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

26–375 PDF 2018

BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR 

AMERICA: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WATER 

RESOURCES REFORM AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 

OF 2014 AND THE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2016 

(115–22) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION 

AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 19, 2017 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-transportation?path=/ 

browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

RANDY K. WEBER, SR., Texas 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan 

JOHN J. FASO, New York 

A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

JASON LEWIS, Minnesota 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut, Vice 

Ranking Member 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana, Chairman 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

RANDY K. WEBER, SR., Texas 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida, Vice Chair 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

CHERI BUSTOS, ILLINOIS 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Douglas W. Lamont, P.E., Senior Official performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), Office of the Assistant Secretary 

of the Army (Civil Works) ................................................................................... 5 

Lieutenant General Todd T. Semonite, Commanding General and Chief of 

Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, accompanied by Major General 

Donald E. Jackson, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency 

Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ....................................................... 5 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano of California ................................................................. 52 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Douglas W. Lamont, P.E. ........................................................................................ 53 

Lieutenant General Todd T. Semonite ................................................................... 56 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Douglas W. Lamont, P.E., Senior Official performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), Office of the Assistant Secretary 

of the Army (Civil Works) and Lieutenant General Todd T. Semonite, 

Commanding General and Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, accompanied by Major General Donald E. Jackson, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, joint response to questions for the record issued by the following Representatives: 

Hon. Garret Graves of Louisiana ............................................................. 61 

Hon. Rodney Davis of Illinois ................................................................... 66 

Hon. David Rouzer of North Carolina ..................................................... 68 

Hon. Blake Farenthold of Texas .............................................................. 71 

Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon ............................................................. 72 

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano of California ................................................... 73 

Hon. Frederica S. Wilson of Florida ........................................................ 74 

Hon. Jared Huffman of California ........................................................... 76 

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas ..................................................... 78 

Hon. John Garamendi of California ......................................................... 81 

Hon. Elizabeth H. Esty of Connecticut .................................................... 82 

Hon. Cheri Bustos of Illinois .................................................................... 83 

Hon. Brenda L. Lawrence of Michigan .................................................... 85 

Hon. Garret Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana, submission of written statement of the American Chemistry Council 87 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Written statement of Melanie Bahnke, President, Kawerak, Inc. ...................... 90 

Written statement of Tim Gilbert, President, Manilaq Association .................... 94 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 26375.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 26375.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 26375.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 26375.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 26375.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 26375.006
(1) 

BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: IMPLEMENTATION OF 

THE WATER RESOURCES REFORM AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2014 AND THE WATER 

RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2016 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in room 

2167 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Garret Graves (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Good morning, and thank you all for being here. I would like to 

welcome everyone to our hearing today on ‘‘Building a 21st-Century 

Infrastructure for America: Implementation of the Water Resources 

Reform and Development Act of 2014 and the Water Resources Development Act of 2016’’ as encompassed in the WIIN Act [Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act]. 

The real purpose of this hearing is to look at 21st-century infrastructure and what that looks like, what a 21st-century infrastructure water resources mission looks like. 

I think when you look at the mission of the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, considering the fact that their mission is critical to the 

maintenance of our navigation channels, the facilitation of literally 

hundreds of billions of dollars in maritime commerce on an annual 

basis, the protection and resiliency of our communities, the protection and resiliency and continued ecological productivity of our environment, the mission of the Corps of Engineers is an absolutely 

critical mission. 

Three years ago, the Water Resources Reform and Development 

Act reformed bureaucracy and it increased congressional oversight 

in prioritizing future investment in water resource projects. 

Then, last December, Congress got back on a 2-year cycle for 

water resources bills with the enactment of the 2016 bill—it was 

included in the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation 

Act which built on reforms from 2014 to further increase flexibility 

and remove barriers for State, local, and non-Federal interests to 

invest in infrastructure. And it also helped to strengthen our water 

infrastructure through activities of the Corps of Engineers to maintain competitiveness, create jobs, and grow the economy. 

2 

Congress now has two transformative WRDA bills in the last two 

Congresses. And both, while I understand are complex, both still 

have a significant way to go in terms of implementation, which is 

a concern. For example, in the 3 years since the 2014 bill, about 

10 percent of the provisions don’t have implementation guidance. 

And many of these provisions are pretty critical. They are significant provisions that accelerate project reforms and provisions that 

provide flexibility through what is largely reviewed as being too 

rigid of a process. Again, no implementation guidance. 

Provisions relating to reforms to the Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund have not received 

implementation, written implementation guidance. Additionally, 

many of these reform provisions require issuance of reports on the 

progress of efficacy of their implementation, and many of these reports have not been sent to the committee. 

While the 2016 bill was passed just last year, only about 30 percent of the provisions from that legislation have been implemented 

and it really complicated our ability to do a 2016 bill because many 

of the implementation guidance had not been issued from the 2014 

bill, which made it difficult for us to understand what types of 

tweaks were needed to the law to further improve flexibility, efficiency, and some of the reforms that Congress has been pushing for 

many years. 

Additionally, new programs of significant interest from non-Federal parties, such as the beneficial use of dredged material pilot 

program, have not been fully implemented. We hope more of a priority will be placed on writing implementation guidance, particularly for some of these transformative provisions that I think are 

collectively in the Federal and non-Federal interest. 

I would like to welcome General Semonite and Mr. Lamont, who 

are testifying before this committee for the first time. I would also 

like to recognize General Jackson, who is accompanying General 

Semonite to complement some of the responses to questions. 

I look forward to continuing to work with the Corps to ensure 

that WRRDA 2014 and WRDA 2016 provisions are carried out in 

a fashion that is consistent with congressional intent and that benefits the Nation. 

I just want to in closing quickly urge that many of these provisions in law the Corps of Engineers is in many cases given regulatory authority and authority to hold citizens accountable in some 

cases. And I think that it becomes a somewhat difficult scenario 

when the Corps itself is not following laws, complying with deadlines, yet trying to hold our citizens accountable for laws that are 

perhaps in the next section of that same act. 

I am going to say it again: Your mission is absolutely critical to 

this Nation. And you are a military organization. Generals, if your 

men and women were out there in the battlefield, and if you were 

dealing with a situation that simply wasn’t working, if the practices, the programs weren’t working, and your men and women 

were vulnerable and perhaps losing life as a result of that, I am 

certain that you would be making changes in an urgent manner to 

make sure that you are responding to the conditions on the ground. 

In some cases your mission is comparable in terms of the urgency. Lives have been lost in my home State. Lives are going to 

3 

continue to be lost around the Nation because of the inability to 

complete projects. 

Now, I will be clear, I think Congress is culpable in some case. 

But the bottom line is the mission is critical and we need to be 

working together to finish these projects. 

So thank you very much. 

With that, I now recognize—look at that guy, you never know 

who you are going to see in this chair—I now recognize the ranking 

member, I guess, for today’s hearing, Mr. Lowenthal from California, for any remarks he may have. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

holding today’s hearing. 

And I want to welcome all the witnesses that are here today 

from the Department of the Army and the Corps of Engineers for 

coming today. 

Over the years, the Corps has distinguished itself for addressing 

many of the Nation’s water-related challenges, constructing and 

maintaining navigation corridors along our coastlines and our inland waterways, to providing critical flood risk reduction to communities both large and small, to restoring many of our Nation’s treasured natural resources. The Corps has earned its reputation as the 

premier water resources agency to the Federal Government. 

Yet, in recent years, we have seen this role diminish as the Federal assistance to the Corps has waned. Where once the Corps’ ability to help communities was limited only by its creativity in solving 

complex water resources challenges, today the Corps’ presence is 

significantly limited due to a lack of available resources. Fairly or 

unfairly, today’s Corps is often criticized as being slow and expensive. 

However, as I pointed out, a significant amount of the blame for 

these criticisms, while some on the Corps, much of it falls squarely 

at the feet of the administration and the Congress for failing to 

provide you with the resources necessary to help our communities 

to address their local water resources challenges. 

For example, year after year Presidential budgets for the Corps 

have been reduced to a point where the Corps cannot efficiently 

fund critical projects and studies to completion. As a former Chief 

of Engineers, Robert Flowers, once candidly admitted, when the 

Corps is not provided efficient and regular funding for Corps studies and projects, projects cost more to complete and take longer for 

their benefits to be realized. 

I am not sure how the President expected Congress to react to 

his Presidential budget request for the Corps for fiscal year 2018. 

This was from a Presidential candidate that campaigned on the 

promise of reinvesting in our Nation’s infrastructure. This fiscal 

2018 request fails miserably. At best, it is flat funding for the 

Corps, but flat funding of an agency that already suffers from 

delays and uncertainty due to a lack of available resources. 

For the Corps, less funding means fewer projects are constructed 

and fewer communities can benefit from the Corps’ expertise. For 

those projects that are constructed, less funding means deferred 

critical maintenance and projects must constantly be operated 

below optimal levels of efficiency. 

4 

Lack of available funding also means that for many communities 

they must pay more or advance their own funding to the Corps in 

order to move projects forward. And I know that, for example, from 

my own community that has done that. 

That is not a sustainable path for addressing our ongoing water 

resources challenge. We need to do better. 

First, we need simply to invest more in our domestic infrastructure spending. I suspect if there is not going to be leadership from 

the President on real Federal infrastructure investment, I hope it 

will be up to the Congress to move forward on real proposals to 

move this country forward to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure 

and to put Americans back to work. 

Also, we need to have a realistic conversation on how to address 

the backlog of unconstructed projects and deferred maintenance of 

water resources projects facing our Nation. This is a ticking time 

bomb facing our critical infrastructure and our desire to maintain 

a highly efficient, protective, and resilient water infrastructure for 

the next century. 

We also have to ensure that our Federal resources agencies are 

provided necessary funding to meet their statutory obligations in a 

timely manner. As the ranking member of this committee, Mr. 

DeFazio, has stated, we cannot streamline our way out of our funding shortfall. 

I applaud your comments, General Semonite, when you recognized that underfunding your partner agencies only slows down 

your work when permit reviews go unfunded. 

