reforms, must be implemented in order for other refinements to the 

process, including for example, eliminating duplication during the reconnaissance and feasibility 

phases, to be successful. 

Given the significant focus on reforming the planning and project delivery processes, I 

would like to highlight some of the proposed policy reforms which we are concerned could add 

requirements to both the project justification and project implementation processes, resulting in 

additional cost and delay. For instance, Section 2002 would add a requirement for mitigation for 

ecological resources, including terrestrial and aquatic resources. Section 2003 would extend by 

5 years the independent peer review provisions contained in WRDA 2007 and impose additional 

reporting requirements on the Chief of Engineers, and Section 2004 would modify the safety 

assurance review provisions of WRDA 2007. Both of these provisions could impose additional 

cost and time on Corps' fea~ibility studies, without increasing their efficiency. 

Section 2012, Dam Optimization, grants to the Secretary very broad authority to 

undertake any activity deemed necessary to increase etl!ciency of dam operations and 

maintenance. This authority would include undertaking any activity related to the authorized 

project purposes, as well as environmental protection and restoration activities for authorized 

projects and other related project benefits. As a general principle, we would suggest that this 

provision should establish a clear policy of allocating total storage of a reservoir to the purposes 

11 
218 


25114.193

that result in highest and best use. Further, any reallocation would provide for compensation for 

adversely affected parties. 

The role of the non-Federal sponsors is not included in this provision, and we would 

recommend an amendment to require that any action under this section may occur only after 

consultation with the non-Federal sponsors. We would also suggest that the section be amended 

to clarify whether the Secretary would be granted authority to carry out ·'any" activity (section 

b(l)) or only those enumerated in section b(2). The applicable reporting requirements would 

need similar clarification. 

Section 2013, Implementation of Biological Opinions, also grants to the Secretary broad 

authority to carry out any activity deemed necessary to comply with a biological opinion "that 

directly relates to impacts from an authorized water resources project." We are concerned that 

this provision could be interpreted as significantly expanding the Corps' authority in ways that 

are beyond, or even contrary to, the Corps' mission. For example, does this provision intend that 

the Endangered Species Act provides supplemental statutory authority? Or docs the ESA only 

authorize whatever conservation measures are possible within the authority granted by an 

agency's organic statutes? 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee today to discuss the draft 

Water Resources Development Act of2012. We look forward to working with the Committee as 

it is moves this bill forward. 

12 
219 


25114.194

United States Senate 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

November 15,2012 

Follow-up Questions for Written Submission 

Submitted by Amy W. Larson, Esq. 

National Waterways Conference, Inc. 

Questions from Senator Barbara Boxer 

I. In your testimony, you discuss the significant and careful review that projects undergo in 

development of a Chiefs Report. 

a. Can you elaborate on the process and criteria for a project with a completed Chiefs 

Report? 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) planning process, set forth in its Planning 

Guidance Notebook, ER 1105-2-100, is based upon the Principles and Guidelines (P&G) 

promulgated in 1983, along with numerous laws applicable to the Corps' missions and the Civil 

Works program. The P&G were set forth to provide for the formulation of reasonable plans 

responsive to National, state and local concerns. 

The Principles and Guidelines state that the Federal objective of water and related land 

resources planning is to contribute to national economic development consistent with protecting 

the Nation's environment, in accordance with national environmental statutes, applicable 

executive orders, and other Federal planning requirements. In general, the plans recommended 

for implementation are to reasonably maximize net national benefits. 

The Planning Notebook sets forth a six-step process established in the P&G to provide 

for a structured approach to problem solving, utilizing a rational framework for sound decision 

making. The six steps are: 

Step I - Identifying problems and opportunities 

Step 2 -Inventorying and forecasting conditions 

Step 3 - Formulating alternative plans 

Step 4- Evaluating alternative plans 

Step 5 -Comparing alternative plans 

Step 6 - Selecting a plan 

The six steps are explained in great detail in the Planning Notebook. On top of the 

requirements contained therein, Corps' studies are also subject to an extensive systematic review 

process. This includes internal reviews, including quality control and agency technical reviews; 

external reviews, including National Environmental Policy Act reviews, independent external 

peer reviews, and state and agency reviews; and other policy and legal reviews. 
220 


25114.195

Overall, the process is extraordinarily rigorous and thorough, indeed to a much greater 

degree than is found in any other example of infrastructure planning. However, the process has 

grown to being overly burdensome, resulting in it becoming impracticable. For instance, current 

requirements have accreted due to the growth oflaw and policy, as a result of legal and technical 

challenges, and with individual requirements added to address some sort of shortcoming 

identified in a previous project. 

Similarly, the extensive reviews can be quite costly and time-consuming. For example, 

the independent external peer reviews. initiated by Section 2034 ofWRDA 07, may include 

economic and environmental assumptions and projections, project evaluation data, economic 

analyses, environmental analyses, engineering analyses, formulation of alternative plans, 

methods for integrating risk and uncertainty, models used in evaluation of economic or 

environmental impacts of proposed projects, and any biological opinions of the project study. 

A report containing the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers is completed only 

after the study and review processes are completed, comments have been resolved to the extent 

possible and the Chief has made a determination on the merits of the proposed project after 

considering all available input. 

b. Would you be confident that the 18 projects with completed Chiefs Reports and 

referred to Congress by the Assistant Secretary of the Army have been thoroughly 

reviewed and worthy of being authorized? 

Yes, I am very confident that all18 projects with positive recommendations on Chief 

Reports arc worthy investments for the Nation. 

In addition to the Chiefs Reports, there may, in all likelihood, be other worthy projects 

that Congress may want to consider as welL The Congress has a vital role to play in these 

important- and independent investment decisions and should assure that the decisions are 

reached through an open and inclusive process where the needs and priorities of all are 

considered. 

2. In your testimony you support the creation of the National Levee Safety Program. Can you 

expand on the couple of features you feel will be most important to starting this new program? 

Our organization is amenable to the idea, broadly, that if state governments want USACE 

to partner with their localities to strengthen flood damage reduction capability, then the states 

will have to develop and implement levee safety programs that meet certain minimum 

guidelines. Regional circumstances and variations will have to be considered as this concept 

advances. In any case, the legislation must guarantee that the program guidelines are: (I) the 

product of co-equal input from Federal and non-Federal representatives; (2) voluntary at the 

State level; and (3) developed consistent with the public notice and due process requirements of 

the Administrative Procedure Act. Similar to other public safety aspects of most law 

enforcement activities in the United States, the basic life and limb safety burden is most 

2 
221 


25114.196

appropriately handled at the state and local levels. Surveillance, evacuations, land use practices, 

building codes, public outreach, and other risk reduction measures should be left and/or clarified 

in the bill as state and local domain. While the Federal sponsor does have an interest and 

responsibility for life safety concerns, its primary consideration has been and should continue to 

be based on economic return (National Economic Development benefits). To the degree that we 

can more explicitly state, in law and policy, what the clear Federal, state, and local roles are 

regarding flood damage reduction and flood safety, the better off we will be. 

By using future WRDA legislation to more clearly delineate Federal and non-Federal risk 

reduction responsibilities, we would bring many critical project delivery and operational benefits 

to the forefront. Mandatory national levee safety standards are neither desirable nor practicable. 

The case-by-case variables are just too great, in our estimation, for any effective development 

and application of top-down regulations. Universal standard setting will have a chilling and 

costly impact on an already overburdened USACE project delivery process. The current 

controversy over USACE levee vegetation management, dealt with in another part of the 

Chairman's Discussion Draft, is instructive on the difficulties associated with overly prescriptive 

national standard-setting in this policy area. Peer-reviewed models for levee safety programs, 

however, can serve to shore-up life safety risk concerns by informing case-by-case design and 

maintenance guidelines with "best practices" knowledge while cost-effectively reaffirming 

responsibility for life and limb safety at the appropriate non-Federal levels. 

Voluntary adoption and implementation of effective, peer-reviewed state levee safety 

programs must be premised upon the inclusion of cost-shared levee project improvement and 

rehabilitation funding for Federal program projects, including prioritized remedial design and 

construction modifications at federally built projects. 

Since 2009, lJSACE has completed a substantial portion of its nationwide 

Inspection/Inventory for USACE program levees, and late last year the agency organized much 

of this field data within the National Levee Database authorized by the 2007 WRDA. Both 

initiatives, appropriately, have been focused. first, on the Federal program levees. Non-Federal 

levees, for the most part, are unstudied and uncharacterized at this stage and, thus, should not be 

covered by legislative directives at this time. Baseline information on these non-Federal levees 

would be obtained from the Inspection/Inventory called for in the Discussion Draft, after which 

time it would make more sense to contemplate their inclusion in a comprehensive Levee Safety 

Program. 

Finally, we would be concerned about overly summarized project rating tools 

contemplated under the Hazard Potential Cla~sification System (and related USACE Levee 

Safety Classif1cation System (L-SAC)). The goal of categorizing "worst first" to prioritize 

national needs and funding decisions is an understandable public policy aim, but it isn't clear to 

us that the L-SAC process is doing a good job on that goal. However, public dissemination of 

this summary, potentially arbitrary data could present extraordinary, unintended economic 

challenges at the local level. L-SAC type summary ratings have the potential to strike 

widespread blows against regional property values, local revenue collection, job creation, area 

reinvestment, and overall regional economic outputs. 

3 
222 


25114.197

3. The draft bill includes provisions for helping ensure the complete expenditures of the HMTF. 

Can you explain why full spending of the HMTF is necessary and important to our national 

commerce? 

We appreciate Chairman Boxer's recognition of the importance offully spending the 

revenues from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for their intended purposes. However, we do 

not agree that the provisions in the discussion draft would ensure those expenditures. While the 

text of subsection 8002(a) is consistent with the text of S.412, the Harbor Maintenance Act, the 

text of subsection 8002(b) does not include the point of order that would enforce the guarantee in 

paragraph 8002(b )(I). Without the point of order, that guarantee is not enforceable in the House 

or the Senate. 

As stated in my testimony, we agree that the proper expenditure of receipts from the 

HMTF should not result in a reduction of funding for other projects and programs in the Corps' 

civil works program. We believe that overall investments in our nation's water resources 

infrastructure are woefully inadequate. To that end, we are concerned that paragraph 8002 

appears to the casual reader to address the inadequate funding of harbor maintenance programs, 

but it actually does not fix the problem. 

Similarly, it is not clear how paragraph 8002(b)(2) as drafted would operate. It is not 

clear whether the baseline for determining whether the amount of appropriations in question is a 

reduction compared to the previous fiscal year's appropriation or the Administration's request for 

the fiscal year in question. Also, it does not specify who would be empowered to make a 

determination of whether a reduction in appropriations for such programs was the result of an 

increase in appropriations from the HMTF or due to another reason. [fthe Administration 

forwarded to the Congress an annual budget request that would increase appropriations from the 

HMTF while slightly decreasing total non-HMTF funding from the previous fiscal year and 

explained that such reduction is based on other factors, would that render paragraph 8002(b)(2) 

inoperative? 

Subsection 8003(a) of the draft bill would expand the authorized uses ofHMTF revenue 

to include 100% ofthe cost of maintaining navigation channel depth greater than 45 feet, but not 

greater than 50 feet. Subsection 8003(b) of the draft bill would authorize under certain 

circumstances the HMTF to reimburse the costs of maintaining harbor berths and disposing of 

associated dredged materials. Currently, both of these costs would be paid for by the nonfederal 

interest. It is difficult to determine how great an additional demand on the HMTF these 

provisions would impose. Given that there is a tremendous backlog of unmet currently 

authorized harbor maintenance needs, we cannot support legislation expanding the authorized 

uses of the HMTF that does not also effectively ensure that annual HMTF revenues are fully 

provided to the Army Corps of Engineers for currently authorized purposes. 

Section 2018 appears to be targeted at harbor deepening projects that are completed using 

non-federal funds and it is reasonable to assume that some nonfederal interests would do so due 

to inadequate federal funding of authorized Army Corps of Engineers navigation construction 

projects. Since the operations and maintenance of such deepened channels would otherwise be 

reimbursed with HMTF revenue, we have no objection to this provision. 

4 
223 


25114.198

To understand why full spending of the HMTF is necessary and important to our national 

commerce, it is important to recognize that our ports and harbors are gateways to domestic and 

international trade, connecting the United States to the world. U.S. ports and harbors handle 

more than 2.5 billion tons of domestic and international trade annually. These ports are 

responsible for moving more than 99 percent of the country's overseas cargo, and that volume is 

projected to double within the next 15 years. With the expansion of the Panama Canal in 2015, 

many of our ports will realize substantial volume growth. In 2007, there were 13.3 million portrelated jobs 9% of all jobs in the US that accounted for $649 billion in personal income. A 

$1 billion increase in exports creates an estimated 15,000 new jobs. The navigation channels 

maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers allow for the most efficient transportation of these 

goods and help keep U.S. exports competitive in the world market. The vast majority of U.S. 

harbors and navigation channels experience a loss of channel depth due to deposits of silt that 

must be removed by maintenance dredging that is reimbursed by the HMTF. Failure to keep up 

with this maintenance dredging results in a loss of channel depth, light loading oflarge cargo 

vessels, lost competitiveness of U.S. ports and exports, and loss ofjobs. 

Full expenditure of the HMTF supports to the Administration's We Can't Wait initiative, 

a government-wide effort to streamline the permitting and review process for nationally and 

regionally significant infrastructure projects, under which 7 projects at 5 major ports were 

expedited earlier this year. Post-Panamax vessels today make up 16 percent of the world's 

container fleet, but account for 45 percent of the fleet's capacity. Those numbers are projected to 

grow significantly over the next 20 years, and full expenditure ofHMTF will be critical to ensure 

that the nation's ports are prepared to accommodate those new vessels. In addition, the National 

Export Initiative, which strives to increase oversees trading opportunities for U.S. businesses, 

will benefit from better maintained ports and harbors. 

Full expenditure of the HMTF makes economic sense. 

5 
224 


25114.199

Questions from Senator James lnhofe 

l. What, if any, policy priorities or changes to current law that are important to your 

organization are not addressed in this draft? 

a. How would you suggest we modify the draft to reflect your concerns? 

I. We would urge the Congress to take this opportunity to rethink how our 

nation invests in its infrastructure. While efforts in Congress to eliminate 

wasteful spending are laudable, and especially important given today's fiscal 

challenges, deferring to the Executive Branch complete decision-making as to 

which projects should receive funding, how much (if any) funding should be 

allotted to each and all related priority decisions, has resulted in the stoppage 

or delay of critical projects. Moreover, the Administration's priorities, as 

articulated in the budget, have not been established through an open, 

deliberative process. 

Federal water resources projects are different from other Federal programs, 

projects and activities in the following important ways: each project is 

formulated separately to address a separate and discrete problem; projects are 

separately analyzed, are recommended by the Executive Branch and are 

authorized and funded separately by the Congress based on the benefits 

accruing individually from each one; each project comprises a separate and 

distinct Federal investment decision generally independent of other projects 

and is, therefore, subject to individual appropriations; and, each project also 

comprises a separate and distinct non-Federal investment decision since nonFederal sponsors agree to pay significant portions of project costs. 

The Congress has a vital role to play in these important- and independentinvestment decisions and should assure that the decisions are reached through 

an open and inclusive process where the needs and priorities of all are 

considered. 

2. Legislation that ensures the full expenditure of annual HMTF revenues for 

authorized purposes is a policy priority of N WC. Section 8002 ofthe draft 

bill does not adequately address this priority because it does not include any 

language enforcing the HMTF spending guarantee. Without the point of 

order, that guarantee is not enforceable in the House or the Senate. We 

recommend replacing paragraph 8002(b )(2) with the text of subsection (c) of 

S.412. 

3. Make Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of2000 (P.L. 

l 06-541) permanent. That provision allows the Secretary of the Army to 

accept funds from non-Federal public entities, like ports, to hire additional 

regulatory staff to expedite the permitting process. It not only reduces permit 

wait times for the funding entity, but for any individual or organization that 

6 
225 


25114.200

makes an application with that District of the Corps. Section 214 authority, 

currently used by over 41 public agencies in 20 Corps districts, has allowed 

local governments to move forward with vital infrastructure and ecosystem 

restoration projects. 