Lastly, I would like to express my disappointment with the 

Trump administration’s efforts to undo the Obama administration’s 

Clean Water Rule. These efforts weaken protection of our Nation’s 

rivers, streams, and lakes, place at risk the drinking water supply 

of over 117 million Americans, and reinstate the regulations that 

caused the confusion surrounding the scope of the Clean Water Act 

that existed for close to a decade. 

For years, the regulations that this rulemaking would rush to reinstate were uniformly criticized by farmers, industry, and the construction community as arbitrary, as confusing, and as frustrating. 

I cannot comprehend how putting these regulations back into effect 

will remove uncertainty. 

The action also rejects almost a decade of scientific evidence on 

the importance of rivers, streams, and lakes to human health and 

the health of the environment, while jeopardizing the drinking 

water of one in three Americans. 

In short, these actions leave us with less protection, more confusion, and increased costs for all. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing, and I 

yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. I want to thank the gentleman for his 

comments, and I want to remind him that I think we share frustration with the inability to get these projects implemented. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Absolutely. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Because the mission is absolutely 

critical. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Absolutely. 

5 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. And that is a bipartisan goal. Looking 

back at the Obama budget, 32 percent reduction in fiscal year 

2015, 29 percent reduction in fiscal year 2016, 41 percent reduction 

in fiscal year 2017. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Absolutely. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. And bipartisan problem. We are committed, together with you, Mrs. Napolitano, and Mr. DeFazio to 

continue working together to fix this. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. 

Before I begin introducing our witnesses this morning, allow me 

to submit some unanimous consent requests. I ask unanimous consent that written testimony submitted on behalf of the following be 

included in the hearing’s record from American Chemistry Council. 

Is there objection? 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The written testimony from the American Chemistry Council is on pages 87–89.] 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. I ask unanimous consent the record 

remain open for 15 days for additional comments and information 

submitted by Members or witnesses be included in the record of today’s hearing. 

Without objection. 

I ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses provide answers to any 

questions that may be submitted to them in writing. 

Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Thank you. 

Our first witness is Mr. Doug Lamont, senior official performing 

the duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. 

Mr. Lamont, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DOUGLAS W. LAMONT, P.E., SENIOR OFFICIAL 

PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS); AND LIEUTENANT GENERAL TODD T. SEMONITE, COMMANDING GENERAL 

AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ACCOMPANIED BY MAJOR GENERAL DONALD E. 

JACKSON, DEPUTY COMMANDING GENERAL FOR CIVIL AND 

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

Mr. LAMONT. Good morning, Chairman Graves and distinguished 

members of the subcommittee. I am honored to be here today. I am 

Doug Lamont, senior official representing the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Mr. Lamont, would you mind pulling 

the mic a little closer? 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. And make sure it is on. 

Mr. LAMONT. OK. Can you hear me now? 

Thank you again for the invitation to come before you to testify 

today on the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 

2014 and the Water Resources Development Act of 2016. Through 

its Civil Works program, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers supVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:02 Mar 26, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\WR\2017\7-19-2~1\26375.TXT JEAN
6 

ports the shipment of goods through our Nation’s coastal ports and 

on the inland waterways, helps communities to reduce their flood 

and coastal storm risks, restores several significant aquatic ecosystems endeavors, provides drinking water, generates renewable 

electricity, and offers water-based recreation opportunities to the 

public. 

For over a century, Federal, State, local, and Tribal governments 

have made large investments in our water resources, including the 

construction of locks and dams and deeper and wider coastal navigation channels to support commercial navigation, and by building 

levees, reservoirs, and other features to reduce flood risks. 

In the 21st century we must continue to look at the best ways 

to maintain the key features of this infrastructure, reliably and 

safely, in a manner that is responsible, economic, and sustainable. 

The administration recognizes the need to invest in our Nation’s 

infrastructure for America, including its water resources infrastructure. The 2018 Civil Works budget supports this effort by providing 

$5.002 billion in gross discretionary appropriations for the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program, focusing on investments that will yield high economic and environmental returns or 

address significant risk to public safety. 

The budget focuses on our three major mission areas: allocating 

42 percent of the budget to commercial navigation, 27 percent to 

flood damage reduction, and 7 percent to aquatic ecosystem restoration. Other areas of significant funding in the budget include 

our hydropower program, the cleanup of sites contaminated during 

the early years of the Nation’s nuclear weapons program, and our 

regulatory program. 

The Army has addressed a significant number of the 206 WRDA 

2016 provisions, and we are focused on completing the implementation guidance as quickly as possible. 

The Water Resources Development Act of 2016 authorized the 

construction, through your good work, of 30 water resources development projects at a cost of $15.6 billion. Some of the projects authorized included the $743 million West Shore Lake Pontchartrain 

Project, the $1.98 billion Central Everglades Project, the Port Everglades Project at $337 million, and the $502 million Charleston 

Harbor Project and the Upper Ohio River Navigation Project at 

$2.69 billion. 

Implementation guidance for all 30 authorized projects has been 

completed and published on the Corps website. 

Implementation guidance for sections 1126 and 1127 has been 

completed. These provisions address studies and construction efforts that can be completed by non-Federal interests. Additionally, 

implementation guidance for the use of reservoir sediment, drought 

contingencies, land conveyance and Tribal consultations, and ice 

jam prevention has been completed. 

We have completed most of the 2014 implementation guidance 

and are working to finalize all remaining required guidance as soon 

as possible. In the year since the last hearing before this subcommittee, we have finalized guidance for emergency communication of risks, levee certifications, use of innovative material, cooperative agreements with Tribes, and many other provisions. 

7 

The Army submitted the 2017 report to Congress on future water 

resources development in March of this year in response to section 

7001 of WRRDA 2014, including an accounting of Post-Authorization Change Reports. 

The process for developing this report includes a Federal Register notice, requesting proposals from non-Federal interests for 

proposed feasibility studies and modifications to authorize water 

resources development projects. 

A total of 53 proposals were received this year. Of these proposals, 13 met the criteria and are listed in the annual report 

table. The 40 proposals that did not meet the criteria are included 

in the appendix. 

The two primary reasons they are in the appendix are that either 

the proposal did not fit within our identified Corps of Engineers 

core mission areas or authority already exists to perform the requested work. 

Where authority already exists, inclusion in the appendix of 2017 

annual report does not preclude the Army from carrying out either 

a study or construction. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and appreciate the committee’s support for the Nation’s water resources infrastructure. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my oral statement. 

Thank you, very much. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you, Mr. Lamont. 

We are now going to turn to the commanding general and the 

Chief of Engineers for the United States Army Corps of Engineers, 

General Semonite. 

General, I just want to quickly say I do appreciate the time that 

we have had to spend together and talk about a different Corps of 

Engineers, a different project development delivery process moving 

forward, and looking forward to many more conversations and true 

change moving forward. 

The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

General SEMONITE. Chairman Graves and distinguished members of the committee, I am Lieutenant General Todd Semonite, 

commanding general of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the 

54th Chief of Engineers. 

I am honored to be here today, accompanied by Mr. Lamont and 

Major General Ed Jackson, to provide testimony on the recent 

Water Resources Development Acts, as well as key issues. 

I have been in command for the Corps for just over 1 year now 

and I continue to be amazed by the breadth and complexity of the 

Civil Works program, as well as the expertise and dedication of the 

professionals that work in our organization. 

While this is my first time appearing before the committee, I 

have had the opportunity to work with a number of you individually, and I look forward to continuing to build our relationship 

during my tenure as Chief of Engineers. 

It is my belief that the credibility of the Corps is measured in 

our ability to deliver results that are on time, on budget, and of exceptional quality. To do this and to maintain our status as a worldclass organization now and into the future, we are focusing on 

three fundamentals we call Strengthen the Foundation, Deliver the 

8 

Program, and Achieve Our Vision. And I want to give you some 

highlights of those fundamentals. 

First, as with any structure, our foundation must be our 

strength, the bedrock upon which our presence rests and our future 

is built. For the Corps this means having the discipline to accomplish routine tasks to a high standard. It means demonstrating 

that we are reliable and competent partners, assisting in shared efforts to be responsible stewards of the Nation’s water resources. 

We are committed to transform our processes, invest in the technical competency of our most valued asset, our people, and to be 

collaborative and transparent. Our strength is validated by earning 

trust in all we do by demonstrating technical expertise, competence, and professionalism across our organization. 

We earn our credibility, our reputation, and our values by delivering the program. This is our lifeblood, this is our passion, this is 

our mission. And this is my number one priority. In all that we do, 

we strive to ensure that cost, timeliness, and expected quality are 

understood upfront and successfully accomplished in the end. 

In order to achieve our vision, we endeavor to anticipate the conditions, the challenges, the opportunities in an uncertain future by 

taking prudent, logical, and decisive steps today to prepare. We are 

doing this by implementing strategic transformation within the 

Corps, continually pursuing four goals outlined in our campaign 

plan with an aim point of 2035. 

Our first campaign goal is to continue to work across the globe 

with a presence in more than 110 countries supporting national security and our combatant commanders in civil works, military missions, and water resource development expertise. We are proud to 

serve this great Nation and our fellow citizens, and we are proud 

of the work the Corps does to support America’s foreign policy. 

Our second goal is to continue to make the Corps more efficient 

and effective while delivering integrated water resource solutions 

for national missions and to address infrastructure challenges. This 

involves modernizing the project planning process and enhancing 

budget development for a more holistic outcome by making better 

risk-informed investment decisions and improving delivery methodology. 

Our third major goal is to continue to be proactive in reducing 

disaster risk and responding to disasters under national response 

and recovery support frameworks, as well as within our authorities 

for flood risk management. I am very proud of our team for the 

work we do with FEMA and our other Federal partners as well our 

State and local agencies in this area. 

Our fourth and final goal is preparing for tomorrow, which focuses on ensuring we have a pipeline of the best engineering and 

technical expertise, as well as a strong workforce development and 

talent management program. We continue to tailor developmental 

programs to employ aspirations to retain talent and instill a culture that embraces a career of service. 

In closing, I would offer that our excellence demands commitment of every Corps employee. As Chief of Engineers, I am striving 

to what General Shinseki, the former Army Chief of Staff, called 

irreversible momentum towards being a world-class organization. 