4. Provide a dedicated funding stream for the nation's small ports and harbors. 

With full expenditure of the HMTF, coastal ports may be eligible for funding. 

However, inland ports not under the HMTF program would not be included 

by full expenditure of the HMTF and need a dedicated funding stream to 

ensure their continued viability. In recent years, without Congressionally 

directed spending, some of these ports have paid for their own dredging, 

which comes with a variety of operational challenges; others have shut down 

for periods of time; and others expect to shut down permanently, closing 

down local industry. 

2. I am pleased that the Chair included a Sense of the Congress on Project Acceleration. 

However, I would like to take this a step further and include legislative language. What does 

your organization recommend? 

In order to effectuate meaningful reforms to the planning and project delivery process, we 

would encourage the Committee to review, and eliminate as warranted, the numerous 

cumbersome legislative and policy requirements that have accumulated over the years, 

significantly increasing the cost and time of studies. Without a fundamental overhaul, designed 

to reduce the number of issues and alternatives that the Corps is required to study, there cannot 

be eflective change. Two particularly important actions would be to streamline the NEPA 

compliance process and expand the ability of local sponsors to participate in the process. 

Similarly, we would suggest that the Committee consider new and/or modified policy 

reforms with an eye towards their impact on the planning process. We would be concerned that 

efforts to streamline the process would be thwarted by the implementation of new requirements. 

Coupled with the efforts to reform the planning process should be an extension and expansion of 

the provisions in Section 2003 of WRDA 2007 to simplify Project Partnership Agreements 

(PPAs) to make them easier to approve and execute. 

3. Some have suggested that the Civil Works Program needs to be transformed to ensure it 

continues to effectively and efficiently address the nation's water resources challenges. Do you 

have any recommendations that the Committee can consider for this WRDA bill in order to lay a 

foundation for future changes to the Civil Works Program? 

We have been engaged with the Corps of Engineers on its "Civil Works Transformation" 

initiative, in furtherance of our mutual goals of ensuring a long-term robust water resources 

infrastructure program for the nation. We continue our collaborative efforts, including 

stakeholder outreach and communications. 

7 
226 


25114.201

In terms of legislative provisions to support this transformation, we offer the following 

suggestions: 

• Authorize and implement only the highest priority investments: 

o Restore and reinforce the historic standard ofthe Chiefs Report as a principal 

basis tor determining worthwhile investments for the Nation. Projects meeting the 

economic, engineering and environmental tests leading to a Chiefs Report- and 

proceeding through "normal order" in the Congress- would not be considered 

earmarks. 

o The Authorizing Committees could invite the Administration to indicate priorities 

for projects that would be included in the Act. 

o Set up a specific process lor the Corps to report on anticipated 902 issues and lor 

them to be considered as reauthorized without specific Congressional action 

o Limit the pace of authorizations by progress in reducing the backlog, and expand 

authorizations at a pace consistent with the reduction in the backlog 

• Create the opportunity for more dynamic Corps-State-and-Interstate partnerships for a 

contemporary reservoir management vision 

o Enhance the role of the Corps in water supply, preferably through Corps/state 

partnerships 

• Establish a means to create public-partnerships 

o Provide tor a pilot program lor a variety of projects 

8 
227 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much for that. Very good advice. 

All of you have been so helpful. I have been telling my staff that 

these ideas are really important. 

And now it is certainly my honor to introduce someone from my 

home State, my home county, actually, and that is Warren Dusty 

Williams, President of the National Association of Flood and Storm 

Management Agencies. He is the General Manager and Chief Engineer of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. 

We are very pleased that you are here, Mr. Williams. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF WARREN DUSTY WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT, 

NAFSMA, AND GENERAL MANAGER AND CHIEF ENGINEER, 

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the Committee, Madam Chair, my name is Dusty Williams. I am the President of NAFSMA, the National Association of Flood and 

Stormwater Management Agencies. 

I am pleased to appear before you today to present this testimony addressing proposals for WRDA 2012. NAFSMA appreciates 

the difficulty of drafting this much needed bill in light of the serious economic issues facing the nation and the constraints of earmark limitations. We thank you for taking on this challenge and 

offer to work with you to address these critical issues as you continue your efforts. 

NAFSMA is a public agency driven organization with a focus on 

effective flood and stormwater management in urban areas. For 35 

years NAFSMA’s mission has been to advocate public policy and 

encourage technologies in watershed management that focus on 

flood protection, stormwater and flood plain management. 

The organization is keenly aware that flood damage reduction activities and projects are a wise and necessary investment that reduce loss of life and ensure the safety of our citizens. They have 

also proven to be an investment that more pay for themselves by 

preserving life and property and thereby reducing recurring requests for Federal disaster assistance. 

To that end, NAFSMA has several recommendations for the 

WRDA 2012 bill. While our formal written testimony discusses 

more than a dozen recommendations, I would like to spend just a 

few moments on highlighting a handful of the more significant proposals. 

First, we applaud the enactment of a WRDA. The reauthorization of WRDA is critical. In the wake of the enormous devastation 

and suffering caused by Sandy, moving our nation’s flood risk management initiatives forward is more important than ever. Local, regional, and State agencies depend on WRDAs for reauthorization. 

Exclude Corps of Engineers water resources projects from definition of earmarks. Federal funds used to reduce the loss of life and 

property damages from floods are an investment in improving the 

resiliency of a community and the nation. The Corps of Engineers’ 

process and associated legislative requirements for identifying, vetVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:47 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00231 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25114.TXT SONYA
228 

ting, and funding potential projects is an example of a transparent 

and public process which does not belong in the earmark category. 

The enactment of a national levee safety program. As a member 

of the National Committee on Levee Safety, I am especially pleased 

that the NAFSMA membership approved a resolution in support of 

the National Levee Safety Program. NAFSMA’s resolution notes 

that the nation lacks a complete understanding of levee location, 

ownership, and condition, and that Federal funding participation is 

required for the rehabilitation and repair of levees, many of which 

were constructed in partnership with the Corps. 

NAFSMA urges Congress to move forward with a voluntary and 

incentive-based national levee safety program that includes qualified States and local and regional flood control agencies. In the 

spirit of shared responsibility, NAFSMA urges Congress to enact a 

repair, rehabilitation, and flood mitigation program to address critical levee repairs and authorize Federal cost sharing with owners 

and operators of levee systems. 

Develop and implement measures to more closely harmonize 

levee operation and maintenance activities with environmental protection requirements. This National Committee on Levee Safety 

recommendation is particularly important to NAFSMA members, 

who are currently trying to maintain the integrity and strength of 

their existing levees so they provide the flood reduction capabilities 

expected by the public. NAFSMA urges Congress to clarify routine 

Maintenance of flood damage reduction channels and basins and to 

improve the regulatory process for obtaining the necessary permits 

for routine maintenance of these facilities. 

NAFSMA generally supports the establishment of a water infrastructure finance and innovation initiative for projects that are capable of producing revenue streams as an additional funding tool 

that would complement existing Corps cost shared project funding. 

Project selection criteria under this program should consider job 

creation and economics, ecological, and social benefits. NAFSMA 

also urges loan repayment options to include local taxes, user fees, 

and private sources, and also secured non-Federal loans. 

Levee vegetation policy. NAFSMA strongly supports language included in the draft bill that directs the Assistant Secretary to conduct a comprehensive review of Corps policy guidelines regarding 

vegetation on levees. NAFSMA has raised concerns about the one 

size fits all nature of this policy, which we are concerned is not 

supported by conclusive research. 

Provide incentives for sound flood plain management. NAFSMA 

supports the current Federal cost share of 65 percent Federal, 35 

percent local, but urges that the 35 percent local cost share be reduced for non-Federal sponsors where the community is carrying 

out sound flood plain management activities. 

Increase the limit for requiring independent peer review. 

NAFSMA recommends raising the floor that triggers external independent peer review to $100 million or more. Setting the level at 

$45 million brings in smaller water resource projects, and we are 

concerned that the benefits are not proven for addressing projects 

of this scale. 

In closing, NAFSMA very much appreciates this opportunity to 

testify, and our members look forward to working with the ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:47 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00232 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25114.TXT SONYA
229 

mittee in producing a viable WRDA 2012. I would be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:] 

230 


25114.202

National Association of Flood & Stormwater Management Agencies 

1333 H Street, NW, lOth Floor West Tower, Washington, DC 20005 

Phone: 202-289-8625 www.nafsma.org 

Testimony of the National Association of Flood 

And Stormwater Management Agencies 

Presented by Dusty Williams 

NAFSMA President and 

General Manager/Chief Engineer 

Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 

Water Resources Development Act of 2012 

U.S. Senate 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Sen. Barbara Boxer, Chairwoman 

November 15, 2012 
231 


25114.203

The National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies (NAFSMA) is very pleased 

to testify on proposals for the Water Resources Development Act of 2012. On behalf of our 

membership, many of whom are non-federal partners on flood damage reduction and environmental 

restoration projects with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, we thank you for your leadership and 

efforts to move a Water Resources Development Act forward this year. 

NAFSMA appreciates the difficulty of drafting this much-needed bill in light of the serious economic 

issues facing the nation, at all levels of government, and the constraints of earmark limitations on this 

national authorization debate. We thank you for taking on this challenge to develop an approach to 

move critical flood damage reduction and other water resources projects forward and offer to work 

with you to address these critical issues as you continue your efforts to enact a comprehensive water 

resources development bill this year. 

Background on NAFSMA 

NAFSMA is a public agency driven organization based in the nation's capital, with a focus on effective 

flood and stormwater management in urban areas. Our mission for close to 35 years has been to 

advocate public policy and encourage technologies in watershed management that focus on flood 

protection, stormwater and floodplain management. Through this mission, NAFSMA enhances the 

ability of its member agencies to protect lives, property and economic activity from the adverse 

impacts of storm and flood waters. 

Formed in 1978, NAFSMA works closely with the Corps of Engineers, the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as well as other federal 

agencies and national water resource organizations to carry out its mission. NAFSMA members are 

on the front line protecting their communities and regions from loss of life and property and are 

responsible for flood mitigation, flood water and emergency management activities as well as the 

water quality protection. 

Therefore, the organization is keenly aware that flood damage reduction activities and projects are a 

wise and necessary investment required to first reduce loss of life and ensure the safety of our 

citizens. In addition, our members are charged with reducing damages to peoples' homes and 

businesses and critical infrastructure, while also protecting the environment and preventing economic 

disruption. Flood management has proven to be a wise investment that more than pays for itself by 

preserving life and property, thereby reducing recurring requests for federal disaster assistance. 

Especially since WRDA 1986, this protection has been provided through a strong and well-tested 

federal-nonfederal partnership which NAFSMA values and will continue to work to improve and 

strengthen as we move forward in such critical flood management discussions as WRDA 2012. As a 

result, we are dedicated to ensuring that the nation's flood management systems can be operated 

and maintained properly and any needed inventory, assessments and repairs to flood damage 

reduction structures can be implemented smoothly. 

Intergovernmental Flood Risk Management Efforts 

Beginning in August 2005, just prior to Hurricane Katrina's devastating impact on the Gulf Coast, 

NAFSMA convened a discussion between our members, Corps leadership, FEMA, the Association of 

State Floodplain Managers, and other levee experts to discuss the need to inventory and assess the 

nation's levees due to issues that would definitely develop in this area as FEMA's flood map 

modernization process continued to move forward. This meeting and numerous subsequent joint 
232 


25114.204

interagency discussions has led to a much stronger working relationship in the flood damage 

reduction arena between the Corps of Engineers and FEMA. These interagency partnerships at the 

federal, as well at the state, regional and local levels are critical to reducing the nation's risks from 

flooding. 

NAFSMA very much appreciates the strong initiatives of both agencies and their leaders to speak 

with one federal voice on these critical issues. Many strides have been made in this effort at the 

federal level and we hope that this continued commitment will result in better communications and 

partnerships at the District and regional levels of both agencies. 

NAFSMA Recommendations for WRDA 2012 

Enact WRDA 2012 

The reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act is critical. In the wake of the enormous 

devastation caused by Sandy, moving our nation's flood risk management initiatives forward to 

protect life, property and the economy from flood and storm disasters is more important than ever. 

Local, regional and state agencies depend on WRDA's reauthorization. 

Crucial flood damage reduction, environmental restoration and watershed planning projects face 

significant cost increases and missed opportunities for safety, economic, and environmental 

improvements while waiting for Congressional authorization. During these tough economic times, we 

must all find ways to reduce costs, expedite studies, and minimize reviews and permitting so we can 

build projects that reduce the loss of life and property from the flood threat and put people to work. 

Exclude Corps of Engineers Water Resources Projects from the Definition of Earmarks 

Federal funds used to reduce the loss of life and property damages from floods are an investment in 

improving the resiliency of a community and the nation. The Corps of Engineers' process and 

associated legislative requirements for identifying, vetting, and funding potential projects is an 

example of a transparent and public process which does not belong in the earmark category. 

NAFSMA urges Congress to exclude Corps of Engineers water resources projects from the earmark 

category. 

Allow Increasing Authorized Cost Limit for Flood Risk Management Projects 

NAFSMA supports allowing the Secretary to modify the authorized cost of a project subject to certain 

requirements and conditions (Section 1 003). One of the requirements of the Secretary is to certify 

that " ... expenditures above the authorized cost of the project are necessary to protect life and safety, 

maintain critical navigation routes, or restore ecosystems;" 

NAFSMA recommends adding "provide significant flood risk reduction" to the list so flood risk 

management projects would be eligible, as well. 

Enactment of a National Levee Safety Program 

Having had the privilege to serve as a member of the National Committee on Levee Safety, which 

was established by WRDA 2007, I am pleased that the NAFSMA membership approved a resolution 
233 


25114.205

in support of enactment of a National Levee Safety Program in November 2011. A copy of that 

resolution is provided with this testimony. 

In adopting the resolution, NAFSMA noted that the nation lacks of a complete understanding of levee 

location, ownership and condition throughout the country, and further that federal funding participation 

is required for the rehabilitation and repair of levees, many of which were constructed in partnership 

with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. NAFSMA's resolution also recognizes that levee owners and 

operators should implement flood risk management activities such as emergency preparedness and 

planning, as well as education and outreach components as part of a flood risk management 

program. 

NAFSMA urges Congress to move forward with a voluntary and incentive based National Levee 

Safety Program that includes qualified states, and local and regional flood control districts. NAFSMA 

further recommends that a levee rehabilitation and repair fund with incentives for sound flood risk 

management be established as part ofWRDA 2012. 

Other Critical Levee Safety Recommendations 

Authorize Completion of the National Levee lnventorv 

NAFSMA urges Congress to authorize the completion of the National Levee Inventory (also known as 

the national levee database), including non-federal, as well as federal levees. 

Authorize Corps. When Requested. to Carrv Out Levee Certifications 

With many flood damage reduction projects built through partnerships with the Corps, the Corps 

District offices are in many cases uniquely suited to carry out levee certification activities. NAFSMA 

strongly believes that the original national interest that was determined to exist in order for federallypartnered flood damage reduction projects to move forward, still remains, and in most cases is even 

stronger. It follows then that there is a shared responsibility for the Corps to participate in FEMA's 

certification process. If the federal government is asking private engineering firms to take on this 

responsibility, the federal government's engineering branch should be engaged to also help perform 

these activities as well. 

Establish National Levee Rehabilitation Improvement and Flood Mitigation Fund 

In the spirit of shared responsibility, NAFSMA strongly endorses the recommendation of the National 

Committee on Levee Safety and urges Congress to establish a repair, rehabilitation and flood 

mitigation program to address critical levee repairs and authorize federal cost-sharing with owners 

and operators of levee systems. 

Include New. and Amendments to. Flood Damage Reduction Projects 

As you move forward with drafting WRDA 2012, it is important to recall that many existing and 

potential non-federal sponsors and their congressional delegations held critical projects back from 

consideration in WRDA 2007 at the request of committee leadership and staff in an effort to move 

that bill forward. These projects now need to be considered as they are necessary to protect lives, 

public safety and critical infrastructure, and provide new jobs critical to the economy. In addition, 

some existing project authorizations require amendments to move forward, as well. 
234 


25114.206

Exolore Expanding Credit Incentives for Levee Safetv Activities 

NAFSMA urges that full credit for work performed by a non-federal sponsor, or cost sharing partner, 

for identified levee strengthening or retrofit activities not be limited to the nonfederal cost of the 

project. In instances where major activity is needed to repair federally-partnered flood management 

projects, the nonfederal sponsor needs the ability to advance these activities with the knowledge that 

the work will be eligible for appropriate credit. NAFSMA offers to work with the Committee and the 

Corps to amend these applicable sections. 

Crediting for Ecosystem Restoration Activities Linked with Levee Safety Strengthening and Retrofits 

NAFSMA urges that credit or reimbursement be allowable for environmental mitigation or restoration 

activities that may be needed as the result of work performed to repair or improve existing flood 

damage reduction systems. 

Develop and Implement Measures to More Closely Harmonize Levee Operation and Maintenance 

Activities with Environmental Protection Requirements 

This National Committee on Levee Safety recommendation is particularly important to NAFSMA 

members who are currently trying to maintain the integrity and strength of their existing levees so they 

provide the flood reduction capabilities expected by the public. Currently, there is a lack of 

consistency by federal regulators and environmental agencies in the permitting and guidance of levee 

maintenance that is resulting in unpredictable requirements and timelines. Specifically, the 

management of deep-rooted vegetation on levees has become controversial. 

Conflicting regulatory and environmental agencies' views are resulting in long delays or inability to 

perform needed infrastructure maintenance. NAFSMA concurs with the National Committee on Levee 

Safety that acceptable operation and maintenance practices need to be developed in conjunction with 

and coordination with state and federal environmental agencies so lives and property can be 

protected, and significant environmental and natural resources are not impacted. 

NAFSMA urges Congress to clarify routine maintenance of flood damage reduction channels and 

basins and to improve the regulatory process for obtaining the necessary permits for routine 

maintenance of the facilities. 

Recommendations for All Flood Risk Management Projects 

Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2012 

NAFSMA generally supports the establishment of a Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation 

initiative for projects that are capable of producing revenue streams as an additional funding tool that 

would complement existing Corps of Engineers flood damage reduction, environmental restoration 

cost-shared project funding. 

Project selection criteria under this program should consider job creation, and economic, ecological 

and social benefits. NAFSMA also urges loan repayment options to include local taxes, user fees 

and private sources, and also secured non-federal loans. 

Make Section 214 ofWRDA 2000 Permanent 

Section 214 ofWRDA 2000 allows the Secretary of the Army to accept and expend funds contributed 

by non-Federal public entities to expedite the processing of permits. The Section 214 program has 
235 


25114.207

been valuable in allowing local governments to move forward with vital infrastructure projects and 

maintenance with minimal or no impact to the environment that might have otherwise been held up 

while waiting for permits to be processed. By funding additional staff to work on permit evaluations, 

existing Corps staffers are able to process permits more quickly, resulting in a reduction of permit wait 

times not only for the funding entity, but for any individual or organization that makes an application 

with that Corps District. The Section 214 program has been reauthorized for limited terms repeatedly 

and NAFSMA urges Congress to permanently authorize the program. 

Levee Vegetation Policy 

NAFSMA strongly supports language included in the draft bill to direct the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army (Civil Works) to conduct a comprehensive review of Corps policy guidelines on vegetation on 

levees. NAFSMA has raised concerns about the one size fits all nature of this policy, which we are 

concerned is not supported by conclusive research. Many of the flood damage reduction projects 

now faced with vegetation removal requirements were constructed in partnership with the Corps, with 

vegetation included in the projects to provide habitat benefits. 

Provide Incentives for Sound Floodplain Management 

NAFSMA supports the current federal cost sharing of 65 percent federal/35 percent local, but would 

support options to provide for a sliding cost share formula for federally-partnered flood damage 

reduction projects. We would urge that the 35% local cost share be reduced for non-federal sponsors 

where the community is carrying out sound floodplain management activities and have or would 

achieved a strong rating from FEMA as part of the Community Rating System program, or are taking 

special actions to preserve natural areas and increase community resiliency. Such incentives have 

been successful at the state level. 

Address Crediting Issues 

NAFSMA supports the Committee's efforts in Section 2010 of the draft bill to address concerns of 

non-federal partners relating to Section 104 credit eligibility and its availability to sponsors for 

advance construction of flood protection works. With the current economic strain faced by nonfederal sponsors and their federal counterparts alike, the ability to address critical flood damage 

reduction and public safety needs by promoting earlier construction of these essential projects 

represents a sound investment of federal and local resources. 

Increase the Limit for Requiring Independent Peer Review to Lamer Projects 

NAFSMA recommends raising the floor that triggers External Independent Peer Reviews to $100 

million or more. Setting the level at $45 million brings in smaller water resource projects. NAFSMA is 

concerned that the benefits from reviewing projects on this scale have not been proven and are 

concerned about using limited federal resources to address these reviews. If a project under the 

$100 million limit has been deemed controversial by the District Commander, it could be moved into 

the Independent Peer Review Process. 

Improve the Corps Planning Process 

The Corps in recent months has moved forward on plans to transform the civil works process and to 

improve the project planning process, which has been a long, complex and costly planning exercise 
236 


25114.208

that does not necessarily yield better flood reduction projects. NAFSMA requests the Committee to 

support any and all means to expedite the planning process including authorization changes, if 

needed. NAFSMA supports non-federal sponsors receiving full credit for all legitimate project related 

expenses, similar to credit received by the Corps of Engineers for project related expenses. 

Project Partnership Agreement - NAFSMA urges the Committee to explore non-federal and federal 

concerns about issues related to federally-partnered projects once they reach or exceed their design 

life. 

NAFSMA supports changes to the Project Partnership Agreement (PPA) that would limit the 

contractual liability of operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and rehabilitation (OMRR&R) 

requirements on the local sponsor to the design life of the project. If there is not financial commitment 

by the federal government to recapitalize and rehabilitate projects then more of the long term service 

and/or decommissioning decision making should reside with the local sponsors. 

Closing 

NAFSMA very much appreciates this opportunity to testify and our members look forward to working 

with the Committee on WRDA 2012. Please feel free to contact me or NAFSMA Executive Director 

Susan Gilson at 202-289-8625 with questions. 
237 


25114.209

Association of Flood & Stormwater Management Agencies 

1333 H Street, NW, 1oth Floor West Tower, Washington, DC 20005 

202-289-8625 Fax: 202-530-3389 www.nafsma.org 

Support For A National Levee Safety Program 

Resolution 2011-02 

Approved by the Membership on November 3, 2011 

WHEREAS many members of the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management 

Agencies are owners and operators of flood control structures, including levees, and are charged 

with responsibility for the protection of lives, property and the environment from flood risk; 

WHEREAS, Congress through the authorization of the Water Resources Development Act of 

2007 established the National Levee Safety Committee charged with the task of developing 

recommendations for a National Levee Safety Program; 

WHEREAS, the National Committee on Levee Safety delivered a set of draft recommendations 

to Congress on January 15, 2009; 

WHEREAS the nation is currently lacking a complete understanding of the location, ownership 

and condition of levees throughout the country; 

WHEREAS there is clearly a need for federal funding for the rehabilitation and repair of levees 

throughout the country, many of which were constructed in partnership with the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers; 

WHEREAS the responsibility of levee owners and operators, in addition to maintaining flood 

control structures, includes flood risk management activities such as emergency preparedness 

and planning, as well as education and outreach components; 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the National Association of Flood and Stormwater 

Management Agencies urges Congress to move forward with a National Levee Safety Program 

that is voluntary and incentive based and includes qualified states, local and regional flood 

control districts. A levee rehabilitation and repair fund and incentives for sound flood risk 

management at all levels of government are critical elements of a National Levee Safety 

Program. 

November 3, 2011 
238 


25114.210

Association of Flood & Stormwater Management Agencies 

1333 H Street, NW, 101

h Floor West Tower, Washington, DC 20005 

202-289-8625 Fax: 202-530-3389 www.nafsma.org 

Regulations and Policies -A Reasonable and Sustainable Approach 

Resolution 2011-01 

Approved by the Membership on November 3, 2011 

WHEREAS many members of the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management 

Agencies are charged with responsibility for the protection of lives, property and the 

environment from flood and storm water risk; 

WHEREAS, many local, regional and state governments are facing significant economic and 

funding challenges; 

WHEREAS, local flood, floodplain and storm water management agencies are responsible for 

meeting numerous local, state and federal regulations as part of their responsibilities; 

WHEREAS the number and requirements associated with these regulations requires significant 

funding and staff resources; 

WHEREAS the members of the National Association of Flood and Storm water Management 

Agencies are committed to carrying out responsible and reasonable flood management, 

floodplain and stormwater management requirements; 

WHEREAS members of the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management 

Agencies are charged with providing adequate support for infrastructure at the local and regional 

levels; 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Association of Flood and 

Stormwater Management Agencies urges Congress and the federal agencies to only consider 

legislation and regulations that respect local authority and regional differences; are reasonable 

with the current technical and economic environment; protect local and regional flood, 

floodplain and storm water management agencies from unfunded mandates; streamline state and 

federal environmental permitting processes; provide support for sustainable programs at all 

levels of government and provide for adequate investment of public infrastructure. 

November 3, 2011 
239 


25114.211

National Association of Flood & Stormwater Management Agencies 

PO Box 56764, Washington, DC 20040 

Phone: 202-289-8625 www.nafsma.org 

Questions for Dusty Williams from Senator Barbara Boxer 

I. In your testimony, you discuss the importance of establishing a National Levee Safety Program. You 

also mention the need for some additional elements including a levee rehabilitation program. Can 

you elaborate on the need for a levee rehabilitation, improvement and flood mitigation fund and 

what problems the fund would address? 

Although much work has been done in recent years to develop a National Levee Inventory, there is 

still o great deal that is unknown about the state of the more than 100,000 miles of levees estimated 

to exist in the United States. With average U.S. annual flood losses estimated to be nearly $6 billion 

and continuing to grow, the need for a Notional Levee Safety program also continues to grow. 

Levees reduce the risk of flooding in cities large and small throughout the nation. More than 14 

million people hove been reported to live behind levees and ot least one-third of communities with a 

population of 50,000 or higher have some portion of their community protected by levees. if 

demographic trends hold, it is expected that more and more people will be living in flood prone 

areas and behind levees, increasing the importance of their reliability and level of protection. 

It is critical that a national picture of the state of the levees throughout the country be developed 

and that the rehabilitation and repair needs of our aging flood damage reduction structures be 

addressed. Many of the nation's levees are more than 50 years old and are showing their age. While 

there are newer or reconstructed levees, a large number of levees were built in response to the 

widespread flooding on the Mississippi River in 1927 and 1937, or in California after catastrophic 

flooding in 1907 and 1909. Many of these levees have exceeded their original design life. According 

to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the five-year funding needed to address levee issues is 

estimated to be $50 billion. Some type of fund is desperately needed to address these overwhelming 

needs to be established at the federal/eve/ as soon as possible· before we face a levee-related 

flooding catastrophe. 

NAFSMA believes that levee rehabilitation, repair and improvement funds need to be made available 

to qualified owners and operators to so that flood risk can be reduced and public safety can be 

improved in the regions where it is needed most. NAFSMA members understand that cost-sharing 

requirements may need to be part of this rehab fund and that criteria need to be established so that 

this fund serves as an incentive for levee owners and operators to implement a strang levee safety 

program, which is part of their larger flo ad risk management initiatives. NAFSMA members stand 

ready to assist the Committee in the development of such criteria. 
240 


25114.212

2. Your testimony raises the issue of the current Corps of Engineers policy on levee vegetation. Can 

you expand on the challenges being faced by this policy and suggest how this policy can be 

improved? 

A rose by ony other nome moy still be o rose, but the some cannot be soid for levees. 

Although most levees tend to perform o simi/or function - on ortificio/ or supplemental river bonk 

they vory in size, shope ond makeup os much os the various regions of the country in which they 

exist. The weather, topography, geology ond hydrology of New Or/eons, Louisiono ond Anchorage, 

Alosko couldn't be more different- so too ore the levees thot sofeguord these communities. And this 

is not o unique example. Co/ifornio, for instance, hos the boy-de/to oreo where dredged levees set 

otop peot bogs ond ore subject to the runoff from mojor Sierra Nevodo winter storms alternating 

with tido/ influences. But thot some Co/ifornio is home to massive rock levees designed to withstand 

the flashy August thunderstorms typical of the lower Mojave Desert. 

Levees ore sometimes mounds of loosely compacted sond dredged from odjocent river bottoms; 

sometimes they ore well engineered earthen structures with cloy cores ond rip rop erosion 

protection; sometimes they ore massive soil-cement monoliths; sometimes they ore reinforced 

concrete wolls with enormous T ond L shaped footings. Levees ore often single purpose structures, 

intended only to control water flow, but sometimes they o/so serve os highwoy/roilrood 

embankments; piers; pedestrian, bike ond equestrian trails; ond even os golf course foirwoys. 

It is therefore unrealistic to think thot o policy, or policies, governing levee function, design ond 

maintenance con be ony less diverse. 

Is the existence of vegetation on levees good or bod? The answer is quite simply, it depends. No one 

would orgue thot on unsafe levee is not desirable. Rother, the argument is whether or not the 

existence of vegetation on o levee diminishes its safety. 

Current research does not support o universal cloim thot oil vegetation on levees is detrimental. 

Therefore, o (one size fits oil) policy thot universally prohibits its existence is unfounded ond needs to 

be reexamined. 

The diversity of levees across the country con only be addressed by of/owing those thot ore the most 

know/edgeob/e of the geology, geography ond hydrology of o region to determine the needs of levee 

in thot region. 

A notional policy thot is more goo/ based (i.e. no vegetation on levees thot compromises safety), with 

specific implementation determined by loco/ Corps Districts working with appropriate stoke holders 

would be o more workable solution; In short, centralized oversight with decentralized execution. 
241 


25114.213

3. The draft bill includes provisions for a WIFIA program for levee construction. Do you believe this 

would be a useful tool for advancing construction of important flood damage reduction projects? 

NAFSMA believes that this proposed W/F/A program could be useful as a complement to traditional 

USACE funding approaches far flood damage reduction projects and as a result, the association 

generally supports the establishment of a WIFIA. NAFSMA members believe this may allow same 

flood control agencies and sponsors to move aut an projects where federal funding has been delayed 

for various reasons. Repayment of loans under this program should be allowed be paid through local 

taxes and user fees, or private sources. 

NAFSMA does have some questions about how federal loon guarantees might work with the annual 

appropriations process. Will these guarantees be outside of the traditional appropriations scope, or 

will they be subject to annual appropriations? 

Questions from Senator James lnhofe 

1. What, if any, policy priorities or changes to current law that are important to your organization are 

note addressed in this current draft? How would you suggest we modify the draft to reflect your 

concerns? 

Establishment of National Rehabilitation, Repair and Improvement Fund 

NAFSMA strongly believes that some type of fund needs to be established at the federal level to 

address critical repairs and rehabilitations for levees across the nation, many of which have exceeded 

their design life. The National Committee an Levee Safety has recommended the creation of a fund 

far the Rehabilitation, Repair and Improvement of levees throughout the country. NAFSMA 

understands that cost-sharing will probably be required for such a program and that criteria needs to 

be established to make this program truly an incentive far good levee safety and flood risk 

management behavior. This fund should be available as an incentive to owners and operators of 

levees meeting criteria set for the program. 

NAFSMA recommends that such a fund be included in this WRDA bill either in the section 

establishing a National Levee Safety Program, or in another appropriate place in the legislation. 

NAFSMA believes that if included as part of the National Levee Safety Program and if funded 

appropriately, this fund could serve as a key incentive to build support for a voluntary National Levee 

Safety Program. 

While NAFSMA members understand that the constraint of the current funding environment, at all 

levels of government, the possible lass of life and economic damages from ignoring this need an a 

national level will only continue to grow. NAFSMA members offer their assistance in helping to 

shape a program and funding criteria that would be critical to moving the nation forward in its levee 

safety and flood risk management efforts. 

Section 404 Permitting For Maintenance of Flood Damage Reduction Facilities and Channels 

NAFSMA member agencies serving as owners and operators of flood damage reduction systems are 

frustrated by the time, cost, mitigation requirements, and inability to obtain permits to carry out 

3 
242 


25114.214

regularly-needed operation and maintenance activities on flood damage reduction structures and 

associate channels, which are part of the flood damage reduction systems. 