9 

World-class means that for the Corps to continue engineering solutions for the Nation’s toughest challenges, which is our vision, we 

must all be leaders of technical competence and superior integrity. 

You have my commitment that the teammates of the Corps have 

a passion to achieve that vision. 

Thank you for allowing me the time to address the committee 

today. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you, General. 

I am now going to recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

Webster, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having 

this hearing. 

And, General Semonite, thank you for your service to our country. And I know you know a lot about Florida, and that is good, 

our 15 seaports and also a national treasure, which is the Everglades, Florida Everglades. 

So my question is, is there a day, a starting date where we will 

be in earnest on the Central Everglades Planning Project? 

General SEMONITE. Sir, the CEPP has unbelievable potential. I 

was the division commander in Atlanta for 3 years, from 2009 to 

2012. General Jackson backfilled me. We looked at the Central Everglades Planning Project, and that particular project, as probably 

being one of the most important things to continue to keep water 

flowing south. We have had significant challenges over the architecture of the old CERP [Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan] and a lot of water has gone east and west, but we are fully 

committed to continue to keep that going. 

What I would like to do is ask General Jackson to give you a 

quick update of exactly where we are. You have our commitment 

that this is where we see probably the most potential in solving not 

just some of the ecosystem issues down there, but other issues that 

are related back to the Florida system. 

Ed. 

General JACKSON. Thank you, sir. 

Congressman Webster, thank you very much for that question. 

I was very involved in pushing the Central Everglades Planning 

Project through to achieve support, so I am very familiar with it. 

As you know, most of the things on the integrated delivery schedule in south Florida are on a sequence, and this one is no different. 

One of the things that we are working our way through right 

now is the need to do the validation studies for the different components of CEPP that have to be done, but also there are a couple 

of other things that have to done in advance of that. 

There are a couple of other projects that construction must be 

completed on, and those include Modified Waters, the C–111 South 

Dade, Broward County, and the C–111 Impoundment. 

So we are trying to focus our effort and priorities on getting 

those projects done and completed so that we can move forward as 

fast as possible on the Central Everglades Project. 

There are also a couple of other issues on the restoration strategies that we are working with the non-Federal sponsor very closely 

to get constructed, so we can get all the preparatory work needed 

that has to be done to set the conditions for CEPP to be successful. 

So we are committed to moving forward along those timelines. 

10 

We had in the President’s budget for this year $400,000 to apply 

against Central Everglades. We are going to use that to continue 

to set conditions so that when we can get these other projects completed we can move forward without any further hesitation to start 

implementing the requirements of Central Everglades. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Is there a date, a start date? 

General JACKSON. I don’t have a start date with me, sir, but I 

will get that back to the staff. I know it is on an integrated delivery 

schedule sequence chart that I have back in the office, and I can 

get you that when I get back. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Is the $200 million that was recently passed by 

the Florida Legislature, does that help? What does that do? 

General JACKSON. Sir, I will need to get back with you on that 

as well. I am not exactly sure how the $200 million is going to be 

allocated within the Central Florida program, but I can get that information back to you. 

General SEMONITE. And, sir, we have met with Governor Scott. 

We know that there is an intent to be able to try to apply a lot 

of that back into fixing Herbert Hoover dike. As to what the actual 

dollar is going to be, it might be something lower than that. But 

we are very receptive to be able to find ways of incorporating those 

funds back in. 

And to all of the committee, the Nation doesn’t have enough 

money to be able to handle all of these requirements. So if there 

are ways that we can find through the authorities we have to take 

money from States to be able to accelerate some of these projects, 

we want to be very aggressive in doing that. If we have our hands 

tied somewhere, we look forward to working with you to be able to 

figure a better way to be able to somehow defer some of those Federal requirements back into States or to other entities. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Does the heavy rain south of Lake Okeechobee, 

does that affect the schedule? Does that slow down things or anything? 

General SEMONITE. We are not aware of any significant challenge. Obviously the rains down there, we watch every single day. 

But, whether it is rain or drought, we are able to adjust and right 

now I am not aware of any significant issues that those rains have 

on the schedule. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. 

We are now going to go to the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General, do you happen to have on hand the number for your 

construction backlog? 

General SEMONITE. I do, sir. And I am glad to be here today. 

In round numbers—and I can give you extreme detail if you 

would like—$75 billion. I will break that into three subnumbers. If 

you were to say what that would be in pre-2014, it would be 

around $34 billion. If you look at numbers that could be included 

in the WRRDA 2014, that is probably about another $15.4 billion. 

And then in WRDA 2016, about another $10.8 billion. 

And again, we can break those numbers down through business 

lines or different functions if you would like to, but we want to 

11 

make sure that you understand that backlog so we can try to work 

together to work that down. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Thank you. We would like some detail to see 

what we are forgoing. 

On your annual operations, not construction, but basically maintenance in that, we have, I think, some deferred maintenance, too, 

on top of that number, right? 

General SEMONITE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And that would be about? 

General SEMONITE. We will have to probably give you the details 

on it, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. All right. Yeah. I was given a number of, I think, 

$30 billion to $35 billion, but I would like confirmation on that. 

So I guess my question would be, if we had full use of the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Funds, both on an annual basis, the income, 

and the theoretical balance in the Treasury of $9 billion, would it 

be fair to say that that money could be rather quickly and appropriately spent to begin to deal with deferred maintenance? 

Mr. LAMONT. Ranking Member DeFazio, as far as the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund, the fiscal year 2018 budget was $5.002 

billion, and $3.1 billion of that was devoted to operations and maintenance. What we are looking at across the Nation, since we have 

limited resources that are available to us, we are looking at the 

most competitive projects out there, the ones with a high demand 

relative to tonnage on the waterways. We are also looking at safety 

aspects. 

So I understand your concern about the reserve that has built up 

in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. We continue to look at the 

targets and trying to move forward diligently and looking at predominantly the economics of the projects, the tonnage that is within that port, and also the ability to meet the targets. I would say 

that we are meeting the targets not only on the Great Lakes, but 

on the emerging ports that were required by—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, I have an emerging port that was zero funded this year. I believe the Portland District identified it as needing 

work, but somehow when the national office sent back a list, that 

port, the Port of Umpqua, was zeroed out. Can you tell me why 

that happened? 

General SEMONITE. Sir, General Semonite. 

We are very concerned about small and emerging ports. We look 

at every one of those States. You have 20 ports in your State that 

qualify. On my sheet all the green, 16 of the 20 are funded either 

in the 2018 budget or the 2017 workplan. 

The specific port you are talking about was zeroed out initially. 

That was just because we were trying to do the budget so fast at 

the last minute. We have put money against that, and the dredging 

will be done by September 2017 for Umpqua Port. 

The other thing is we are continuing to look through how can we 

continue to be able to get the rest of those ports done. In gross 

terms, in the 2018 budget you have $6.6 million for those 20 ports. 

And this is where the committee can really help out. Because the 

committee understood the shortage of the requirement, then obviously Congress passed a little bit of additional money, and that 

comes through a workplan. In the workplan we are able to take 

12 

and recommend where we think some money could solve some of 

those deficits. 

In the workplan for Oregon you have another $10.8 million on 

top of the $6.6 million. So that is where we are able to secure some 

of those small and emerging ports. 

And for anyone else on the committee, if you need that level of 

detail, we can give it to any of you to make sure we understand 

how critical those small and emerging harbors are. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I appreciate that, General. I appreciate what you 

are doing. I know you are trying to stretch the dollars as far as you 

can. 

I just, on this side, and I have worked with the chairman on this, 

I really want to see that the taxes, which are collected from the 

American consumer, small tax on the value of imported goods, is 

spent on the intended purpose and that we free up the annual income for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and we begin to prudently spend down the balance to deal with some of these problems 

so that the Corps is not stretched so thin that they have to choose 

one place or another, both which need dredging, but say, ‘‘Sorry, we 

just can’t get there.’’ 

So hopefully we can do that in the next WRDA bill, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. 

We are now going to go to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Gibbs, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to first address, just to make a comment on the opening 

statement by the ranking member about waters of the United 

States. 

The President’s directive was for the Corps and the U.S. EPA to 

go back and work with the States and their local counterparts, the 

State EPAs, to address the SWANCC and Rapanos decisions; and 

also, when doing that, to keep late Justice Scalia’s statement about 

pretty much tried to define navigable waters. 

But I have always said that the Clean Water Act was passed as 

a partnership between the States and the Feds, and that the States 

should implement it and enforce it under the guidance of the Federal Government. And so his directive, the President’s directive 

was just to go back, directing the Corps and the EPA to go back 

and work with the States, and not have over half the States sue 

the U.S. EPA and the Army Corps on this issue. And that is what 

that directive is about. It is not about going backwards. So I want 

to make that clear. 

Thank you for being here, gentlemen. A couple things. 

Section 1122 of the WIIN Act established a pilot program for 

beneficial reuse of dredged material. In tying that in, because this 

is so important in the Great Lakes, the dredging issue, in WRRDA 

2014 there is guidance on managing the Great Lakes navigation 

system as a single system. 

Those two specific sections, can you give us the status where we 

are on the dredged material for pilot programs, and then also, concerning the Great Lakes as a single system, how you are going 

about your work now? 

13 

General SEMONITE. So, Representative Gibbs, I am going to talk 

about the pilots and I will ask General Jackson to talk a bit about 

the system. 

We are excited about this pilot initiative. We think it is a good 

way to go. We have gotten a lot of letters from a lot of you on recommending those pilots. 

We want to, first of all, establish the criteria as to how are those 

pilots going to be picked. And we are working through that right 

now. We are going to put that out on a webinar, we are going to 

have it out for 60 days where everybody can have input on what 

is the criteria. Then once we do that, then we will assess those 

products. 

Just as Chairman Graves said, though, we need to be more aggressive on trying to get all this implementation guidance done. 

And the fact that we are still working through some of this, we 

don’t see a delay on this one. We want to get these pilots identified 

by the end of the calendar year and we want to continue to work 

with all of you to make sure we understand the best we can do to 

get those pilots so that they are justified. 

There is no shortage of nominations for them. We are aggressively trying to work this pilot program. But we want to do it so 

we are collaborative, get the criteria on the street, everybody comment on the criteria, and then we will assess the pilots back 

against the criteria. 