NAFSMA supports the inclusion of federal permits in an operations and maintenance manual, or in a 

watershed or watercourse pion that allows the owner and operator of a flood damage reduction 

system to perform the required maintenance without the need to obtain federal permits. A 

legislative extension of permit terms for operation and maintenance of flood damage reduction 

facilities could a/sa help with these issues as would legislative language to clarify that mitigation 

requirements are to be implemented on a one-time basis. NAFSMA also supports the inclusion of 

language to streamline the process for operations and maintenance activities on flood damage 

reduction structures and channels. 

Section 214 

NAFSMA supports language being included in WRDA to make Section 214, which allows non-federal 

public entities to provide funding for additional regulatory personnel at Carps District offices to 

expedite the processing of permits for vital infrastructure projects and maintenance with minimal or 

no impact to the environment. 

NAFSMA supports nan-federal sponsors receiving full-credit for project expenses, similar to that 

received by the Carps of Engineers for project-related expenses. NAFSMA urges that that full credit 

for work performed by o non-federal sponsor, or cost sharing partner, for identified levee 

strengthening or retrofit activities not be limited to the nonfedera/ cost of the project. 

In instances where major activity is needed to repair federally-partnered flood management projects, 

the non federal sponsor needs the ability to advance these activities with the knowledge that the 

work will be eligible for appropriate credit. NAFSMA offers to work with the Committee and the 

Corps to amend these applicable sections. NAFSMA also urges that credit or reimbursement be 

allowable for certain environmental mitigation or restoration activities that may be needed as the 

result of work performed to repair or improve existing flood damage reduction facilities. 

2. I am pleased that the Chair included a Sense of Congress on Project Acceleration. However, I would 

like to take this a step further and include legislative language. What does your organization 

recommend? 

While NAFSMA is also pleased that language has been included to move projects forward, NAFSMA 

urges that USACE-partnered water resource projects be excluded from the definition of "earmarks." 

Federal funds used to reduce the loss of life and property damages from floods are an investment in 

improving the resiliency of a community and the nation. The Carps of Engineers' process and 

associated legislative requirements for identifying and funding potential projects is an example of an 

open and public process which does not belong in the earmark category. Project funding that follows 

the rigorous and transparent Corps authorization process shouldn't be considered earmarks. 

Appropriations requests of projects of national interest identified by a Corps of Engineers Chief of 

Engineers' report should not be considered an earmark. 

4 
243 


25114.215

Although the organization does not have a formal position on the issue of project acceleration as 

outlined in the WRDA Discussion Draft, I expect that NAFSMA would be supportive of developing 

additional legislative language that helps either set criteria for moving projects forward, or provides 

a means for Congress in an expeditious manner to determine which projects should move forward. 

NAFSMA would very much like to work with the Committee to help develop such language. 

3. Some have suggested that the Civil Works Program needs to be transformed to ensure it continues 

to effectively and efficiently address the nation's water resources challenges. Do you have any 

recommendations that the Committee can consider for this WRDA bill in order to lay a foundation 

for future changes in the Civil Works Program? 

NAFSMA supports the current Carps of Engineers Civil Works Transformation effort, including 

expediting the completion of feasibility studies. 

NAFSMA also recommends the elimination of Preconstruct/on Engineering and Design cost sharing 

agreements. 

NAFSMA offers to work with the Committee to develop any legislative language needed to 

implement the transformation of the Corps Civil Works process. 

5 
244 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Mr. Williams, and the entire panel. 

What I am going to do now is ask unanimous consent to enter 

the following letters into the record. They have endorsed aspects of 

the discussion draft we are considering today and they support 

moving forward with the WRDA bill in addition to the comments 

made today. National Association of Home Builders, the U.S. 

Chamber of Commerce, the American Water Works Association, 

the Water Environment Federation, the Association of Metropolitan 

Water Agencies, the Water Infrastructure Network, the Association 

of State Flood Plain Managers, the Central Valley Flood Protection 

Board, Municipal Water District of Orange County, Sutter Butte 

Flood Control Agency, San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency. 

This is just a start. 

And this reminds me of what happened, without objection, put 

those in the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

245 


25114.220

~-.,-....-

1201 lOlii sv.ot""' ~0020005 

T80CH!6&~~ 

F2QU888400 

-·OOV Nove~t~ber 14, 2012 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

Chairwoman 

Senate Committee an Environment and Public Works 

410 Dllksen Senate Ofliaa Building. 

We&hlngton, DC 20510o6175 

Dear Chairwoman Boxer. 

Govemment Atralts 

James W. Tobin Ill Sanlot llloe Pn>oldem & Cnl!!l Lobl>ylot 

On behalf of the 140,000 member!l of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB):·t 

woUld like to commend you for the scheduling of a hearing on the reauthorization of the 

Water Re&auroes Development Ad. (WRDA). As a WRDA raeulharizatlan bDI hae not been 

passed eince 2007, NAHB Is hopeful Congreea will act elther during the lame duck session or 111011e elllly In the next Congn!SS to aanslder the legislation. 

NAHB wishes to endorse proVisions of lhe legislation that would aulhartza water resournes 

dawlopment and conaervatlan prajeCte lhet era tile subject of a completed report from the 

AtrrrJ Carpe' Chief of Engineers. At a time Villen tile govemment ellauld display fisc;al 

restraint, NAHB applauds the lnoluslon of crllllrla tllat would limit the authorization of water 

raeource praJecta to those that are 81Wiranmentauv ac:captable, technleally feaslble, ancl 

Villere tile benefb exceed !he ~;~~sts. 

NAHB looks foi'WIIIIS to Wlllldng with you In hopee of securing paeeage of tills WRPA 

reaulhartzstion bUL Please feel free to consider us a resource as the Carnmltlee moves 

rorwans Ia consider the legislation. 

QC: Senator James M. lnhofe, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Erl'ltranment and 

PublloWartce 
246 


25114.221

R. BRUCE JOSIEN EXI!CUTIVB VICS PIWSID&NT 

GOVERNMENT AfFAIItS 

The Honorable Bwbara Boxer 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

United States Senll!e 

Washington. DC 20510 

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OFniE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

1615 H STREET, N.W. 

WAS.HINOTON~ D.C.l0062·2000 

l02J463·S310 

November 14,2012 

The Honorable James lnhofe 

Ranking Member · · · · 

Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

United States Senll!e 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member lnhofe: 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation representing the 

interests of more than three million businesses and organizations of eveJ)' size, sector, and region, 

strongly supports improving and increasing investment in the nation's water resources infrastructure 

through a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). 

The Chamber applauds this comminee's bipartisan efforts and leadenhip to ensure the viability 

of the U.S. Marine Transportation System. It is an important part of the nation's economic strength, 

· moving goods to domestic and international markets and supporting economic growth and jobs all across 

America. Waterborne cargo and associuted activities contribute more tban $649 billion annually to U.S. 

Gross Domestic Product, sustaining more than 13 million jobs. 

However, inadequate investment and insufficient improvements to the marine transportation 

system threuten its ability to support domestic economic development, intentate commerce, international 

trade, and future growth. The lack of a (:()()rdinated strategy, a backlog of needs, a lack of predictable 

investment levels and deteriorating project delivery performance creates uncertainty about the marine 

transportation system's overall ability to reliably, safely and efficiently transport goods to intemlllional 

and domestic markets, which translates to under utilization and increases costs throughout threatening 

U.S. competitiveness. 

Investment in a world..:lass, 21st century water resources infrastructure needs to happen now and 

be guided by robust, thoughtful, and comprehensive plans for construction, maintenance and operations, 

and financing. The Chamber is strongly encouraged at the steps forward the Committee had made to 

address the nation's decaying water infrastructure. The Chamber looks forward to working with you on 

this important issue. 

Sincerely, 

;~·~ R. Bruce Josten 

cc: Memben of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 
247 


25114.222

American Water Works 

Association 

November 15,2012 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

Chair 

The Honorable James M. lnhofe 

Ranking Member 

ater Environment 

Federatiorr 

u..,....erqualltyJ>OCilla' 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

410 Dirksen 

Washington, DC 2051 0 

Dear Senators Boxer and lnhofe: 

"';~ J .ASSOCI.ATION OF' 

~.1f."'"q(,P()LITI<~l 

W.ATER .AGENCIES 

The American Water Works Association (AWW A), Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies 

(AMWA), and the Water Environment Federation (WEF) deeply appreciate the inclusion of a 

'Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act" (WIFIA) pilot program as Title X of your 

committee's draft Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) legislation. Just as the 

committee's WRDA bills have historically enjoyed strong bipartisan support, we believe that 

well-crafted WIFIA legislation that creates jobs as well as promoting public health, fire 

protection, environmental protection, and economic growth will attract similar widespread 

backing. 

A recent study commissioned by AWWA has found that restoring our existing drinking water 

systems and expanding them to serve a growing population will cost at least $1 trillion in the 

next 25 years. Wastewater infrastructure needs roughly parallel those for drinking water. In 

addition, many communities face serious affordabillty problems as they struggle to address the 

twin challenges of crumbling infrastructure and additional regulatory requirements. 

Our own studies of water infrastructure finance options have identified a W!FIA as a particularly 

innovative and effective finance tool, which is important in the current fiscal climate. As you 

know, WIFIA would offer low-cost financing to major water infrastructure projects, and require 

loans to be repaid in their entirety to the U.S. Treasury. This approach will help local water 

systems stretch their dollars further, with limited or no long-term federal budgetary impact due to 

the historicalfy low default rate of local water and water utilities. In addition, under the provisions 

of the Federal Credit Reform Act, a WIFIA would leverage a large volume of lending for a 

relatively small federal investment. 

A WIFIA's ability to offer loans for large water infrastructure projects is crucial. Large projects, 

particularly those costing more than $20 million, are often beyond the means of most drinking 

water and clean water state revolving loan fund programs, which tend to focus on small to 
248 


25114.223

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

Chair, 

Environment & Public Works Committee 

112 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20210-0505 

November 14, 2012 

The Honorable James Inhofe 

Ranking Member, 

Environment & Public Works Committee 

205 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-3603 

Re: WIN's Support for Innovative Water Infrastructure Finance- WRDA lOll 

Dear Senator Boxer and Senator I nhofe, 

The Water Infrastructure Network (WIN), a coalition of the nation's leading construction, 

engineering, municipal, public works, conservation, labor and manufacturing organizations, strongly 

supports your continued bipartisan work to address our nation's water infrastructure funding crisis. The 

innovative financing pilot projects established in Title X of the draft Water Resources Development Act 

of 2012 (WRDA 20 12), represent a thoughtful and timely approach to establishing and testing a new 

financing tool for our nation's water and wastewater infrastructure. WIN and its Members are committed 

to working with you to secure broad bipartisan support for WRDA 2012. 

WIN believes that the development of a "TIFIA- Like" program for water infrastructure may 

make sense as we look to leverage limited federal resources to address the dramatic short fall in water 

infrastructure funding-- projected by EPA, WIN and CBO to be in excess of $500 B over the next two 

decades. However, it is essential that the existing State Revolving Funds for water and wastewater 

construction not be cannibalized to finance the innovative finance projects envisioned in WRDA and that 

we continue to pursue long-term dedicated funding for water and wastewater infrastructure. WIN has 

testified before Congress and worked closely with your staff to outline the opportunities and limitations of 

a TIFIA Program for water infrastructure and we appreciate your efforts to incorporate WIN's 

recommendations into Title X of the WRDA 2012. 

Your continued leadership on water infrastructure funding and finance is greatly appreciated and 

WIN is committed to working with you to perfect and enact into law the innovative financing measures in 

the Water Resources Development Act of 2012. 

Sincerely, 

The WIN Executive Committee 

American Council of Engineering Companies, American Public Works Association, American Society of 

Civil Engineers, Associated General Contractors of America, International Union of Operating Engineers, 

National Association Clean Water Agencies, National Rural Water Association, United Association of 

Plumbers and Pipefitters 
249 


25114.224

Chair 

Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. 

2809 Fish Hatchery Road, Suite 204 Madison WI 53713 

Phone: 60S-274-0123 f Fax: 608-274-0696 I Email: asfpm@floods.org I Web: www.lloo<b.org 

Executive Director 

Chad M. Berginois, CFM 

Honorable Barbara Boxer 

A•sociate Director-Operations 

Ingrid D. Danler, CFM 

Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

Honorable James M.lnhofe 

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510.6175 

Dear Madam Chairman and Ranking Member lnhofe, 

Director En1eritus 

Larry A. Larson, P.E., CFM 

November 14, 2012 

On behalf of the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM), Its 34 State Chapters, and more 

than 15,000 members, we want to thank you for your leadership In holding tomorrow's full Committee 

legislative Hearing on the Water Resources Development Act of 2012. We are writing to express our 

support for components of the draft Water Resources Development Act that help address the Nation's 

flood risk associated with levees through creation of state levee safety programs, completion of the 

Inventory of levees throughout the nation, promotion of public awareness of levee-related risk, and 

technical assistance for addressing levee-related hazards. Additionally, we support adjustments to 

Important technical assistance programs that increase the capacity of states, regional entities, and local 

governments to take the lead in reducing flood risk, and in particular the Planning Assistance to States 

and Floodplain Management Services programs. 

We recognize that much more needs to be done. ASFPM stands ready to work with you to ensure the 

success of a Water Resources Development Act that helps to identify and reduce the risk of loss of life 

and property In floods. Please contact us anytime we can be of assistance. 

Sincerely, 

~)1~~/r Sally McConkey, P.E., CFM 

ASFPM Chair 

cc: Honorable John l. Mica, Chairman, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Honorable Nick!. Rahal!, II, Ranking Member, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Dedicated to reducing flood risk and losses in tlte nation. ·"'"'·~·~~~ijii'!I~Ji'I1Jt)f!J.j!IQ/j)f~l!t-~1-~!i'~\'S•o<'J.•,_.,'-'·""'.;;.''::·;~-c;·c·-··-··-

Vi"eChair Secretary Treasurer 

Solly McConk•y, r.E .. CFM 

Water Resources Englnl'er 

Illinois State WaterSurvt'v 

217-3B-5482 • 

sally@illinl',is.edu 

William Nei.'h&~~eu, C .. "M 

State Floodplain Mau.ager 

NY State Dept. Env. Consv. 

518402-8146 

Minecham(t'!gw.dec.sta.ll!.ny.us 

Joy L. Duperault, CFM 

State FJondplain Manager 

Florida Div. Emergency Mgmt. 

850-922-4518 

joy.dupcr.-ull®em.myflorida.oom 

Joseph Rugg•ri, P.E., CFM 

Stat• Floodplain Manager 

NJ Dept. of Bnv. Proh..>ction 

609-292-22% 

joseph.n•ggeri@dep.st..te.nj.us 
250 


25114.225

November 1 ~. 20'12 

Senator .Barbara Boxsr 

Ohilirtrian, ~nvltO:r:iment.and 'P.UblicWorks 

bomm~ 

Ul)~States;Senate 

410: Dlrke~n $.enat$. Offi:~ Bk.fg. Washington, DC· ~0510..6.:1'75 · · 

~t·&mators,Bolcer,andJnhofe; 

Tt!e!·~alValley floqd Pfofe.otian Board has·mvlewed lhaproposed lai'IQU~e of the 

Wiltei'Re&QUtr,.:$8: DevtiilQ;:J~t;,Ad•<VIlRDA).:publiS~ by thtl EriVttonment and Pubr~e 

W.~i'k$ Ct)mmltJee .$It on tiiovember8, 201a,·and.,~es to . .fJ:tfCm':l Y9U ~t~ suppe.~ 

kev sectiol'l.~ of the. j;lraft bDl. 1hi$''pi'QJ»SI<td'taft:ai:ldmases'impor\anf·public. safety and 

l~lfuloat iasuea, 

Qtif B.o~.lh8Pepa~tttOfWaterR8so~ ami.~eralldCSI:~~ co.~f!bl 

ag,enpt~:ll)·tf:-.C.·r~!a!~:·q~g~l v~n~ hall~~~~~ .. ~:lrnu\ ~resslv.e flOod risk 

reduGfion proo,~;.Whfch·includet ~IY..sp.ol'\~ ~ impr:Qvem.e.iltl!'~l as partne~ng WlfbJh~ u.~ .. Afmy Corps of Engl . E) on m~P,~ ~e~1 

Reev~ruatil)n .Re-w.r;ts .ncff&JeJWJi\Y tfU&'!'". liMI¥$V~Itain eonstrafnts'in Federal 

law .•or policy intiibitJevee;JmprovemG!lt$.fi9ft'!.l:l~lmf~fldEfiJs.'QiAkik!Y ii!'l~ ~:¢ffldiVely 

as~i~te. 

we.suppl)rt seciton.,2009•ott1Je~l'.f!ltt:J:llll, ~~1:1 $01!:t.•l[qw•~;a~»tderatloo of ~.!if@Jn~~ ~4etlon p~ .• doit\Q Ceritial '!lalleygf Caiifornia, wtil~ ~iiltaJr:!il'!9. 9t 

decreasing Ule>F•<f~ral ~atJ.q'8~JQd~·$U~,®nsl~-· Ah•.oumarlmow, 

niQJt of-the Federal!Y aulhorizud· pll,'lj~ .itt .. ~IJM:W&fi!ori9Jn$Jif:$l.!lf\Q'{fUJd a& part 

ot f),& S';ii~~rn~JQ;or'~,()';JoJ4ilin ~rFIOod Gontfol Project& a$:.1n1~,..i~ ~v_stems. 

l:towever, dU~ to:f11e. ~ltlptt'~~.h'VC'$~1ii:l,.~-'IJI~~ WtifPfl make UJ19Uf valley, many !lf'~ te~·are·nGiwatudledand autboliZed fOt~tts~~¢~:-ie~~~Q.roJ~. Section a®Q wPU~ •JJOW Jh&~~i1f ttf'I:JX• work>in:-klnd;crediHo be moved from 

one b8sin1o,anotheru lon9 &&'Such move~nt·~~•tP.!ii1 Of:~ t:P!flp~n.~M:l p~n. 

WI;): l!lfs() JI;Jppo!',ts~tlotl :ZQ.'fQ of.l(le,draft blli •. Jn light of the stagnant41®0.Gn:IY'and live& 

at l'isk,. we think FfildtJ~l.!ifw $.hPt.~iii:P.I'Q.~ 1itit.~tnl~rt Qf'fiQQifpi'otec:tion prQi .. ,by non·Fe&m!t Interests. · we:firmty bei~ .~t~tthe aiil;fltiwl:~l ~li'!tY that ~l(l:<».m~ Witt'l'tflij! I~L8~tiO.n ~Ukl :pmfudfe: earfyconstructfon of.-th$88 essential 

~rejects'. Fortfte'se r~$QOti\ ~ ~11911'8.\iPPQ!J ~1-niJJtl\lat ®n:tafriadJn section 

201Q' Pf the (traftibill. · 
251 


25114.226

Senators Boxer and Jnhofe 

Np,vernt)E!.(13, 2012 

Page·2of3 

We·~$.1 ~ I!'::$!JP.Port ot ~~roo 2017 o.f·~ dtafi bill:. This section would direct the 

AsAto conduct ·'~pre,~s,N,~ ~lfiew.Qf IJ$A~e P.QI(cy;guldt;tliJi.Ori V!3Q!illa.tiOn on 

lf:\l&ea; Thi$ is: a Vlfalissue1n;our replon,,:as.compllance,wlth a n~p111 on,e.s,iU,.fjt$ an P,OltcY'ii:IQi:i~ ~~. ~~ltat'ne$1:1;:)n i1ur~i9n. tbls !tpJ]tO.aQh al'so;falls to acknowledge 

that, in omarto•maxlmize.'flb(!CI dsk rediJ~rf._,'(tUt reglt:itl'll'!Q$!'P~Wher$Jirl'llted 

1®,81 fUi'ld$ ~re to ";e~:Mtnt 

Rn811S'~ \¥& ~e' in &up))~rt:of:~~Qlf~i'12Q19, of'tl'if§~(J.raftij"l. "(Ilia~ lirould.create a 

non~en~Umplementation pft'ot prqgram to expklre w~ys of l>C:OtrtPltY ~li¢1ng ft®d 

ritll<· · hj.alte~~ proj~rnanaiii:!ifletibb\loturea. this prog~ has·the potential 

to . liZe>many b'etrt· manaQE!f'!'!@{I(P!'Ii~~'Whl.e.t\:1:\~ ~ d~eJQJ:I.~ in 91.Jr van~y 

ari~N1.v$•ttea in,1i0stltffecthte levee construction< For these reason~t we be11~ 

thiiS-PI'(Ig~:bHng~ tretnend~$_;v.ai.UiftQ~·ml8skin Of flOod risk reduction.· · 

For _all_t)f'fu~ ~~;-~ .uw• ~O.I.lrqpmmittll6, t2!~Ppqrtlhft .<fiift ~HI,.04; ~:E1l111re yoUF support With lhdiOU$&-Transpottation and lnmu;trocture Co~J't!itttt&. W.e Will 

contintl& t() p~v_tc:ie:outihPUl~h(tsUp~rtf~i"~irl WJIDA..tilll as it' pr:Oq_re.ses<forwan:t. 

Jfyou ha)lf!Jurtherquestions reaarding 11)Jsm .. ; P.l@a~ ~~- rt;Je~~ )'().urstflffmay ®l:rt!l¢tJ.iW $. Pi,tniJ,:the :BQatd1s E~dve· Offieer.:at (lie) 574-0609. 