Ed, can you hit the second point that the Representative had? 

General JACKSON. Congressman Gibbs, just to clarify one point 

on the implementation guidance, too, that is one of our top priorities and we are trying to make sure we work really hard to get 

it right. 

I think, based on the last schedule that I saw and the last several discussions that I have had within our staff, we are pretty 

close to finalizing the implementation guidance. I think we should 

have it out sometime in the next month or so. 

So we are going to keep working that. It is a huge priority not 

only for Ohio, but for the whole Nation to try and get that right. 

We appreciate the Congress giving us the opportunity to look at 

these in a unique way. 

Sir, could I get you, if you don’t mind, to repeat the second question that you—that General Semonite wanted me—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, in WRRDA 2014 we set up guidance that the 

Great Lakes be considered as a system, a unit. And so when you 

are going about your work, I just wanted an update on the functioning of that as a unit. Because, as we know, in the Great Lakes 

the ports are all interdependent so much. So I just wanted your 

thoughts, the mental process, I guess, of how you are getting there 

and that establishment with funding and all that. 

I will just tie that into my second part of the question with the 

Soo locks, too. I didn’t mention that yet, but I wanted to before I 

run out of time. 

We sent a letter, the Great Lakes Members of both the Senate 

and the House, sent a letter to you and General Semonite in February about the BCR, benefit-cost ratio, and so I need an update 

on that and if you are going to use the same criteria as you do in 

all locks. 

14 

Because in our letter we put there, there was a criteria about offloading and conveying and loading, which doesn’t seem to make a 

lot of sense to me either. 

I think that the Soo locks are of national significant importance 

and ought to be a top priority, along with Mr. Babin’s issue down 

in Houston, as you well know. So I just tie it together how important the Great Lakes are and how you are looking at that when 

it comes to funding in the Soo locks. 

General SEMONITE. Sir, let me jump in first. 

When you write me a letter I normally go there. I try to be on 

the ground and try to look. 

I just came back from Soo lock. I spent 3 days up in the Great 

Lakes. And everything up there is a system. We look at, how does 

the process go through the Great Lakes? If we are going to do 

something, we don’t want a critical point that is going to slow down 

other things. 

So whether it is the environmental part; whether it is EPA and 

GLRI money; how do you make sure you have the right kind of 

money coming back in to be able to take care of that system. So 

we are committed to do that through all those different business 

lines. 

Now, specifically Soo lock, I had heard about it a long time, but 

I had never actually seen it. I was amazed at the potential of that 

particular lock and how it takes care of the economy and continues 

to be effective. You have a single source, 100 percent of iron ore 

goes through that lock. I met with all the shippers up there, and 

I met with all the steel industries, and had to be at the front of 

Soo lock to be able to understand how we can do that. 

The recent homeland defense report specifically identifies the 

risk to our economy if that were to go down. You know there are 

four channels. We are only really using one for the big ships going 

through. 

I personally think that we have to find a unique way of trying 

to figure out how to justify that particular project. Just the BCR, 

if you were to put it in the rack and stack of all other projects, 

doesn’t identify the significance or what the value back to the Nation would be, only because it is a one-of-a-kind kind of lock. 

So this is where we want to work with the committee to try to 

make sure that we are doing everything we can, that you understand the significance of that lock, and therefore hopefully let it 

compete for the appropriate amount of funding. 

And I will certainly let Mr. Lamont or General Jackson jump in. 

Mr. LAMONT. Congressman Gibbs, thank you for the opportunity 

to jump in here. 

I share the Corps of Engineers’ concern about moving the economic reevaluation report along. We are doing everything we can 

do to make sure this thing is funded so that we can deliver the 

final product and hopefully result in a report that we will be able 

to take to the administration for concurrence. 

General SEMONITE. Sir, that district has said they will get it 

done in 7 months. We are working some funding challenges right 

now to let them get the study done. But I looked the colonel in the 

eye and said, ‘‘I need this thing done as fast as we can.’’ I would 

15 

like it done by the end of the year. It is contingent on the money, 

but that is our issue, we will try to figure that out. 

Ms. GIBBS. I appreciate it. Thank you. I am out of time. Thank 

you, Chair. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. 

We are going to go to the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Lowenthal, for 5 minutes. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

I have really two questions, one primarily that pertains to my 

district, some of the issues in one that really has to do with an 

issue that I have become more familiar with recently, and that has 

to do with the beneficial use of dredged material. 

I represent in California the Port of Long Beach, which is the 

second busiest seaport in the Nation. It is part of a harbor complex 

with the Port of L.A. that moves approximately 40 percent of the 

Nation’s cargo, container cargo, in and out of our country. 

The Port of Long Beach is the subject of an Army Corps feasibility study on a series of navigation improvements, to construct an 

anchorage for large liquid bulk vessels, to deepen several approach 

channels, basins, berths, to improve navigation for both container 

ships and for liquid tankers. 

The Los Angeles District is scheduled to submit its draft report 

on October 16. First question is, will that target date be met? 

Study is expected to be completed next July. But the administration’s budget request anticipates no funding for new construction 

on water resources projects. 

How does delayed initiation of construction affect these projects? 

Does it mean that we have to go back and conduct the review 

again? Does it increase costs? 

You know, my local stakeholders are spending $1.5 million on 

this study. And the question is, what is the value of the study to 

them if the Corps is not going to fund any new construction 

projects? So that is the first question. 

The second question I will also ask before you answer is section 

1122 of the WIIN Act required that the Army Corps of Engineers 

begin to implement a pilot program for the beneficial use of 

dredged material within 90 days. This is a topic that Congressman 

Graves has educated me on, especially about the minimal use of 

dredged materials to enhance the Louisiana wetlands. So I have 

learned over the last few years about this issue. 

It is now nearly 4 months past the 90-day deadline to start this 

project and we haven’t seen any implementation guidance for this 

section. What is the delay in moving forward with this guidance? 

When can we expect it? How can you assure me that the implementation of this program will move forward in a timely manner? 

We have heard that nearly 100 beneficial use projects have been 

submitted by States, by stakeholders, and Army Corps of Engineers 

districts to be 1 of the 10 projects, pilot projects. This program now 

seems like it has huge support from local communities. 

The question is, how do you plan on deciding which projects will 

be included in the initial 10 pilots? What is going to be the process 

for soliciting projects? Will there be a public process to select the 

10 projects? How will you make sure this isn’t just happening beVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:02 Mar 26, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\WR\2017\7-19-2~1\26375.TXT JEAN
16 

hind closed doors? And when can we expect a decision on these 10 

projects? 

So those are the two. Why go through the feasibility study if we 

are not constructing anything and what is that going to be? And 

let’s talk about what we in a bipartisan way are very concerned 

about, and that is making sure that we implement the pilot program for the beneficial use of dredged materials. 

Thank you. 

General JACKSON. Congressman, I would like to take a chance to 

answer both of those questions for you. And I will start off with the 

Port of Long Beach. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

General JACKSON. The draft feasibility study is due to be out in 

spring 2018, as per the schedule, according to the latest report that 

I got. So we are in good shape there. 

I know that we did receive funding in the workplan and also in 

the budget which will help us, along with carry-in funds, to get the 

final feasibility study done and out in 2019, which is when it is 

scheduled to go out. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. I understand. So you are talking about we are 

going to get that feasibility study. What about the construction? 

General JACKSON. Well, yes, sir. I can’t speculate on what the administration is going to allow us to fund or what will get new 

starts on into the future. 

But what I am committing to in the Corps is to try to get the 

study done so we can get the authorization in, because without the 

authorization, obviously, there would be no construction to be had. 

So what I am committing to today is to push with everything we 

have, within the control we have for that feasibility report, to get 

that delivered so it can compete favorably, hopefully, among other 

interests to receive a new start in construction funding. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. And that is all we ask for. 

General JACKSON. So that is what we will do. 

As to the—— 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Section 1122. 

General JACKSON. As to the section 1122, sir, we are 4 months 

behind schedule and I have no excuse, so I won’t make one. What 

I will say, though, is that we are committed to getting the evaluation criteria right. And I am thrilled to death to hear—— 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. You should always be committed to getting it 

right. 

General JACKSON. Yes, sir. I am thrilled to hear the amount of 

participation that we are getting from the States in identifying opportunities for this, because this a huge issue for the Corps, much 

more, much bigger than the 10 studies that we have the opportunity to look at in this particular provision. 

The Dredged Material Management Program overall is something that we are looking at very closely in the Corps of Engineers. 

And this pilot study will really help us to determine some best case 

ways to work dredged material management, to make the most 

beneficial use all across the Nation to solve other problems that we 

have. So we are committed to doing this. 

17 

We are scheduled to have the implementation guidance out in 

the next month or so. This is definitely designed to be collaborative 

and transparent in how we put it together. 

So as we finalize implementation guidance and we develop the 

evaluation criteria that will be contained in that, we will do that 

collaboratively. We will make sure that the committee sees what 

we are doing and how we are doing it. And we will take feedback 

to make sure that we get it right. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Well, thank you. But just before I yield back I 

would just like to impress upon you, in a Congress that frequently 

is criticized for not acting in a bipartisan way, this message is coming to you in a bipartisan way. We want to see this program implemented. 

General SEMONITE. And, sir, to answer your specific question, we 

want those pilots identified by the end of the calendar year, of this 

year. 

Mr. LAMONT. And, sir, if I could jump in here real quick. Army 

Civil Works is working diligently with headquarters U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers to make these things happen. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. We will go to the gentleman from 

North Carolina, Mr. Rouzer. 

Mr. ROUZER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate our witnesses being here today. 

And I have a list of local projects that I have interest in. And 

I see the General smiling, so maybe he knows of some of them. 

First, there at Wrightsville Beach, which obviously is in my district, one of the most beautiful places you could ever go, I am curious what the timeline for the Post-Authorization Change Report is, 

if you can give me any update on that. 

General SEMONITE. Sir, I will let Ed look up the timeline while 

I am looking at it. But you know we have a section 902 limit we 

are concerned about, $24 million, we are at $23 million right now. 

So we want this PACR done so in no way does that come close to 

that. 

If we don’t find the date here in a couple minutes we will get 

back to your staff, make sure you know. But we are tracking exactly where this is at and nourishment of that beach is critical, so 

we want to make sure we keep this as a priority. 

Mr. ROUZER. The one question I have directly related to that 

with the limit, the section 902 limit, does it make sense really to 

limit the cost of a project that spans 50 years based on the cost estimates calculated in the 1980s? It seems like we need to readjust 

that. Have we ever thought about readjusting that? 

Mr. LAMONT. I think that is a very interesting question, Congressman. I have not personally thought about it. But I think relative to hurricane storm damage reduction projects, coastal storm 

damage reduction projects, the 50-year life is a consideration relative to the development of the plan, of the economics. And obviously, as you point out, through the initial construction and then 

periodic nourishments, the cost of the project. 

We might want to collaborate and talk further about that. I 

think you raise an interesting point. 

18 

Mr. ROUZER. Thank you. 

Just south of there at Carolina Beach, they have been trying to 

get the study for the beach renourishment evaluation report since 

2014. The basic question is, why is this taking so long? Is there a 

need for such an arduous process to get a cost-benefit ratio analysis 

for a project that has historically been proven to be good and necessary? And the other obvious question is, why can’t we speed up 

this process by allowing some decisions to be made at the district 

level? 

General SEMONITE. Sir, I think the answer to the last half of 

that, one of the things, and I have talked to Chairman Graves 

about this, I think over the last several years we have allowed 

some things to migrate to Washington, DC, that perhaps are not 

the right things to be there. 

So Mr. Lamont and I are working very carefully to be able to figure out how do we delegate a lot of this back down. We can talk 

section 408s, we can talk other areas. 

But we have done a lot of work to be able to push some things 

back to the divisions or back down to the districts to try to make 

sure that some of those decisions are down there. 

We do have a full sheet on Carolina Beach. 

Ed, I don’t know if you have the specifics on it. 

But this one here we certainly are tracking where it is at. In the workplan we did put an extra $12 million against that one. And 

if need be, I will come back over and see you and give you specific 

details on Carolina Beach. 

Mr. ROUZER. Can we get confirmation that those funds can be 

carried forward to fiscal year 2019? That certainly helps in terms 

of planning. 

General SEMONITE. I see no problem with that, as far as we 

know. Unless there is a reason, we would say yes. But I would see 

no reason why we couldn’t carry those in. 

Mr. ROUZER. A couple other things, moving a little further south 

in my district from there, a provision that we included in WRDA 

last year, in 2016, dealing with a no-wake zone there at Southport 

Marina. And this is a little pet project of mine because I have been 

there, I have seen the potential for a disaster. You have a fuel dock 

sitting right there. 

The locals, State and local officials, have talked to me about the 

incidents that have already occurred. You have recreational vehicles that are flying through there, huge wakes that hit folks when 

they are fueling up there at that fuel dock. And there are a number 

of different minor accidents than have already occurred because of 

that. 

I don’t see why the Corps cannot work with the local and State 

officials to establish a no-wake zone there. It would not affect commercial traffic, we made that very clear in the language. 

General SEMONITE. So, Representative, this is a great question 

because you sent me a letter the 1st of May, and I looked at it and 

I said, this has got to take 2 or 3 days to be able to figure this out, 

why are we waiting a year and a half? And so as we go back—— 

Mr. ROUZER. That is my question. 

General SEMONITE. And it goes back to what Chairman Graves 

said on implementation guidance. So as I get back into this thing, 

19 

this gets extremely confusing because it goes back to what are the 

rights of people that are navigating the inland waterway, versus 

what about personal safety on rec areas. And that is a very, very 

contentious question. And I want General Jackson to walk you 

through that. 

But what we are trying to do is make sure that if, in fact, we 

establish guidance, it is going to be the same as it is in North Carolina versus Florida or anywhere else in the inland waterway. 

Ed, can you clarify a little bit more? 

General JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Congressman, thank you for the question. 

Just some quick clarification on what General Semonite said. We 

have about a 1,200-mile waterway, we have about 500 marinas in 

there, and we lack the ability to police all of that with no-wake 

zones. 

So what we are trying to figure out as we work through the implementation guidance is how can we take the intent of Congress 

that came out in implementation guidance, work it closely with the 

Coast Guard, who will help us with all the enforcement actions, 

and then engage with individual States and locals who have very 

specific problems as the one you just mentioned. 

So we are very laser focused on that one because we already 

know that is a problem. I don’t know about the other 499 marinas 

that are out there. But we have got to write the guidance in a way 

that allows us to execute what needs to be done to maintain safety. 

And that is our number one concern, is the safety, as you just described. 

So we owe that implementation guidance. We are trying to synchronize that. And we are trying to, as quickly as possible, get that 

completed so we can service the target that you are talking about. 

We are already sort of ahead of the game there in North Carolina, 

but there will be others that come out. We just have to make sure 

we get that right. 

Mr. ROUZER. Well, I have been there, I seen the traffic. And in 

season it is very, very congested. You have folks flying through. It 

is a disaster waiting to happen, and I think we need to do everything we can to prevent that. 

It seems to me we try to pursue these cookie-cutter approaches 

and every situation is a little different. You know, it is one of those 

things where I think good common sense and just good courtesy 

would address the issue. And the bureaucratic maze that you are 

going through in order to adopt a very commonsense measure just 

is a little flabbergasting to me. So I appreciate your attention to 

it. 

General SEMONITE. Congressman, we are definitely tracking this. 

I have already met with the three sergeants at the Coast Guard 

to be able to work through some of this. So you have our commitment to continue to resolve it. 

As Ed said, though, we want to make sure we don’t try to do 

some type of guidance that ends up having second and third order 

effects that causes more problems on the other hand. So we have 

to come up with the right solution for those people, because it is 

a life-safety issue. 

Mr. ROUZER. Thank you. 

20 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. 

We are going to go the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I believe Ms. 

Esty was here before me. I yield to her. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. I recognize the gentlewoman from 

Connecticut for 5 minutes, Ms. Esty. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you very much. 

And thank you, Mr. Garamendi, you get chivalry award of the 

day. Thank you. 

Well, thank you, Chairman Graves and Ranking Member 

DeFazio for holding today’s important hearing on the implementation of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 

and WRDA 2016. 

And I want to thank our witnesses here today, Mr. Lamont, 

Lieutenant General Semonite, and Major General Jackson. 

Actually Lieutenant General Semonite, as a member of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, I really want to thank you for the 

Corps’ commitment to hiring veterans and for our Wounded Warriors. I understand there are 1,300 you may have deployed through 

the Corps and elsewhere, and that is a really important commitment. So I wanted specifically to thank you for that. 

As we discuss WRRDA 2014 and WRDA 2016, I want to focus on 

programs in my district, in the Fifth Congressional District of Connecticut. There are 13 flood management projects, flood risk management projects in my district, including dams, reservoirs, and 

local protection projects. All 13 of these create local jobs, prevent 

hundreds of millions of dollars in flood damage, and have spurred 

recreational tourism that is very important to the State. 

I will give you an example. Hop Brook Lake Dam on Hop Brook 

Lake holds back 2.2 billion gallons of water, and the estimates are 

that it would be $108 million of flooding damage if that were to go. 

The recreation attracts 200,000 visitors a year, $2 million of economic activity. And that is just 1 of the 13 projects in my district 

where water is everywhere in northwest Connecticut, and we really 

need to manage it. 

Now, many of these projects date back to the fifties and sixties, 

and we were discussing ahead of the hearing how that was sort of 

the heyday of the Corps. It is when my grandfather worked on 

Corps projects in the Midwest. But given the age of those projects, 

quite a number of them would be appropriate for temporary or permanent alteration requiring a section 408 review. 

Now, looking at that budget, we are not at the end of the fiscal 

year, we have 21⁄2 months to go, and 95 percent of those funds have 

been expended already. Is there any funding available to do section 

408 reviews? 

So I am going to lay a couple of questions out. That will delay 

projects, right? If they don’t go to section 408 review, then you can’t 

move forward. And if we are not going to have enough funding, 

what would you recommend that we put in those budgets for 2018? 

We are putting together budgets right now and we should have appropriate funding. 

And the last question, because I am going to put them all out 

there and then give you folks time to respond, is continuing auVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:02 Mar 26, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\WR\2017\7-19-2~1\26375.TXT JEAN
21 

thorities projects. The CAP programs are very important in my district. A lot of the communities have used them. But, again, we keep 

running through the money. 

Can someone tell me how many projects, what percentage of the 

projects that might be eligible actually receive funding? And again, 

if we wanted to fund all of them, about what would we be looking 

at? 

So with that, I await your answers. Thank you. 

General SEMONITE. So, ma’am, great questions. And let me hit 

a couple of these and I will let General Jackson hit on the CAP. 

Section 408s are very critical. We talked about delegating them. 

Chairman Graves and I have talked about that. We need to do 

more in section 408s. We can get more into detail as to who approves them and at what level that is at. That is an issue with funding. In 2016 we had $4 million, in 2017 we only had $3 million to do section 408s. We were able to 

reprogram an extra half a million dollars for $3.5 million. 

Even this morning, Mr. Lamont and I asked our staff, can we 

make it to the 1st of October? They assured me that on those that 

are critical we are going to find ways of doing it. It doesn’t mean 

we have all the money we need to have, but we are stretching that 

money as much as we can to the 1st of October. Now, next, in 2018 we have $8.5 million, so we will be OK once 

we get to the 1st of October. I am not going to tell you it is perfect, 

but we don’t think that any critical projects will be held up because 

of section 408s. If any of you have those, then we will certainly 

come back and let you know what we can do to fix it. 

The other thing before I go to General Jackson, I do want to say 

that, you talked about veterans, the Corps not only works on Civil 

Works, but we are very, very committed to the Department of Veterans Affairs and we have been asked to do 14 of their big hospital 

upgrades. We are doing about $8.5 billion in VA hospitals all 

around the United States. We couldn’t be happier to work for a better organization to take care of our veterans out there. We are excited to do that. 

Ed, can you talk CAP real quick? 

General JACKSON. Congresswoman, I appreciate the question on 

the continuing authorities program. I think your question was, 

what is the number of eligible projects that actually received funding? 