Sil'icete)y, 

W~\\. -r:~OI\ 

Wllllillrt H. Edgar President · 

cc; {~ attached fist). 
252 


25114.227

®~ g.olooel Willl$r;n J, Leady, P£, $a~;~mento 01$lpt;t 

~~~S ~~CfP$()f~glneers 

S!'IC.tar:ti8hto, (i!allfQitl~ :ii!.li8l+~l'l22 

~:~!:'";t,~= 4.,§ .. ~m;y· ~orps?(:Jf Er:if;Jineem 1f~·-.,l$~t . $aC(.aroento, .Califomia :95S:14. 

Mr. Rid<: JO.ttnso.n ml!lnto~~ Flbod Coritrdf.Assoctalion 

:i' .. · 'flli ~f; ~·~~· S~cramento,.Callt'omia fs;J§14 

Ms.J.I'Ielinda T'8rty . .. . . 

~titta!YalftW~FIOOd CoriD:oJAssociation 9~0 !(.Street,' Su~Wt 31D 

.$aaramento,.e8Jif0mli :~$1:4 

-Mt; Mik& !namit!J:l 

$titte.H:flitt$ FiOod doritt~J As.encv 1~7·EJ.~~·~~~~~;~ 

Yuba Cifl, Califamia 9"~'· 

i\nr; Jim Giot9nlrmf · ~~ lt~,.il.JArea;Fiooci eoritr.OtA9ency :~ f;,;w.e~t-,~e~Q~;~; · :::auJ 

cSk:icldon; >C:'ialifom~' : ·· 

~~!~mentoMISAtfOA . ¢~ttQt~~u~ .. . - merito1 eallrbmia $~~1 

Mt*l]'!@ntmWiJterfiWi)'uf®! 

MatJd~OWin ·· · · · ·· ·· ····· · · 

Gar¥ aamini keith$wa~Qn 

QQI.f&~r-

<aentraj Valley Ftood em~ IJtsgl: ~.p!'Jnia · · · Len Marino 

BOard members 
253 


25114.228

Shil--

,~-~· -VIIIot;.--821111 

..__ 

·p,o;a.·-· ,.,.!/tilof,!J4~ 

1711!.-

.£o,o[i1jtii!Y:ID 

""""""~~=r .~ ~~=::i.m~= 't"~~~ Bllalt=· 

1111110:-

Lloy=1e~E~~ ~-· 

..... liloonon. 

llitidir 
254 


25114.229

Senator Barbara Boxer 

Pagel 

October 31,2012 

We believe that creating a WIFJA Program, patterned after the Transportation TIFIA Program wbieh 

was recently included in the Transpo11ation Reauthorization Bill, is a viable funding mechanism to 

help qualified water agencies develop new water supply soun:es and repair aging infrastructure. 

WIFIA is not a grant program but rather a low-cost loan program that would allow water districts to 

borrow funds at low interest rates, theteby providing sl(ll'lific:ant financial saving$ to the ~ocal 

taxpayer and allowing improvements to be made immediately. Importantly, the federal taxpayer is 

made "whole" because the entire loan is repaid. However, in the otT chance there is a default, the 

borrower must bave insurance to protect the federal interest. The borrower also pays a federal 

administrative fee to process the clerical and managerial aspects of the loan. 

We are nearing a critical decision point on the South Orange Coastal Ocean Desalination Project. 

The inclusion of the WIFIA Program in the upcoming WRDA Legislation would provide our 

District with an important funding option. 

We respectfully nlCJIIeSI your consideration ofincluding the WIFJA Program in the upcoming 

WRDABiD. 

Should you have questions, please feel free to contact me or Karl Seckel, MWDOC's Assistant 

General Manager, at (714) S93-S024 or kseckel@mwdoc.com. 

Jeffery M. Thomas 

President 
255 


25114.230

Sutter Butte Flood ConlrOI Agency 

1227 Bridge Street, Suit• C 

Yuba Oty, CA 95991 

(SJO) 870-4425 

sutterbuttellood.org 

Counties 

Butt• Cmmty 

Sutter Crunty 

Cities 

City of Biggs 

City of Gridley 

City ofliw Oak 

City o!Yuba Oty 

Levee Districts 

lel'l!e District I 

Lev.eOimict 9 

Senator Barbara Boxer 

Chairman, Environment & Public 

Works Committee 

United States Senate 

41 0 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

November 9, 2012 

Dear Senators Boxer and Inhofe: 

Senator James M. lnhofe 

Ranking Member, Environment & 

Public Works Committee 

United States Senate 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

I write today to support key sections of the draft Water Resources 

Development Act (WRDA) published by committee staff on 

November 8, 2012. This proposal addresses important public safety 

and local fiscal issues. 

The Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (SBFCA) has engaged in an 

aggressive flood risk reduction program which includes locallysponsored levee improvements as well as partnering with the U.S. 

Army Corps ofEnglneers on a Feasibility Report. In both of these 

cases, SBFCA is seeking to reduce the risk of flooding through levee 

improvements, while also keeping new growth out of deep floodplains. 

In this way, we can provide protection for nearly 100,000 existing 

residents in 150-year old communities and limit future risk associated 

with new development. SBFCA's funding is based on a 20 I 0 selfimposed property assessment which passed with over a 70% vote 

c;lespite being an economically disadvantaged area. Thus, even with 

these limitations, the residents are willing to pay to quickly minimize 

flood risk. However, certain constraints in Fedenlllaw or policy inhibit 

levee improvements from being made as quickly and cost effectively 

as possible. 

We support section 20 I 0 of the draft bill because of our concerns that 

the Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) is declining to utilize Section 

I 04 of WRDA 1986 in considering requests from non-Federal interests 

fur credit eligibility to be made available for advance construction of 

flood protection works. We believe her decision is delaying decisions 

by non-Federal interests to construct urgently needed flood damage 

reduction projects. Instead of utilizing Section 104, the Secretary has 

elected to process credit eligibility requests under Section 221 of the 

Flood Control Act of 1970 (as amended by Section 2003 ofWRDA 

2007). Section 221 as implemented by the Secretary does not appear to 

promote construction by non-Federal interests. While we agree that the 

Secretary must exercise judgment as to the calculation and eventual 

determination of credit which should be given, in light of the stagnant 

economy and lives at risk we think Federal law should promote fast 

construction of flood protection projects by non-Federal interests. 
256 


25114.231

We firmly believe that the additional certainty that would come with legislation would promote early 

construction of these essential projects. For these reasons, we strongly support the language 

contained in section 2010 of the draft bill. 

We also write in support of section 2009 of the dmft bill. This section would allow the accelemtion 

of flood damage reduction projects in the Centml Valley of California, while maintaining or 

decreasing the Fedeml costs associated with such construction. As you may know, most of the 

Federally authorized projects in the valley were originally authorized as part of the Sacramento or 

San Joaquin River Flood Control Projects as integmted systems. However, due to the multiple 

separate hydraulic basins which make up our valley, many of these levees are now studied and 

authorized for construction as separate projects. Section 2009 would allow the movement of excess 

work-in-kind credit to be moved tiom one basin to another as long as such movement was part of a 

comprehensive plan. 

We also write in support of section 2017 of the draft bill. This section would direct the ASA to 

conduct a comprehensive review of Corps policy guidelines on vegetation on levees. This is a vital 

issue in our region, as compliance with a national one-size-fits all policy ignores the habitat needs in 

our region. This approach also fails to acknowledge that in order to maximize flood risk reduction, 

our region must prioritize where limited local funds are to be spent. 

Finally, we write in support of Section 2019 of the dmft bill. This section would create a non-Federal 

implementation pilot program to explore ways of promptly reducing flood risk through alternative 

project management structures. This program has the potential to utilize many best management 

practices which have been developed in our valley and have resulted in cost effective levee 

construction. For these reasons we believe this program brings tremendous value to the mission of 

flood risk reduction. 

For all of these reasons, we urge your committee to support the draft bill and to share your support 

with the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. 

Mike Inamine, P.E. 

Executive DirectOr 
257 


25114.232

Son Joaquin Aw,o FLOOD CONTAOL Age(\(v 

November 14,2012 

Senator Barbara Boxer 

Chairman, Environment and Public Works 

Committee 

United States Senate 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510-8175 

Senator James M. lnhofe 

Ranking Member, Environment and Public 

Works Committee 

United States Senate 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

DRAFT WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT fWROA) 

Dear Senators Boxer and lnhofe: 

1 write today to support key sections of the draft Water Resources Development Act 

(WRDA) published by committee staff on November 8, 2012. This proposal addresses 

important public safety and local fiscal issues. 

The San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency has engaged in an aggressive flood risk 

reduction program which Includes locally-sponsored levee Improvements as well as 

partnering with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) on a Feasibility Report. 

However, certain constraints in Federal law or policy inhibit levee improvements from 

being made as quickly and cost effectively as possible. 

First, we support section 2011. This section would allow non-Federal interests who are 

owed reimbursement from the Corps to instead take that reimbursement as a credit 

toward future work. This Is Ideal because it prioritizes new flood damage risk reduction 

work. 

We also support section 2010 of the draft bill becaus~ of our concerns that the 

Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) is declining to utilize Section 104 of WRDA 1986 in 

considering requests from non-Federal interests for credit eligibility to be made available 

for advance construction of flood protection works. We believe the Secretary's decision 

is delaying assessments by non-Federal interests to construct urgently needed flood 

damage reduction projects. Instead of utilizing Section 104, the Secretary has elected 

to process credit eligibility requests under Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 

(as amended by Section 2003 of WRDA 2007). Section 221 as implemented by the 

Secretary does not appear to promote construction by non-Federal interests. While we 

agree that the Secretary must exercise judgment as to the calculation and eventual 

determination of credit which should be given, In light of the stagnant economy and lives 

at risk we think Federal law should promote fast construction of flood protection projects 

by non-Federal interests. We firmly believe that the additional certainty that would 

come with legislation would promote early construction of these essential projects. For 

22 E. Weber Avenue, Room 301, Stockton, CA 95202-2317 (209) 937-7900 
258 


25114.233

Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator James M. lnhofe 

November 14, 2012 

Page2 

these reasons, we strongly support the language contained in section 2010 of the draft 

bill. 

We also write in support of section 2009 of the draft bill. This section would allow the 

acceleration of flood damage reduction projects in the Central Valley of California, while 

maintaining or decreasing the Federal costs associated with such construction. As you 

may know, most of the Federally authorized projects in the valley were originally 

authorized as part of the Sacramento or San Joaquin River Flood Control Projects as 

integrated systems. However, due to the multiple separate hydraulic basins which 

make up our valley, many of these levees are now studied and authorized for 

construction as separate projects. Section 2009 would allow the movement of excess 

work-in-kind credH to be moved from one basin to another as long as such movement 

was part of a comprehensive plan. 

We also write in support of section 2017 of the draft bill. This section would direct the 

Secretary to conduct a comprehensive review of Corps policy guidelines on vegetation 

on levees. This Is a vital issue in our region, as compliance with a national one-size-fits 

all policy ignores the habitat needs in our region. This approach also fails to 

acknowledge that in order to maximize flood risk reduction, our region must prioritize 

where limited local funds are to be spent. 

Finally, we write in support of Section 2019 of the draft bill. This section would create a 

non-Federal Implementation pilot program to explore ways of promptly reducing flood 

risk through alternative project management structures. This program has the potential 

to utilize many best management practices which have been developed in our valley 

and have resulted in cost effective levee construction. For these reasons we believe 

this program brings tremendous value to the mission of flood risk reduction. 

For all of these reasons, we urge your committee to support the draft bill and to share 

your support with the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. 

Sincerely, 

JAMES 

~ B. GIOTTONINI 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

JBG:SS:md 

cc: Tom Gau, Director, San Joaquin County Public Works 

Fritz Buchman, Deputy Director, San Joaquin County Public Works 

John Maguire, Engineering Services Manager, San Joaquin County Public Works 
259 

Senator BOXER. What happened, colleagues, when we did the 

highway bill, the outside support, the wind at our backs, is beginning to develop for this bill. I wanted to say to Senators Whitehouse and Carper, who weren’t here for the opening statements, 

that our colleagues on the other side could not have been more cooperative and more willing to work with us. 

So I have some very good feelings. And when you add all of that 

up and a very constructive criticisms of the draft, which I hope you 

will continue to do, because I laid it out there just to have a starting place, and we added a new section that deals with—dealing 

with extreme weather events, which was really brought home to us 

by Senator Lautenberg. 

I think we have an opportunity here to make tremendous 

progress in the short term. And I wanted to say to the staffs of the 

Republicans that we are so ready to work with everyone. This coming week we are going to have a hearing, with the cooperation of 

Senator Inhofe and his wonderful staff, and with these here, we are 

going to have a hearing on the report that you started, Senator, on 

what happened on the ground with Hurricane Sandy, which is 

going to feature my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator 

Menendez, and the Senators from New York, maybe Connecticut. 

And we hope some State representatives. 

With all that behind us, we are really ready to go. I just want 

to urge staff on both sides to please work with Jason and with 

Bettina and others who are here working every day on this. They 

have been working every day on this. 

Let’s get this done. Because as you know, once we get it out of 

here, and I envision a very good vote out of here, we then have to 

go to the leaders and say, let’s move it through. And I have a very 

good feeling. So at this time, I have arranged, because Senator 

Whitehouse was so kind to take the gavel, stay here as long as it 

takes, handing him that gavel. He said he could do that. I am very 

appreciative, I have to catch an airplane. 

The order now will be Senator Whitehouse will do his opening 

and questions, as I understand it, and then the other, Senator Carper can make an opening and Senator Lautenberg can have the 

floor for his questions. I will leave it up to you, as long as it takes, 

and as long as our witnesses are ready to stay. 

Thank you very much, everybody. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE [presiding]. Thank you. 

What I will do is give a brief summary of my opening statement 

and then yield to Senator Lautenberg to do his questions. I think 

he has been here the longest. And then to Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. I haven’t given an opening statement. If I could, 

once you have said your opening, if I could just mention one thing. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK, with Senator Lautenberg’s permission. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, absolutely. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Let me first recognize Terry Sullivan, from 

Rhode Island. I am delighted to have a Rhode Islander here. He is 

the head of The Nature Conservancy, which does terrific work in 

260 

Rhode Island. And I am very grateful that he is here, along with 

the other witnesses. 

We obviously have this hearing in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, 

which did not hit my State, thankfully, as hard as it hit Senator 

Lautenberg’s. But it hit pretty hard. It was the second costliest Atlantic storm in U.S. history, and reached up and down the Atlantic 

seaboard. It swept Rhode Island houses like this one right off their 

foundation. It is kind of nice to be showing this picture in this 

hearing room, because the fellow in the green jacket was a member 

of this Committee, Senator Lincoln Chaffee, who is now the Governor of the State, surveying the damage there in Matunuck. We 

had roads completely overwhelmed. This is digging out Atlantic Avenue in Misquamicut, and now at least emergency vehicles and 

construction vehicles could get through. But you can see the 

amount of dislocation that took place there. A hundred and thirty 

thousand Rhode Islanders lost power. Eight cities and towns implemented evacuation plans. Four out of our five counties were declared disaster areas. 

And this is not the first time that significant weather events 

have hit Rhode Island hard. Here is beautiful downtown West Warwick, with folks being evacuated from their homes by Jet Ski down 

what would ordinarily be the main road as a result of our 2010 

flooding, which was not ocean-based, but rain-based. That flooding 

exceeded anything we have seen in Rhode Island since we started 

keeping records in the 1870s. So it is clear that a warming planet 

increases the severity of these storms and that it loads the dice for 

extreme weather. So it is really important in this bill that we meet 

the infrastructure responsibilities that we have to keep communities safe and prosperous in a changing climate. 

So I am delighted that Chairman Boxer included provisions that 

would help communities prepare for and mitigate the effects of 

storms like Sandy. I am delighted that there is a northeast coastal 

ecosystem restoration program, which is something that the damage that Sandy has created highlights. I am delighted that there 

is a reauthorization of the National Dam Safety Program. Rhode 

Island has more than 700 dams. We are not a big State, but we 

have a lot of dams. Many of them are very old. The famous Slater 

Mill Dam that ushered in the industrial revolution across this 

country was built in 1793. And it is still there. 

Many of these dams are in poor condition. One hundred and seventy-nine are rated high or significant risk dams. And that is not 

a unique tale to Rhode Island. Our nation’s dams received a D 

grade from the American Society of Civil Engineers in their 2009 

Report Card, which cited more than 4,000 deficient dams, including 

more than 1,800 below which people were living that risked loss of 

life if they failed. 

Another provision I requested to provide grant assistance to 

dams for the rehabilitation and repair of deficient dams is not included in this draft, but I promise to keep working hard to make 

sure that it gets into the final bill. I think that is an important 

piece of legislation. 

I will close by saying that there is a lot of frustration about the 

Army Corps and its backlog and the pace at which projects go forward. We hope to look at perhaps creating a fast track for disaster 

261 

related Army Corps work that needs to be done. And I think it is 

noteworthy that the Corps has not published a list of de-authorized 

projects since 2009, which makes the whole backlog process nontransparent and vague. And that the fiscal transparency report 

that was required of the Corps by Congress in the 2007 WRDA reauthorization has never been, here we are in 2012, never been provided. 

So I think there is a lot of great work that we have to do, and 

I will turn to Senator Carper for his opening statement before 

going to Senator Lautenberg for his questions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for joining us today and for your comments. I want 

to commend our Chair and Ranking Member for the spirit in which 

they approaching this legislation. I thank our staffs—Democrat and 

Republican—for the good work that has been going on already and 

for the opportunity that has been afforded to all of us to provide 

input to the shaping of this legislation which we continue to this 

day. 

Though the subject of today’s hearing is investing in water infrastructure, including ports and navigation, waterways, flood control, 

and environmental restoration, I think what this hearing is really 

more about is job creation and economic growth, protection of life 

and property but also helping to establish a more nurturing environment for job creation and job preservation. My colleagues have 

heard me say from time to time that a major responsibility of ours 

is to create that nurturing environment for job creation. That includes investing in work force, a world class work force, the skills 

that we need to be competitive, investing in research and development and technology that can create goods and products that can 

be sold all over the world. 

And also investing in infrastructure broadly defined, by broadly 

defined. Now is a critical time to be focused on infrastructure investment. However, it is a particularly challenging time, as we 

know, as both our Federal and State governments are facing 

daunting deficits. 

But in this context, I think that the WRDA bill, the right WRDA 

bill, could be a good prescription for addressing several points in 

an economic recovery plan. We can create a more nurturing environment for jobs by investing in water infrastructure which in turn 

boosts trade and helps us sell American products around the globe. 

And we can do so in a way that is fiscally responsible. 

I believe that each of the three Corps missions, and there are 

some excellent examples of each type, projects around Delaware, 

and I am sure my colleagues can find those projects in their States, 

but in the Delaware River, we are in the process of deepening the 

main channel in the Delaware River from 40 feet to 45 feet. This 

will help ports up and down the river, including the Port of Wilmington, to accommodate the newer, bigger ships that will begin 

arriving on the east coast when the Panama Canal expansion is 

completed. A deeper channel in the Delaware River means more 

262 

trade, and that is a message that I heard from businesses at the 

Port of Wilmington, which I recently visited. 

Flood control projects along Delaware’s Atlantic Coast are another great example. These projects protected the lives of our coastal population during Superstorm Sandy and prevented billions of 

dollars in damage. These projects protected a region that is vital 

to our State’s economy. Tourism is the fifth largest private sector 

employer in Delaware. It represents about 15,000 full-time jobs, a 

lot more part-time jobs, and some $750 million in annual revenue, 

which is a lot of money for a little State. 