Ms. ESTY. Percentage, what percentage? 

General JACKSON. Yes. So, if that is OK, I am going to get that 

information and lay that out for you in greater detail so you know 

specifically which ones those are rather than just a number. So I 

will follow back up with you and your staff at a later date to give 

you that information. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you. And, again, I know we have new representation in our district up in Boston. Look forward to having him in 

to see our wonderful, beautiful northwest Connecticut and the 

projects there. 

Mr. Lamont. 

Mr. LAMONT. Congresswoman, I just want to echo what General 

Semonite said about the section 408 program. We hear loud and 

clear from all Members and constituents the concern about the 

22 

delays. We are making concerted efforts to make sure this program 

is funded, to do our due diligence, to the American taxpayer and 

to the communities that want to explore this opportunity. 

So we are doing everything we can in conjunction with headquarters here to make it happen. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Esty. 

I want to perhaps give you a different perspective on that. I appreciate your interest in section 408. And, General, you and I have 

talked about this a little bit. 

Nothing in the law has changed in section 408 for over 100 years. 

And we have seen this explosive growth in how section 408 has 

been exercised within the Corps of Engineers. I am not sure we 

need additional money. I think there needs to be a reevaluation of 

what congressional intent was over 100 years ago with section 408. 

There have been some aggressive amendments that have passed 

the House of Representatives in regard to reining this back in, and 

I want to continue making sure that we are working on this to prevent projects from being obstructed. 

We are going to go to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mast. 

Mr. MAST. Thank you, Chairman. 

And thank you for your testimony this morning. I appreciate it. 

I want to talk about Lake Okeechobee also, and the Everglades, 

everything that has gone on down south of Lake Okeechobee and 

north of Lake Okeechobee as well. 

General Jackson, you noted already in your comments just how 

important it is to get all of the preparatory work done in these 

projects. You just said that. I couldn’t agree more. 

And, General Semonite, you just said in your remarks it is important to keep water flowing south, and that a lot of water has 

already flowed east and west. I am out the east coast of that where 

all that water flows. And you also said that if there are ways to 

take money from the States to complete these projects, you are certainly most receptive to that, the Federal Government doesn’t have 

all the money to do that. So I wanted to ask you a little bit about 

that. 

You know, Congress has already approved a reservoir south of 

Lake Okeechobee as part of that integrated delivery schedule. The 

State of Florida has authorized and committed to matching funds 

to expedite the Everglades Agricultural Area Storage Reservoir. 

And the South Florida Water Management District has said that 

they have reached out to the Corps, saying that the Corps is the 

appropriate partner for expediting this project. So I just wanted to 

ask you a few questions on that. 

What do you think is the earliest completion date we can get 

that southern reservoir done? 

General SEMONITE. Congressman, I think you are talking about 

a new reservoir that is not already in CERP. Is that understood? 

Mr. MAST. It is one that was originally authorized as part of the 

integrated delivery schedule. 

General SEMONITE. OK. I am with you now. 

So there are three that we are looking at. C–44 is the one that 

we call Indian River Lagoon. That one has been funded both in 

2018 and 2017 in the workplan. I will get you an exact date on that 

one, but we don’t see any significant issue on that. 

23 

The two you are probably worried about—— 

Mr. MAST. Not to interrupt you, but the one that is referenced 

in the State of Florida as Senate bill 10, if you are familiar with 

it, it is that one we are talking about. SB 10 in the State of Florida, 

that southern storage reservoir just south of Lake Okeechobee, that 

is what I am referencing here. 

General SEMONITE. Sir, I am going to have to get back to you. 

I’ve got C–23 and C–24; I don’t have a good read on SB 10. But 

let me come in, we will lay this out for you, and answer all of your 

questions. This is a very, very complicated problem, you are aware 

of, and I want to make sure that we are giving you the right answer on this. 

Ed, do you have SB 10? You tracking? 

General JACKSON. No, sir. We will follow up with your staff and 

give you a complete laydown on it. 

Mr. MAST. I know you all noted how much work you had done 

in the State of Florida, so it has been probably one of the biggest 

issues that has gone on in the State House and the State Senate 

in Florida, this SB 10 that has been going on there. I can’t imagine 

how—— 

General SEMONITE. There are some proposals that we are hearing about, that the State does want to do some things, and we want 

to make sure that those are integrated back into the other existing 

Everglades projects. This is where we want to make sure the South 

Florida Water Management District is involved with the rest of it. 

I think that is where some of the issues might be. It is not a current Corps project. We want to figure out how we can work together with you, whether we should or should not do it. I think 

that is what we are working through. 

Mr. MAST. What benefit would it be to have authorization to 

begin these feasibility studies sooner rather than later? How many 

years can you knock off if you get these studies done sooner rather 

than later? Can you expedite these processes by starting the studies sooner? 

General JACKSON. Sir, without looking at the integrated delivery 

schedule, I think the sooner we can start studies, assuming that all 

the preparatory work that has to be done in sequence before that 

can be done, we should be able to move out faster on it. 

I would need to look at each individual study and each individual 

project line to figure out where we can buy additional time and 

what additional resources might be required in order to do that. 

But, certainly, the South Florida Water Management District 

and the State of Florida have been tremendous partners with us 

through the whole life cycle of this project. I welcome any continued discussions to see how we can move faster on this. 

Mr. MAST. I want to shift gears. Same subject, a little bit different piece of the conversation, a moment here. 

The Corps, last summer, the Corps of Engineers transferring 

over 1 million gallons of water a minute in some cases from Lake 

Okeechobee into the waters east and west of Lake Okeechobee. 

And oftentimes there have been massive algal blooms that were literally being transferred from one of those bodies to a body of water 

that didn’t have those algal blooms in them. 

24 

So I want to ask about that. When the Corps is transferring debris or toxins or pollutants from one body of water to another body 

of water that otherwise wouldn’t be affected by them, who do you 

think should pay to clean that up? 

Mr. LAMONT. Sir, I will jump in here for starters. 

Relative to the nationwide issue, not only in the State of Florida, 

it is the State’s responsibility to ensure the quality of the waters. 

Now, I understand what you are saying relative to runoff into 

Lake Okeechobee and the distribution canals, if you will, from—— 

Mr. MAST. Not runoff. The Corps taking an algal bloom from 

Lake Okeechobee and moving it into a completely separate river to 

the east and west of Lake Okeechobee, not runoff. 

Mr. LAMONT. Those algal blooms, sir, generally are as a result 

of pollutants coming into the system. I think it would be a concerted effort, relative to the Federal Government, to look at what 

the States are doing; the counties and municipalities, relative to 

their wastewater treatment, and what is being dumped into the 

water body that ultimately comes into Lake Okeechobee and then 

is distributed during flood reduction needs out of Lake Okeechobee. 

Your point is well-taken. There needs to be a holistic view on 

that. But generally speaking, it is the States and the municipalities 

that are responsible for the quality of their waters. 

Mr. MAST. My time has expired. Thank you for your comments. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. 

I will go to the gentleman from California, Mr. Garamendi, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Generals and Mr. Lamont, thank you so very much for the work 

that the Corps of Engineers does all across this Nation, and particularly in my district, the Sacramento Valley District. We have 

had very good relationships with the ever-revolving number of colonels that have come through. Most recently, Colonel Helmlinger at 

the South Pacific Division. So my thanks to all the work that you 

do. That is not to say there are not always issues, of course there 

are, and I have my list of them also. 

The Hamilton City project underway, specifically, it is going 

along. There have been some funding issues, particularly the removal of funding for the 2017 omnibus. The issue here is not that 

the project will go forward, we have been told that it will, but it 

is really can you give us an early heads-up. This is just a matter 

of transparency. And if you could make that the standard operating 

procedure, it would be helpful to all of us. 

General SEMONITE. Thanks, Congressman. And, again, our guys 

are more than willing to come lay this out in more detail if you 

want to. 

So it did very well in 2016, got $15 million. In 2017, the reason 

that there wasn’t money put against it on the workplan is we actually had carryover from 2016 that came into 2017. There was no 

work that wasn’t done in 2017 because we didn’t have enough 

money. In 2018 it is doing well at $8.3 million, and right now it 

looks like we are going to award the next phase in 2018. 

So we want to continue to keep priority on Hamilton City, we are 

tracking it. And right now we don’t see any delay of the project. 

But it did not get budgetary money in 2017 mainly because we 

25 

were able to handle that capability with carryover from the prior 

year. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. General, I don’t know if my colleagues on this 

committee have noticed, but I have yet to see such a well-prepared 

general appear before us. Is there any issue that you anticipate 

from any of us that you are not prepared to brief us on? 

General SEMONITE. Sir, I think the biggest single thing that we 

lay awake worrying about—— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. You have missed my point, General. I just want 

to compliment you and your staff for an exceptionally well-prepared 

briefing. Every time we are called upon, you are running through 

that big stack of papers, and you know exactly the questions we 

are going to ask. So congratulations and thank you for that. 

We have gone through the section 408 issues. The chairman has 

spoken to this issue. It is an ongoing issue. The section 408s are 

slow in being processed, the numerous numbers that you are faced 

with. If there is an underlying statutory issue, we will try to deal 

with that. We know that there is an ongoing funding issue. So I 

won’t go back into that. 

Also, the committee has already brought up the issue of the beneficial used of dredged material. The San Francisco Bay region, the 

delta, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, are in line. I know you are 

going to come up with a report, I think it is sometime in September, if I followed the earlier questions. 

So we don’t go back, and since I am a farm district, we say, we 

don’t need to plow the field a second time, but we do need to dredge 

a second time. So I will just let it go at that. 

In your testimony you raised something that we have never really discussed here, and I just want to raise this issue. I guess this 

is actually Mr. Lamont—no, it is yours, General Semonite. 

You say, ‘‘First, we continue our work across the globe with presence in more than 110 countries, supporting national security and 

our combatant commanders with civil works, military missions, 

and water resources research and development expertise.’’ 

Would you please deliver to the subcommittee the amount of 

money in your budget, in the OCO budget, and any other budget 

that you are spending around the world on those many, many 

projects in support of national security? 

I have never seen in the many years that I have been involved 

in this a specific enumeration of the resources of the United States 

that are spent by the Army Corps of Engineers on those many, 

many projects. 