So that has been critical. However, as important as projects like 

these are, we also need to be mindful of provisions that can make 

sure our investments are smart, that they are strategic, and that 

they are prioritized. That is why I am proud to support key reforms. In our last WRDA bill in 2007, it was a pleasure to work 

with this Committee, Democrats and Republicans, to pass these 

provisions in 2007. And since we have worked to ensure that they 

are well implemented and having the desired impact. 

As we move forward, I want us to keep these reforms in mind. 

Some of the best advice I have ever received since I came here was, 

find out what works and do more of that. And be focused on how 

to get better results for less money or better results for the same 

amount of money. Now is the time to examine how reforms are 

working that we adopted 5 years ago, but to do more of what works 

and to revisit and improve any policies that don’t work as they 

were intended. 

If I could shift gears for just a moment, I would like to take 

maybe a minute to talk about a recent feature in our State’s newspaper, the Delaware News Journal papers. The feature included 

more than a dozen articles over the course of an entire week that 

showed that the sea level along Delaware’s coast is rising, and communities are facing major challenges as a result. Whatever you believe may be the cause of this, it is fact that in Delaware and in 

other States, every year the water line is higher. And we need to 

take steps to ensure that the people and communities who depend 

on Corps projects and have confidence that those projects are built 

with rising seas in mind and are built to withstand the stresses of 

stronger, more frequent storms. 

This is not just an issue for coastal States. Record flooding in the 

Midwest and Northeast last summer, and the droughts that we are 

still suffering from across this country are both evident that we 

need to be developing projects with the changing climate in mind. 

This Committee has tackled big issues several times already this 

year. I am confident that, working together, we can find agreement 

on a path forward on this legislation. 

If you doubt for a minute, all you have to do is look back at the 

Committee’s leadership, Democrat and Republican, who defied the 

naysayers to pass a multi-year transportation bill. So in closing, let 

me just say that I am delighted that our Chair and Ranking Member are using every last minute of this lame duck session to address some of these important priorities of our country. I want to 

commend our leaders of the Environment and Public Works Committee for putting such a high priority on moving this bill, and I 

263 

hope that we can continue to work on this important legislation 

when Congress returns after the session. 

I thank you, and I thank my friend from New Jersey, my neighbor across the Delaware River, for allowing me to give that statement. 

Thank you, sir. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I will now recognize Senator Lautenberg 

for questions, then Senator Carper for questions, then I will close 

out myself. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. A little question arises. You are looking at 

the three smallest States in the country. And that doesn’t mean we 

don’t have power. And it doesn’t mean that we are spare of people. 

We make lots of use of our coastline. Each one of these States has 

a particular exposure to coastline. We are coastal States, and we 

enjoy that position. It brings in lots of business, lots of port opportunities, lots of recreation interest, and lots of second homes. 

And so when we look at what abilities we have to finance these 

projects that are necessary, one thing strikes me that threads 

through the discussion here is that when it is dome, when a berm, 

a beach construction, or a dam is built by the Federal Government 

typically, the engineers, it is a far more reliable kind of structure 

than we will have if we depend on local funding and design to be 

able to do the right thing for the area. Because wherever you put 

a dam, wherever you turn a river flow, it may be an advantage to 

the community in which it is structured as opposed to the longterm value of something like that. And it is little more philosophical than I think we might deal with right now. But it certainly has to be considered as part of where we are going in the 

future. 

When we look at the destruction that Sandy—and I resent that 

name, Sandy has kind of a nice feel to it, but it doesn’t have the 

ominous threat that this Sandy brought along. So early reports 

show that communities with previously constructed Army Corps 

beach project experienced far less damage than those without the 

beach projects. So as we prepare for future storms, what might we 

have done? What could we do to get more Army Corps projects in 

place to prevent the kind of damage to beachfront communities and 

businesses and public infrastructure? Anybody among you, you are 

all experienced people, have any views on how we can change the 

structuring, the formula for design and Development of these 

things? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Senator, I don’t know if it addresses it directly, 

but I think the proposal on the northeast ecosystem restoration approach is one way to look at this. I think those of us who live in 

coastal communities, and we have, in Rhode Island, we have a little over 350 miles of shoreline, understand the importance of the 

question you are asking. One of the things we believe is that you 

have to take a whole system approach in thinking about this, that 

sediment management is a big part of that larger approach of 

thinking about how natural resources can help buffer our communities from these extreme events. 

So seagrass, beaches, dune structures, oyster reefs, which at one 

time we had many oyster reefs in our coastal waters, 85 percent 

of oyster reefs have now been extracted or died off because of polluVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:47 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00267 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25114.TXT SONYA
264 

tion. They help to lessen the impacts. These natural resources help 

to lessen the impacts of storm events, particularly seawater surges. 

So I think the idea of asking the Army Corps of Engineers to 

look at good science and taking a regional approach to how to manage these ecosystems in a way that delivers multiple benefits for 

our communities. Safer communities, economies, particularly our 

tourist economies that are more assured that in long run will have 

these natural features that people want to come and enjoy. I think 

that is one way. 

I would just mention the Cape May Meadows project in your 

State, which is a wonderful project that the Army Corps of Engineers and the State and The Nature Conservancy participated together in implementing. We know—we have seen that folks in New 

Jersey went and took a look at that project. It was a beach renourishment plus an ecosystem restoration project. It was a combined project. And we know that that project held up very well 

under the winds and the surge and the strength of Sandy. So we 

believe there are other opportunities along the coast to do those 

kind of combined restoration projects that can protect communities 

and our economies. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, there are other questions, 

and I would suggest, because we have been here a long time, that 

the record be kept open and responded to with requests from any 

one of you, please. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I relinquish the opportunity to ask other questions right now, and we will send out 

inquiries to each one of these people. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am informed by Committee staff that 

there will be a way to have such a request made to the witnesses 

and to get the answers into the record that needs to be coordinated 

with the minority staff. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank all of you for your testimony. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Two questions, if I could, the first two to Ms. Larson. And it is 

regarding job creation at our ports. 

There was a recent article—I believe it was in the New York 

Times—about the new wave of the super Panamax ships that will 

be shipping cargo when the renovation of the Panama Canal is 

complete. And dredging the Delaware River to 45 feet will certainly 

help the Port of Wilmington to compete for some of that business, 

along with other ports up and down the river. 

I believe that one of the key roles of government, as I said earlier 

in my opening statement, is to create a nurturing environment for 

job creation and job preservation. We don’t create jobs, as Senators, 

Governors, Presidents, Mayors, we don’t create them, we help create a more nurturing environment for jobs. Could you tell me how 

you think this legislation will help you prepare for this opportunity? 

Ms. LARSON. With respect to the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund and ensuring that our deep draft ports are ready for the 

super tankers that will come in after the expansion of the Panama 

Canal, the legislation must provide a mechanism for full expenditure of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for its intended purposes, making sure that the nation’s ports and harbors are dredged 

265 

to their authorized depths and widths. I think making sure that 

our trade infrastructure is robust will enhance that job creation. 

I will say that while we support the provision calling for the full 

expenditure of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for its intended 

purposes, there is no guarantee provision in there. So we will continue to work with the staff to ensure that that guarantee is in 

there. We need to also make sure that it doesn’t burden the rest 

of the civil works program. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. 

And my second question would be to Dusty Williams. I understand you are the President of the National Association of Flood 

and Storm Management Agencies. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. I mentioned earlier that one of our two statewide newspapers, the Delaware News Journal, featured more than 

a dozen articles over the course of a week that showed how rising 

sea levels along the Delaware coast are presenting communities 

and State agencies, families and businesses with some major challenges. Whatever people may think is the cause of this, it is a fact 

that in Delaware, and I know in other States, every year the water 

line is higher. It is not just an issue, as it turns out, for coastal 

States, but the Midwest and the Northeast of our country have 

faced record flooding in recent years as well. 

What steps do you believe the Corps should take to ensure that 

the people in the communities who depend on flood control projects 

are protected from flooding, that those projects are built to withstand stronger and maybe more frequent storms, and that the 

Corps is prepared to respond to disasters when they do occur? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you for the question, sir. It is a wide open 

one, I agree. 

First, I guess as an engineer, and I am an engineer, we understand that Mother Nature will always win out in the end. So we 

have to recognize that. How to build better, bigger, and stronger, 

that is what engineers do. And we try to plan for the future; we 

try not to plan and build for today’s condition, but we try to look 

into the future. It is a very difficult crystal ball. And the Corps is 

very proactive in that in looking at ranges of numbers, not just a 

single number, when they design. They look at factors of safety, 

trying to predict what climate change will do, among a bunch of 

other things. 

But probably the best thing we can do as a nation, in addition 

to the engineering part of that, is community awareness, public 

awareness of where people live, where they will expect to have 

flooding, what the danger is and what they can do about it in the 

meantime. Even with the most robust program we can put together, there will still be areas that will be subject to flooding for 

quite some time. People that are aware of their surroundings and 

know what to do, as simple as an evacuation plan, or know where 

they might go for help and who they might call, is a very proactive 

step to get that way. The Corps certainly, among all the Federal 

agencies, is looking in that direction to improve the public awareness in addition to infrastructure. I think that is a very key part 

of that. 

266 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. Thank you both, and again, 

thank you all for joining us today and for your input and your willingness to continue to respond to other questions that we might. 

Thanks so much. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you all. As I wrap up the hearing, 

I just had a couple of questions I wanted to ask. The first is for 

Mr. Sullivan. I was at the Coastal Resources Management Council 

gathering, their retreat the other day. Grover Fugate, who is, for 

the record, the Executive Director of our CRMC, was saying that 

the rate of change that is being experienced along the Rhode Island 

coast is accelerating and has accelerated to such a point that is actually running ahead of the capacity of the science and the observers to keep up. And in light of that, could you comment on the 

Northeast Coastal Region Coastal Ecosystem Restoration provision 

and its importance and value? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The overriding idea is that, and the change we 

hope to see this WRDA bring about is to ensure that we begin to 

take a whole systems or a larger system approach to designing infrastructure and also using soft solutions to address some of these 

problems. Clearly, our globe is becoming more dynamic, and we are 

having more extreme storm events. The 100-year flood, or the 2010 

flood, in Rhode Island was a major economic hit to Rhode Island, 

with $100 million worth of damage. These kinds of events we expect will happen more frequently. 

And so what we hope to see in this Northeast Ecosystem Restoration proposal is the Corps begin to use the best available 

science that we have today, to understand how these larger systems work, and then to apply that knowledge to restoration programs in a way that ensures that we are doing the most cost effective thing and the most effective approach to addressing the 

threats at a regional scale. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Are you worried, Mr. Sullivan, that given 

the backlog at the Corps and the glacial pace at which many Corpsauthorized projects proceed, you could be in a situation in which 

by the time the Corps actually gets around to doing the project, the 

situation has changed enough that is now no longer up to date, and 

now you have to go back and start again? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And the glacial pace of getting to that, 

they kind of never catch up because they are not nimble enough 

to get the work done in time to have the effect, while the conditions—— 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I do think that is always a concern. And I think 

that some of the provisions in this bill are meant to get at that. 

We would welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee to 

suggest other ways for expediting some of these studies and project 

implementation. So that is absolutely a concern. 

But I think the idea that we need to move forward away from 

a project by project way of doing things, to understand how these 

systems work and to really bring the best science available to the 

table, and to implement projects that are going to address some of 

these major issues that we are now facing on our coastline is imperative. 

267 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And Mr. Curtis, I have over and over 

again referred to your Society of Civil Engineers Report Card. I 

think the one that I referenced in my earlier statement was from 

a few years ago. What is your update, postcard, elevator speech of 

the summary of the status of our water and wastewater infrastructure in the country as of today? 

Mr. CURTIS. Actually, it is the same report card that you probably looked at back in 2009. However, we have another update 

coming out in February 2013. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Any previews of coming attractions for us? 

Mr. CURTIS. I cannot give you the specific grades for the infrastructure rankings. I can say that not many of the infrastructure 

elements in this country have improved. There are a couple. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. My recollection is the Environmental Pro- tection Agency has done a study that shows that we have $600 billion worth of water and wastewater infrastructure work that needs 

to be done in order to reach that goal. We have $6 billion of that 

into the Recovery Act. So we have 1 percent of what we needed to 

get done done and the Recovery Act, which leaves a huge gap still 

to work on. 

Mr. CURTIS. Correct. And you are referring to the Failure To Act 

impact on water and wastewater that was issued just probably 

around a year ago. Yes. And the particulars associated with that 

report will be part of the 2013 infrastructure report card. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I would invite the other witnesses to comment. One of my most intense frustrations around here is that we 

have these immense infrastructure needs. They are not going to get 

better. They are going to get worse. The old Yankee saying that a 

stitch in time saves nine implies that if you do it now, it will actually cost less than later. Cost of capital is probably not going to be 

lower than it is right now for a very long time for our country. 

And yet we have banged up against an unwillingness to invest 

in our infrastructure. To me, that is just, to use another phrase, 

penny-wise and pound-foolish. Because we are going to have to 

build this infrastructure sooner or later, we are going to have to 

repair it sooner or later. The work needs to be done, the waterworks need to be built, the repairs to the shorelines and so forth 

need to be done. 

And you end up, unless you built a bridge to nowhere, with a valuable asset that was worth spending the money on. So the wealth 

of the nation is actually enhanced by it, even though it is now a 

capital asset rather than cash in your budget. And yet we seem 

jammed up on it. So if there is any way that your associations can 

continue to push to get this done, we need the jobs now still. My 

State is still at a very high unemployment level. And we need the 

work to be done for the sake of the infrastructure. 

So if anybody has a final comment on that point, I would love 

to hear from you. 

Ms. Larson and Mr. Williams. 

Ms. LARSON. I agree completely that we are not making the 

needed investments. If we look at any variety of projects across the 

water resources spectrum, whether it is our aging infrastructure, 

inland locks and dams, whether it is flood control structures, the 

Mississippi River and Tributaries project has a 34 to 1 return on 

268 

investment ratio. It is critical, I think, that we find ways to invest, 

whether it is the alternative financing that is suggested through 

the course of the bill, but also for the Congress to re-engage in 

these investment decisions and to take back some of the control 

that it has ceded to the executive branch. 

But you are correct; we need to find ways to invest in this critical 

infrastructure, for jobs, for the economy, for the environment, and 

to maintain our position in the global economy. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

269 


25114.234

---- Summary Report of the 2C1l ;\!1,ississippi River F\ood 

Successful Operation of the rvlississippi River and Tributaries System 

US Army Corps 

of Engineerso 
270 


25114.235

MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION \ilCK56.URG, MiSSlSSIPP! 

November 13,2012 

The Mississippi River and Tributanas(MR<IT)project Is ooe of the world's moot 

comprehensive and s~l flood control and navigation syotems. More then 

a dozen significant floods have tested the MR& T aver the past 00 yoars. but 

~ 

none as extensively as the 2011 record flood. In 2011, the MR& T system 

as designed by accommodatlngtne river while using only as pei'C<)nt 

of its design capecily. Yet at the same time, not a single life was lOSt 

Additionally, mom then $230 billion In f1oo!1 <:~!~mages were prevented in a sing Is 

yoar. ~its inception, !heMR&T s~"'~~ijed with preventing 

$812 billion, or In excess of hall a lr:illll:!ll~; 1tl "\'Wulative llood demages. 

;; ~~.:.v;:tment level of $14 billion, !hoes sa,VIngS ~:1!1. a $44 retum oo every 

We <N~e a debt of gretitudefor !he wisdom,!~,~~ of our forbearers 

wlhodevised. funded cooslrucled, and~ this·~ syotem that 

has proven so beneficial to so many for soiohg. W.-<lltt<>od our sincere 

appmcialion to the thousaads of local land owners, levee bQard$. cities, states, and either partners who desperately fOO!:Iht the flood llght alongside us and who 

continue to stand wtth us during the path to recovery. 1'11e region aad the nall<m 

am grateful beneficiaries of those endeavors. 

After more than a yoar of evaluslion and documentall<m, !ha expensiva MR&T 

2011 Posl Flood Report and !he CO!'Id<msad 'Room fcr'llle Rt'vet' booklet wlll 

serve as educational tools and """"'nee palll!sfcl' our citizens, decision makers, 

and futuro flOOd llghle!$. Facts. llgu""'- and'lessons learned from the 2011 

flood serve to haSten and gui<l& our endeavors to mbuikl and improva the MR&T 

project, ensuring continued safety and security of our citizen's lives and 

livelihoods. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and MissiSsippi River Cornmisslon, worl<lng 

hand-irrlland with our strong partners, continue 10 keep an ear to the past, 

maintain a hand on the present and project a steady voice for our nation's 

bright and productive future. We continue lo be generational beneficiaries of the GodiJiven world's third largest wale __ 

E .. ayons and Building Strong! 

John w. Peabody 

Major General. U.S. Army 

Commander, Mississippi Valley Division 

President, Mississippi River Commission 
271 


25114.236

lNTRODUCTlCN 

W<rnmgthenextflood 

Flood bvfiC1od 

2tYI1 

.A. record flood 

f·LOOD FiGHT 

Thec~bmatetest 

PERFORMANCE 

Makir.groomforarecordflood 

RF.COVF.RY 

PRE?AREDNESS 

Copingw1thrisk 

RECOMMF.ND/\T!ONS 

Asecurebture 

fUTURE 

Apply1nghard-lear..,ed lessons 
272 


25114.237

ROOM FOR THE RIVIEA J 20'1 POST·FLOOD 5;JMMAR.Y R[PQRT 

A COMMISSION WITH A 

RIVER MISSION 

ago, with Benjamin Harrisonwho'd go on to serve as the 

country's 23'1 president-as one 

of its charter members. The seven 

member group, appointed by the 

President, oversaw the river's 

transformation from one in which 

boats were regularly caught on 

snags, sandbars and uncharted 

shoals to a successful conglomeration of levees, spillways and 

CIVIl engineering degrees. Ail seek 

to find solutions not just to flood 

control but to all water resource 

challenges facing the watershed, 

work1ng with other agencies and 

tNe vision for the balanced and 

nationally 

N EN 

This post-flood evaluation seeks to answer three main questions. How 

did the Mississippi River & Tributaries System perform during the record 

Mississippi River flood of 2011? How might it perform in its post-flood condition7 What might it need to protect life and livelihoods into the future? 

fROM THE EARLIEST DAYS OF MISSISSIPPI HIVER 

towns and indu~tries from llonds hds proven a daunting and often controversial 

natura! levees couldn't provide enough protection, residents, local levee hoards and 

Fed~~ral f!;OVernmcnt would build them ever hi)!;her, usin)!; horse-drawn cquipmt>nt 

increa>.ingly sophisticated and construction methods. 

More than construction in the 

Chief of En)!;i!lt'ers lVlaj. Gen. 

behind 

"We have developed 

a roadmap here for 

future leaders and 

decision makers." The Mississippi River and Trihuturies Project, 

has 
273 


25114.238
274 


25114.239

Flood management philosophy evolves, flood by flood. 
275 


25114.240

1929-

1932 

The lower river was basically a funnel for the world's 

third largest drainage basin-exceeded in size by only 

the Amazon and the Congo. 

TO DIVERT OR NOT TO DIVERT 

fhe1927 flood demonstrated 

that the confined channel along 

the Mtsstssippi R1ver dtdn't have 

Tributaries Project thus provided 

pastcr,ttcalreaches1n theievee 

!evees. 

ltwasgeneral!yacceptedthat 

floodway mcluston was a neeso where the government was 

lnthemtdstolcourtcases. 

construct\on of these two flood· 

controipoiicy. 
276 


25114.241
277 


25114.242

c\BOi'E, FJl0\1 LEI'T Early levee ransfruction, around 1910. \\'orker~ com1nK"I (1 willow mol th<lt will b~ 

kmdt'd with mch.for ch(lnl\el pmte(·tion or wing dike formation 

Levees are man-made structures, usually an eanhen embankment. designed and constructed 

with sound engineering practices to control or divert the flow of water in order to 

reduce risk from temporary flooding. A levee is to .a body of water (most often a river) 

to protect the lives and properties behind No levee provide;<; full 

but efforts are. continually made to reduce risk and keep 
278 


25114.243

GLOSSARY OF FLOOO TERMS 

F!owJines: The iVR& r Proiect 

Revetment:Ahardsubslratehkc 

Scour: Tbe eros<ve f:yce of r-uvThe 2011 Mississippi River flood played out over the 

course of several weeks in April and May, but U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers officials already suspected in late March 

there might be trouble ahead, 

TilE :'viAl~ f~GREDTE:-.;Ts OF THF: GREAT FLOOD Of 201I werr an umeawn;1h!v wet ,wtumn of 2010 cmd <t rt•cord snowf11ll in lowi1, :\linn{'~ota and \\hconsin 

Gil w some ilrl'<lS in a singl~, month 

ln ts>ence. n;ltun• h,1d cretlted a llhbSI\'t' rc~ervmr of froH'n \\Jtt'L one that \\Otild qmckh mah' its 

It wa~ d l'Cdpc for trouble 

otnldm<C> aut homed m 1928 <1~ p;m of the mubitious ~lis~b.'•lppl Rin•r & Triblllanes proJect 

It was a tall order: The city of Cairo, at the confluence of the 

Ohio and Mississippi rivers, was nearly an island, 
279 


25114.244
280 


25114.245

The magnitude of water was almost bey 

ingi«rm!nal. 
281 


25114.246

then usesthedatan;cortcrrt\"Jithweatherpatternsto makeforend p hension. <lnd some oithe 
282 


25114.247

A system successfully passes a record flood-and its ultimate test 

THF. 201 r ~vhss!SS!PPl RIVER l-'LOOD t~sted th{' ,\Hssissippi Rjver & Tributaries system~;md 

asneq:rbefore 
283 


25114.248

"We must use everything we have 

in our possession in the system to prevent 

a more catastrophic event." 

-MAJ. GEN. WALSH, ON ACTIVATING THE BIRDS POINT-NEW MADRID fLOODWAY 

haw to !ike it, but \H' mu~t u;e eYerything we haH' in our possession m the ~y~tem to pre\·cnt a 

mon•rc~!a>trophict>Yf'nt" wind\und!ightningprewnt<?d 

duytimeoctivution. 

" 
284 


25114.249

THE BATTLE RHYTHM 

could have been caliedthe Battle 

of the MissiSSIPPI. That he was 

•n aco11ference room rather than 

a bu<1ker. or:hat his "sold:ers" 

defense, doesn't change onef2ct 

thecomolex:t:escfdens:onsand 

areal battlf.'asonecancomew! 

c:vilworks. 

d:scussedweatherforecasts, 

reservoir releases, projected river 

stages, inundat:o'l scena~ios, 

between t:mes were filled wit'> 

moreiocusedevaluat:onsand 

dec:s:on mak:ng, coupled w:th 

reguiarcommun:cat:o<1sand 

andmembersofthemed:a, 

The MR&T project was performing as designed: It gave 

the river room to move sideways, which reduced flooding 

downstream. 
285 


25114.250

Key Actions MEMPHIS DISTRICT 

sard boJ!sthattfYeate-,edthe 

Action: Act'vated t>,<' i5irds 

PoJlt- New Madr:d Floodw3y 

wreducef!ood,ngdndre-!ieve 

VICKSBURG DISTRICT 

C: Near Yazoo C1ty, 

Actioo: Placed locn rT:iiE'S c.' 

olast1c sheet1ngon tf:e Yazoo 

from lancslde levee eros,on and 

Action:Stab>i:zed~he 3uck 

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT 

E' 

Actton:Ad1vated':he8onnet 

Orleans 

G:AngoiacLa 

Action: Conta,rwd 87 o! :90 

'2"dbo,lstnatthreatene0the 
286 


25114.251
287 


25114.252

th;lt bon• the brunt of tlw llood\\-,lter.rn 
288 


25114.253

FLOODWAY ACTIVATION 

A LAST RESORT 

the B1rds Point-New Madrid 

hroken. Get out at once!" were a 

mam commumcat1on source. 

In 2011, floodway residents 

the decision to act1vate was not. 

Btrds ?omt·-New 1\1adnd IS 

farmlandartdrequlresevacuatton 

of 230 res1dents. 

member RD. Ja;-nes, who nonethelesslenthlssupportwhen 

realiztng there was nc choiCe but 

:oactivate.Withinanhou:aftBr 

act1vatJon, the nverdroooed by 

and the nsk of system failure was 

redu:ed 

,. 

Should Divine Providence ever send a flood oft he maximum predicted by 

meteorological and flood experts as a remote probability (but not beyond 

the bounds of ultimate possibility), the floodways provided in the plan are 

still normally adequate for its passage without having its predicted heights 

exceed those of the strengthened levees. -MAJ. GEN. EDGAR JADWIN. DEC 1. 1927 

the Birds Point-:\icw i\Lldrid and l\1orgam;~ r!ood 

mto operation dunng a ~mglc flood event. Emer)lency 

... for the first time, all three floodways would be activated 

in the same flood event. 
289 


25114.254
290 


25114.255

PROJECT DESIGN FLOOD--------------------------------, 
291 


25114.256

fi~hcde~ The 2011 flood n'5UllfJ m mmim.d d&llilflJ' m cnmmunitlb protected bl' the flnod\\iJ\ 

flw op(,r;llion of Bonn"t Carre (SEETIMEUNE, PAGE20) 

river nmununrtie~ <~nJ ell teo, such Jo Rllon Hmtge <tnd 

Hllri<."<lCIC~ nf flonJw,!~' opcratHHl~ 

Navigation 

Cultural aml em>ironnumtal facUJrs 

Th,, strongest t.'nVironmental conct'ms centt•rcd around wate! quahty, 't'dmwntatwn and wi!dJifp 
292 


25114.257
293 


25114.258

"By operating the MR&T System as designed, including the floodways, 

the value of this investment to our nation can be counted by what we 

have not lost- lives, critical infrastructure for the energy industry and 

more than 50 billion dollars in damages to homes and businesses." 

-COl .. ED FLEMING, COMMANDER, NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT 

PROVING ITS VALUE 

No s:gn:i:cant breaches occurred h1 the pr:mary flood risk management system. M:ttor breaches 

occurred 1na pnvatespur ievee, 

~piflway opening at Bonnet Cam! 
294 


25114.259

A winning performance stiii comes at a cost. The Mississippi River & 

Tributaries Project emerged from the record 2011 fiood a winner but 

as one commander put it iike Rocky Balboa after his title match with 

Apollo Creed. 

i\s Fl OODWXITll'l 

lHHl<~ndr'Oil,!tutllOilrq>,l'r 

What inspectors found was often dangerous-in ways not 

exactly expected. 
295 


25114.260

Scour and bankline erosion at Merriwethcr-Cherokee Bend, a nine-mile bend where 

the Corps had invested approximately $60 million in channel improvements to maintain 

the meander pattern needed for navigation. During the flood, the river attempted 

to straighten out :he bend and create a new channel. Repairs recreated the protective 

shoreline where the river scoured out the prev1ous bank, creating a huge opening. 

This one repair costs an estimated $30 million. 

Damage & recovery highlights: 

!'l.OODWAYS 

RES~.R\'OIR'i 

REGIONAL TASK FORCE 

COORDINATES EFFORTS 

'"ltisunfnrtunatethatithastaken 

under a new charter, to collaborate 

on solut1ons lor short~ and longtraditional repair alternatives, 

better communication on flood 

flooding vulnerability. 

" 
296 


25114.261

AT FLOODING RISK? 

CHECK CORP5MAP! 

;:.. f!ood :; commg, ana you i;now 

thattheievee)ustupstrea'T 

ofyourr1oG'1eorbus1nesswas 

:1rst pu~l:c Corps'V1iops1tes, at 

www.mvd.usace.army.mil. 

U!A.'\:-.CL 1\ll'lW\ 1:\JL"\ ill ·\ltlH-., 

to e\·dlualt' damage> m·unnng bdn\\ 

;uddu' '-;onw ·l-1 ~llt·~ \\l'l\' F.lc'IHdicd th.;L d nut W]'<llr<'(L ,·uu!d llll['<lC t !'utmc '1-'>tc•m perform.1nu' 

fhe lll<hl crllKJ.I \H'rl:' rewwwnh lotnted :'l.hs~~'~IP}'I RlH'r [<'We, 

~inu• !e\'t'lment f:ulure could nHnprom1~<· ]('\'('!:' 

Helocauonufthe Rl\nvh,mnc•l 
297 


25114.262

tvian has yet to create flood control system that is 100 

but! he 

Risk Management Information Papers 

These de~cnh<'d hem d<~n1<1(tt.'d ,md high-rhk location' ''ithm 

flnocl 
298 


25114.263

Moving toward a safe, secure river future, 
299 


25114.264
300 


25114.265
301 


25114.266

itegicni!llly standard!z.e ~::nmmunlcation approach and prcyducb with MR&.T System f!oodway 

baekwater area stakeholders 

Evaluate the need to con dud an updated flow line study for the MR&T System 

l''-1.' 2011 hnlrauhc !lo\Xl d21J and ,w,ncwted :\fH&T component to <'%llU,lt0 dw lWE'\1 

for cln tipdrited llnw lme >tudv for the 

henms\' there 1' hmned funding av,libhle to a\·<·ornplish tlwse ta~b.I!J: 
302 


25114.267

READING LIST 

The evoiut•on of flood control on 

;nnewpollt,calreg:mesand 

America's Great Watershed 

In economic terms alone, the Mississippi River and Tributaries 

Project is a success-one of the most successful flood risk 

reduction systems in the world, 

This document . 

is a starting point 

for paying the 

wisdom forward, 

that a!! resJdent:. of the \h~~i%1pp1 Rn·<'r ,md 11~ trihu~ 

t,tri<'s experwnte unm,Jh::hed ~ecurit') and qthtlity of life.E:I 
303 


25114.268
304 


25114.269

US Army Corps 

of Engineers, 

Fo• mDr"' Information, CDntilct USACE Mtss;~IPPI 

Valley Divis101 publiC ~ffalrs office' 601-634-5760 
305 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am captivated by your 34 to 1 return on 

investment ratio, and would invite you and any of the other witnesses who have return on investment valuations for water, wastewater, public safety, shoreline protection infrastructure to please 

share that with my office. I would be delighted to add that to my 

armamentarium for argument on this issue. 

Mr. Williams. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Just to follow up, sir, NAFSMA agrees with you 

entirely. And the numbers that I would like to get to you, I do not 

have them at hand, for an example, is Hurricane Katrina. The 

numbers I have heard about the investment that the Federal Government ended up putting into the area in disaster recovery, compared to what the cost would have been to prevent that, is astonishing. The problem, as you have noted, would be, how do you talk 

the American people into spending that much money on something 

that only has a chance of occurring, even though, as an engineer, 

I know it will occur. It is a matter of when. 

So I agree, and NAFSMA supports your statement, and we will 

do everything we can to further that and give you the information 

you need. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, I appreciate it. I thank all the witnesses for their testimony and the organizations that you represent 

for your support and effort behind this bill. I am completely supportive of Chairman Boxer’s effort to try to get this moving before 

we end this session. I think there is a good chance that that could 

happen. But we will all have to push together to make it happen, 

and I appreciate very much that you and others are here to get 

that done. 

In terms of the record, the record will remain open for a time to 

be determined by agreement between the majority and the minority. But the witnesses should expect to receive questions, and if you 

could turn them around relatively quickly, I would appreciate it. 

So subject to that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

306 


25114.270

AMERfCAN PUBUC WORKS ASSOCIATION 

Hearing on the Water Resources Development Act of 2012 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

Statement of 

Elizabeth Treadway, PWLF 

President of the American Public Works Association 

November 15,2012 
307 


25114.271

Madam Chair, Ranking Member Inhofe and members ofthe Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to submit testimony relating to the recent hearing on the Water Resources 

Development Act of2012. My name is Elizabeth Treadway, President of the American Public 

Works Association (APWA). I submit this statement reaffirming APWA's support for action that 

creates increased funding for capital investment in water and wastewater infrastructure on behalf 

of the more than 28,500 public works professionals who are members of APW A. 

Background 

APWA is an organization dedicated to providing sustainable public works infrastructure and 

services to millions of people in rural and urban communities, both small and large. Working in 

the public interest, APW A members plan, design, build, operate and maintain transportation, 

water supply and wastewater treatment systems, stormwater management, drainage and flood 

control infrastructure, waste and refuse disposal systems, public buildings and grounds and other 

structures and facilities essential to the economy and quality of life nationwide. 

APWA members take a lead role in the effective management of facilities protecting water 

quality and are too familiar with the challenges local jurisdictions face keeping up with the 

demand for clean safe water. The current infrastructure system is deteriorating and strains under 

the increasing demands for sound flood control, efficiency waterway transportation systems and 

for clean and safe water. According to the EPA's most recent clean water and drinking water 

needs assessment surveys, local communities will need $300 billion in wastewater and $335 

billion in drinking water infrastructure improvements for capital expenditures over the next 20 

years. Studies show that up to 25 percent of treated water is lost. Sufficient funding of water and 

wastewater facilities will increase sustainability by ensuring that water loss is kept to a 

minimum. Additionally, the Water Infrastructure Network estimates that every $1 billion 

invested in waster infrastructure capital creates nearly 28,000 jobs. Local jurisdictions struggle to 

fund these infrastructure capital projects. The state of the nation's water resources infrastructure 

is dire. 
308 


25114.272

APW A Position on the Water Resources Development Act CWRDA) 

Robust federal investment in water infrastructure can address important public health and 

environmental concerns while also improving economic competitiveness and creating much 

needed jobs. We applaud the committee's leadership and continued focus on working with local 

partners to see that vital water infrastructure projects receive adequate funding. 

APW A supports the reauthorization of The Water Resources Development Act of 2012 

(WRDA). A WRDA has not been authorized since 2007. In the face of the current deteriorating 

state of water infrastructure, it is clear a new authorization is necessary to continue approved 

flood control, navigation, and environmental projects and studies by the United States Army 

Corps of Engineers. 

As you consider this legislation, we offer some recommendations to improve the bill. 

Specifically, we recommend a revision to Section 214 which has been reauthorized for limited 

terms in the past. APWA supports the Section 214 program initially authorized in WRDA 2000 

and recommends that this program be made permanent to allow the Army Corp to continue using 

funds contributed by state or local governments to expedite permitting for infrastructure projects 

with minimal environmental impact. The reduction in permit waiting times is beneficial to local 

governments because it removes unnecessary bureaucratic impediments and allows them to 

move forward with integral infrastructure projects, saving time, money and the environment. 

Levee and Dam Safety 

APWA also supports the establishment of a National Levee Safety Program and increased 

funding of the Dam Safety Program. Both programs support critical infrastructure systems which 

are vital to this country's disaster mitigation efforts. Public works has a central role in flood 

protection and impact mitigation and plays a key role in emergency planning, response and 

recovery from flooding. Operating and maintaining critical infrastructure services, such as 

pumping mechanisms and drainage systems, levees and dams directly impact the ability to 

respond to a flood. 
309 


25114.273

We believe that in order to create a more resilient nation, adequate flood mitigation funding is 

needed and must remain in place to address the preventative measures necessary to protect 

communities. In 2005, the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council, a council of the National Institute 

of Building Sciences, published a study which found that every dollar the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency invested into mitigation yields approximately $4 in cost savings to the 

taxpayer. 

Implementing mitigation plans and projects-such as the National Levee Safety Program and 

Dam Safety Program--reduces loss of life, personal property damage and reliance on funding 

from actual disaster declarations. Effective mitigation efforts can not only break the cycle of 

repeated damage and reconstruction that can paralyze communities but also improve recovery 

time from such disasters. APW A encourages greater cooperation and coordination among 

agencies responsible for levee funding, construction, operation, maintenance and assessment. 

Enhanced coordination among federal, state and local governments is vitally important to 

mitigation efforts, especially in cases of overlapping jurisdiction. 

Additionally, APW A supports language included in the draft bill that authorizes a 

comprehensive review of Corps policy guidelines on vegetation on levees. The current "one size 

fits all" policy disregards the diversity of local environmental needs. Many of the flood damage 

reduction projects now faced with vegetation removal requirements as a result of this universal 

policy were initially constructed in partnership with the Corps. A revision of the levee vegetation 

policy will ensure that variations in local climates and the potential benefits of vegetation are 

taken into account. 

Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) 

APW A supports the new WIFIA provision within WRDA as not only a complement to existing 

Corps of Engineers flood damage reduction, environmental restoration cost-shared project 

funding but also as a funding mechanism for water and wastewater infrastructure. APW A 

supports WIFIA because it establishes an innovative fmancing program that will provide local 
310 


25114.274

government agencies access to low cost funds for many types of water resources projects 

including flood control, levees and dams, environmental restoration and water infrastructure 

projects and will be integral to closing the water infrastructure funding gap. Modeled after the 

popular Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act or TIFIA plan, the WIFIA plan 

will lower the cost of borrowing funds for municipal water/wastewater agencies. This will be 

accomplished by leveraging funds directly from the U.S. Treasury which would subsidize 

borrowing costs and lend the money at lower interest rates than have historically been available 

in the municipal bond market. 

Additionally, APW A is in support of a simplified and streamlined administration of WIFIA. A 

simplified process would get WIFIA funds out and quickly address current infrastructure 

challenges and create much needed jobs. 

APW A recommends lowering the threshold to ensure that all communities in need of funding for 

water infrastructure will not be denied access. While APW A supports the WIFIA proposal, the 

current proposal raises some concerns. The proposal states that only projects that cost $20 

million or more will be eligible for WIFIA funding. Small cities and rural communities have 

critical needs and should have access to this new tool, if approved. Regions with a 

predominance of smaller more rural communities tend to have lower cost projects and will 

consequentially be deprived of much needed funding if this threshold is kept in place. Moreover, 

while the legislation includes provisions allowing local governments to group several projects 

into one proposal, this will not eliminate the hurdles facing small cities and rural communities. 

APW A supports all efforts to establish increased funding opportunities for water, wastewater, 

storm water treatment and drainage system enhancements. WIFIA should be one of the many 

tools that local government agencies can use to fmance water capital projects. 

State Revolving Funds 

We stress that WIFIA should not supplant the existing funding resources such as the State 

Revolving Fund (SRF). State Revolving Funds (SRFs) have proven to be successful 

mechanisms that provide local jurisdictions with needed funds for water infrastructure capital 
311 

Æ 


25114.275

and APW A supports continued federal support for this program. Clean and Safe Drinking Water 

SRFs have provided $111 billion to local governments for water infrastructure since their 

inception. SRFs are a vital resource for financial support especially for small and rural 

communities. The Clean Water SRF provides 23 percent of water infrastructure funding for 

localities with fewer than 10,000 residents and the Drinking Water SRF provides 37 percent. 

APWA supports continued federal support for this program such as the State Revolving Funds 

(SRFs) that have proven to be successful mechanisms for providing local jurisdictions with 

necessary funds for water infrastructure capital. 

Conclusion 

The consequences of inadequate investment in water infrastructure are dismal. Without increased 

funding in water infrastructure, local communities will not be able to keep pace with growing 

demands for flood control, waterways transportation, and clean and safe drinking water. 

Economic opportunities will be lost. Water infrastructure funding should be a national priority; 

the stakes are too high to neglect this problem. 

Madam Chair and Ranking Member Inhofe and members of the Committee, thank you for 

holding this hearing and continuing to pursue a solution to the nation's looming water 

infrastructure funding crisis. We are especially grateful to you and Committee members for the 

opportunity to submit this statement. APW A stands ready to assist you and your Congressional 

colleagues as you work to craft a solution to this critical problem.