General SEMONITE. Sir, we will definitely do that. And just to 

give you a very, very short answer, we, the Army Corps of Engineers, work for several different entitles. We work for the Navy, 

the Air Force, the Department of Defense. A lot of that money that 

we are doing around the word is OCO money or it is money that 

is funded through those COCOMS to be able to do it. 

Another good example is we work with interagency partners. The 

Economy Act allows us to do this work. So we are in Mosul today, 

in the Mosul Dam, we have been working there a year trying to 

make sure the Mosul Dam doesn’t break and have 11 billion gallons going downstream. That is Department of State money, with 

a little bit of augmentation from the Department of Defense. 

26 

But we are more than willing to lay that out for you, because 

these other nations also have civil works challenges. And where we 

have a body of knowledge that we can share, given the right authority to share that, we want to be able to make sure that our 

technology advances are going to other countries so they can benefit as well. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I appreciate that, and one of the reasons I used 

the word revolving colonels is you took the colonel that was working on our projects in the Sacramento Valley and sent him to 

Mosul. And he certainly understands the issue of seepage beneath 

levees and dams. I thank you for that. 

My time has expired, but I would appreciate that information as 

it is money that is otherwise not available for domestic projects. So 

thank you for that, and thank you for the work that you do, and 

for being so very, very well prepared. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. 

We are going to go to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, 

Mr. Woodall, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WOODALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to echo Mr. Garamendi’s comments about this panel. 

You see this dais filling up a little bit. I think the word is getting 

out, Mr. Garamendi, that this is worth being a part of. It is so frustrating to set this time aside where we could really do some great 

things together and find folks who are unprepared to work with us. 

So I am grateful to you for all the time you have put in ahead of 

time as well. 

I don’t have a Corps project in the district that I want to talk 

about, but I do have one off the coast of the great State of Georgia. 

I know funds are limited in these times, and I remember the first 

Corps estimate of the dredging in the Port of Savannah that I saw, 

said, hey, we think we can get this done in about 61⁄2 years. The 

best way to maximize taxpayer resources, it will be on about a 61⁄2- 

year build. We are stretching that number out now. 

General Semonite, in your opening statement, it spoke to me: 

‘‘We earn our credibility, our reputation, our value by delivering 

the program.’’ I know that is where your focus is. We have constituent concerns here. You have a program to deliver. 

Help me to understand the merit when the administration controls some of those dollars, those allocation of resources. What is 

the merit of spreading those in a thin way across the entire country instead of targeting the highest economic benefit projects? 

Now, if we are talking about flood control, as Ms. Esty talked 

about earlier, I understand that is a different issue, different degree of urgency when we are talking about lives and property. But 

when we are talking about deep draft dredging, help me understand the merit of funding multiple projects, overfunding one, getting it done, and then funding the next. How are we maximizing 

taxpayer resources? 

Mr. LAMONT. Sir, if I understand your question correctly—— 

Mr. WOODALL. It is not lost on me, Mr. Lamont, that that question is being deferred to the senior official performing the duties of 

the Assistant Secretary of the Army. That is a challenging title to 

have to shoulder, and I appreciate your shouldering it. 

27 

Mr. LAMONT. It certainly is, sir. And it is a challenging question 

relative to the limited funding that the Corps of Engineers is provided and how we have to prioritize. A lot of this comes down to 

economics, it comes down to life-safety issues also. 

And we balance that. For flood damage reduction projects, clearly 

we are looking at economics, we are looking at the potential for 

life-safety issues. For navigation projects, they are primarily driven 

by the economics. It is called the NED benefits, the National Economic Development benefits that are delivered to the Nation. 

And all ports are in competition with each other, not only 

amongst themselves, but they are in competition for available Federal funding. 

We are finding a lot of project sponsors are not able to wait long 

enough for Federal funding to qualify, therefore, they are signing 

project partnership agreements with us where they are willing to 

upfront a lot of the Federal and non-Federal funds to get these key 

projects moving. And we support that. I don’t know if I have answered your question directly. 

Mr. WOODALL. Well, I don’t think so. We have certainly done 

that in Georgia. We ponied up the money upfront. We want to be 

good partners in that space. 

But what I don’t understand, on behalf of the American taxpayer, is how having two unfinished projects is superior economically to having one finished project. We have got these deep draft 

projects going on across the country, knowing that there are not 

enough dollars to fund them all. 

What other than economic interest is the driver in making those 

allocations from the administration’s point of view? We are costing 

the taxpayer money by delaying projects. We are costing the taxpayer money by stretching things out over more years, instead of 

getting them done in a compact amount of time. 

I understand my project may win, my project may lose. I don’t 

understand how the American taxpayer wins by underfunding multiple projects instead of properly funding one. 

Mr. LAMONT. Another good point, sir. And within our $5.002 billion program, we are roughly about $1.2 billion for construction activities. 

With this fiscal year 2018 budget, the administration put an emphasis on basically moving the construction that is underway along 

to complete it as soon as possible. 

At the same time we are trying to complete feasibility studies. 

Over the last 2 fiscal years, there was a lot of workplan money for 

16 studies that we are trying to get moving along so they will qualify for possible new start construction consideration. 

But with that, that small amount of available construction funding, everything is so tightly in competition that it comes down to 

the benefit-cost ratio. As I know a number of you Members know, 

it comes down to a benefit-cost ratio of 2.5 to 1 at a 7-percent discount rate to qualify for available Federal funding. 

So that is why you are seeing a lot of these ports jump in the 

game right now and say, we can’t wait. If it is an authorized 

project, we want to start the project now and help you along. You 

will see Charleston Harbor, for example, doing that right now. 

28 

Mr. WOODALL. Well, there are a lot of families in my part of the 

world who put food on the table because of the success your 

projects bring economically to our region. I am grateful to you for 

your service. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. 

We are going to go to the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. 

Frankel, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you. 

And thank you, all of you, for your service. For Florida, obviously, with sand and dredging and ports and Everglades, very important to our economic and environmental well-being. So working 

with you is important. 

I have four questions. I am going to try to get through them 

quickly so you can answer them. 

Number one, I thought I heard you say that there are some 

blockages using Florida State resources in order to move forward 

with Everglades funding. 

Number two question, in our last WRDA bill, and then I think 

the next one was called the WIIN bill—something like that, right, 

WIIN—we gave you all a 3-year deadline, basically, from authorization of a feasibility study to get that completed. I am just wondering if you are optimistic that is something you are going to be 

able to meet. 

My next question is, is it true that ports are being told that in 

order to get a new start they have to actually agree to fully fund 

the project? 

And number 4, and I bring this up every year, it still makes no 

sense to me why OMB uses a different discount rate than the 

Corps in evaluating projects. The Army Corps spends millions of 

dollars putting together Chief’s Reports, and then OMB uses a different calculation, and that doesn’t make any sense. And I am just 

wondering whether you are trying to correct that issue. 

Mr. LAMONT. Congresswoman, let me jump in on number three 

and number four, they seem to be pretty related. 

Ms. FRANKEL. OK. 

Mr. LAMONT. Number three, if I understand your question correctly, the—well, let me go to four first, because the competition for 

Federal funding, as I alluded to with Congressman Woodall, is a 

key driver here. 

With the available Federal resources we got, we need to, bottom 

line, we need to be able to look at the economics of what that 

project is delivering and how that will compete, after it is authorized for Federal funding. 

For authorization purposes, the benefit-cost ratio has to be 1.0 to 

1 or greater at the authorized discount rate, and that is now right 

about 2.875 percent. 

However, because of the type of Federal funding that is available 

for the Civil Works program, the administration, no matter what 

administration, Democrat, Republican, going way back to 1992, utilized the benefit-cost ratio of 2.5 to 1 at a 7-percent discount rate 

to qualify for budgeting. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Excuse me. I am aware of that. But it doesn’t 

make—what I am saying is it doesn’t make any sense because you 

are doing your feasibility study first, which now is going to take 

29 

3 years, we hope, and sometimes cost millions and millions of dollars. 

And you use a different study, a different discount rate. So you 

could do all that work and then OMB says, oh, sorry, we don’t 

agree. So it doesn’t make sense that you don’t get your acts together, that you are not using the same formula. One of you needs 

to change it, right? 

Mr. LAMONT. Well, I would say this, ma’am, in all due respect. 

With the Federal resources that are available to our agency, we 

must look at the most economic high-performing projects, if you 

will, and that is based on economics. The administration, this one 

and prior administrations, have determined that is the—— 

Ms. FRANKEL. All right. I am sorry. You are not answering my 

question. I am sorry. I don’t mean to be rude to you. How about 

trying the other three? Because really, you are not answering my 

question. You are telling me what I already know, but you are not 

explaining why, why you use different discount rates. 

Mr. LAMONT. The discount rate is reflecting the competition for 

funds. 

Ms. FRANKEL. So but why—OK. 

General SEMONITE. And, ma’am, General Semonite. Let me hit 

the other three real quick, OK. And you have a lot of things you 

want to hear about. You want to talk about CEPP, Port Everglades. We are more than willing to come lay all this all out for 

you in your office. 

But real quick, short answer, we aren’t aware of any problems 

right now with Florida funding. That is your first question. Sometimes when people want to offer money, though, there are different 

ways they offer it. They offer it with an expectation of getting repaid or they offer it as a contributed fund. Maybe that is where 

there is confusion. But we are not aware of any problem. 

The second one is on the 3-year study. It is our goal, and the 

committee, I think, has pushed us in the right direction, to try to 

get all of our studies done in 3 years. That has changed the culture 

of the Corps. 

Some of these are extremely complicated. Back to Savannah Harbor, that is about a 17-year study we did; way too long. Some of 

these might not get done in 3 years, and we have a waiver process. 

But it is our goal to try to be as aggressive as possible. 

And then the third one. There is not a requirement right now to 

have fully funded agreements for ports before we can move forward. They only have to be able to make sure that they can promise those funds in that agreement. But right now we are not aware 

of any—especially probably back on Port Everglades—where there 

is a significant issue on any of those Florida ports. 

But we will lay this out in detail, if you want, on all of your 

ports, where we are on the Everglades, CEPP, and Port Everglades 

specifically, OK? 

Ms. FRANKEL. OK. Thank you very much. But I really hope you 

could take another look at this cost ratio question that I have. 

Mr. LAMONT. Ma’am, I would be happy to meet with you or your 

staff to further explain this. I want to make sure that I am answering your question specifically. I understand fully your concern, that 

it looks like a dichotomy. I understand fully. 

30 

Ms. FRANKEL. OK. And thank you again for your service, all of 

you. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Texas, Dr. Babin, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Dr. BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lamont, I would like to talk about a proposed Cedar Bayou 

dredging project that is in my district. First, I want to give you just 

a few facts on Cedar Bayou. 

Cedar Bayou is a fully authorized project waiting for a construction new start since 2006, 11 years. The local sponsor has paid in 

full the local share of the initial cost of the project, and can execute 

a public partnership agreement with the Corps as soon as required. 

The project can be completed in less than 2 years. 

The project feeds into the Houston Ship Channel, the busiest 

port in foreign tonnage in the United States, a great benefit. It is 

one of the least expensive projects ready for construction at approximately $50 million. 

I would also point out that if you incorporate the impact this port 

has on our energy sector—and I submit that my district is the epicenter of energy production in this country—if you incorporate the 

impact of this port using the section 6009 calculation, the benefitto-cost ratio is exceeding 5 to 1. 

Can you first tell me what else that you could possibly be looking 

for in a project when you are making a new start determination? 

Mr. LAMONT. Mr. Congressman, this gets right back to Congresswoman Frankel’s question relative to the benefit-cost ratio and how 

the Corps of Engineers formulates and justifies its projects. I agree 

with you that the section 6009 benefits are legitimate benefits that 

can be shown in Chief of Engineers’ reports and feasibility reports. 

When it comes to—again, this is a thing that probably will annoy 

everybody here—but when it comes to competition for Federal resources for a construction decision, it all comes back to the benefitcost ratio at the 7-percent discount rate being 2.5 to 1 or greater 

for qualification purposes. 

We have a project right now, Brownsville Harbor, Texas, where 

we have coordinated with the Office of Management and Budget, 

and we are continuing to look into the economics of that. And that 

gets right to your issue as to how to display the benefits to the Nation under the National Economic Development benefits, NED benefits, versus section 6009. 

I am committing to you that I will always work with the Office 

of Management and Budget in looking at all benefits that are on 

the table and trying to articulate what are the benefits not only to 

the Nation, but what are the benefits that are allowable under the 

law. So your point is well-taken. 

Dr. BABIN. If Congress required the incorporation of the section 

6009 benefits in the Corps’ formula, which again, would make this 

particular project’s cost-benefit ratio more than 5 to 1, would this 

increase the likelihood of a project like this finally getting underway? And would it be that way for all projects? 

Mr. LAMONT. If in further discussion with the administration I 

can—and I am committing to you that I will have this conversation 

with the administration, relative to section 6009 benefits. I am seeVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:02 Mar 26, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\WR\2017\7-19-2~1\26375.TXT JEAN
31 

ing it on a number of other ports. I think the time has come for 

me to get down and talk to them about this as to what are the total 

benefits to the Nation under the law, and the law specifies section 

6009. So I have an obligation to talk to them about that and get 

back to you. 

Dr. BABIN. OK. Thank you. 

And just real quickly with my remaining time, I want to ask a 

question on behalf of my Texas colleague to the south, Blake 

Farenthold, on the Port of Corpus Christi, which he represents. 

As you may know, because of uncertainty about Federal funding, 

the port is trying to get a public-private partnership agreed to so 

they can get to work with their own money, if necessary, on their 

Corpus Christi Ship Channel Improvement Project. 

It is my understanding that a draft of the PPA has been all but 

finalized since March of 2017. However, the transmittal of that 

PPA to the Corps Galveston District has not occurred, thus further 

delaying construction of this project. Can you explain to me why 

there has been such a delay in the finalization and transmittal of 

the PPA to the Galveston District? And if there are any outstanding issues, when do you expect them to be resolved? 

Mr. LAMONT. Yes, sir. On the Corpus Christi project, I am working with the senior leadership of the Corps of Engineers to make 

sure that we can look at the draft project partnership agreement 

and discuss fully what are the implications relative to pipeline relocations and the costing thereof. 

Dr. BABIN. OK. After receipt of these questions, would you provide me and Mr. Farenthold’s office with a firm timeline when the 

Galveston District will receive this PPA? 

General SEMONITE. Congressman, the other thing is that we see 

a lot of potential in certain P3s. We do believe, though, there has 

got to be policy on this. And while we have a couple of these that 

have got a massive amount of growth or capability, it is important 

that there is some policy developed. 

And right now we have gotten, I think, a little bit of a hold on 

future P3s until we are able to shape that policy; mainly guidance 

we got through the administration and from some of the committees, to be able to make sure we can put some of that policy in 

place. 

So we are still working through that. We have done a pilot. But 

we do owe you some more work on what a P3 should look like. 

Dr. BABIN. OK. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. 

I want to let Members know we are going to go ahead and do 

a second round for folks that are interested in doing that. But we 

are going to go to the gentlewoman from Michigan, Mrs. Lawrence. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you so much. 

And thank the panel for being here. 

Mr. Lamont, as you know, the Corps and the EPA both highlighted the importance of the 2015 Clean Water Rule to our health, 

our communities, and our economies. For the record, I represent a 

section of Michigan. I am extremely sensitive to the issue of health 

when it comes to our drinking water. 

According to a fact sheet from the Corps and the EPA, about 117 

million Americans, or 1 in 3, in this country get drinking water 

32 

from small streams that need protection from pollution under the 

2015 Clean Water Rule that the Trump administration has proposed to repeal. In the June 2017 economic analysis of the Clean 

Water repeal, did the Corps and the EPA specifically look at the 

economic benefits of the rule in providing safe and reliable sources 

of drinking water for one in three Americans? 

Mr. LAMONT. Yes, ma’am. Your comment there echoes a number 

of comments very similar across the Nation. Army Civil Works and 

the Corps of Engineers is working with EPA on this Presidential 

directive to relook at Waters of the United States Rule and the 

road forward. 

What we have done so far is we have had a number of consultation meetings with concerned stakeholders, representatives of 

Tribes, representatives of States, representatives of local municipalities. We are hearing your concerns loud and clear. 

The road forward is going to be a difficult one, in my perspective, 

as to not only documenting the economics and the environmental 

concerns. You have our assurance that we are going to do our due 

diligence to examine all of these aspects and listen to constituents 

and stakeholders as we move forward on this, on relooking at this 

rule. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. I want to say to this panel while I have this mic 

that when it comes to safe drinking water in America it is not a 

partisan issue, it is not an administration issue. It is a matter of 

quality of life. 

We as human beings cannot exist without water. And we must 

ensure that we are funded and that we are protecting our water 

from pollution. And there is no, to me, gray area in that, and this 

is not about how you can shape it in a political agenda, and I am 

very passionate about that. 

Also while I have the mic, Soo locks, as you know, it is Michigan, 

I am sure that Lieutenant General Semonite. I understand that 

you recently visited the Soo locks complex, as I did in the Michigan 

delegation. 

What are you doing to ensure that the Corps is taking input from 

all stakeholders? And can you just give me an update on the reality 

of your draft of economic reevaluation report of the Soo lock 

project? Thank you. 

General SEMONITE. Yes, Congresswoman. And we need about 7 

more months to finish that draft. We would like to get it done by 

January. We do have a shortage of funds right now. We are working to reprogram to figure how to get more money so we can make 

sure we get that done by the 7 months. 

I was at the Soo locks, it is absolutely critical to the Nation. This 

is where there is one particular lock, called the Poe lock, where 100 

percent of iron ore comes through. If that lock goes down for any 

period, there would be dramatic ramifications back to the economy 

and back to unemployment in that region. The homeland defense 

report is very, very clear as to how critical that is. 

So we are putting a lot of effort to be able to make sure that our 

report is done right. It might be where the committee and Congress 

would have to help, because if it is just a benefit-cost ratio decision, 

then it is just going to be like any other project. Soo lock can’t be. 

Soo lock is in a different category—— 

33 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. It is. 

General SEMONITE [continuing]. Because it is a one-of-a-kind lock 

for a one of a kind commodity. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. And, please, I would like to get a report from 

you. And when you say we need more money, what does that 

mean? Where is it coming from? And where can we use our support 

for that? Because I am uniquely and passionately aware of what 

you have said and we must work together. 

General SEMONITE. Yes, ma’am. Mr. Lamont is working this. 

This is an internal issue with the workplan, regarding how we put 

the workplan together in the last couple hours, and when the submission occurred. So we have to go back in and find the right place 

where we have some funds that are actually not going to be obligated this year and we can redivert them. But we have got to go 

through the right process to make that happen. 

I want to get this done in like the next week or week and a half. 

Mr. Lamont is all over that. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. 

We are going to go to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Bost, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. BOST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all for being here. 

First off, Mr. Lamont, I want to get one thing out of the way real 

quick, and then I have a longer discussion we need to have. 

Program funds that are being requested by the St. Louis Corps 

to do repair on East St. Louis levee projects, the district is making 

that request real soon. I am doing a followup letter to you, you will 

be receiving, and if you just could respond to that when you get it. 

I am just giving you a heads-up, it is coming your way. 

Mr. LAMONT. Absolutely, sir. We will look right into it. 

Mr. BOST. Now, what I really want to deal with is, so back in 

December of 2015, we, in my district, and on both sides of the 

river, had the wonderful opportunity to have what was known as 

the holiday flood. It wasn’t a holiday for any of your employees, 

and it sure wasn’t a holiday for us. We were fighting floods in late 

December, early January. 

During that time, a levee called the Len Small levee, which was 

a non-Federal levee that was created by Governor Len Small years 

ago, became part of the system. We have done maintenance on it 

over the years. It has never burst on the high pressure side. At 

that time it did burst on the high pressure side. 

And if you will look at a map of Illinois—I have actually given 

this speech on the House floor, and I want you to in your mind remember how Illinois is shaped. It comes down and it does a curve, 

a very, very sharp curve, it is 17 miles around. That is called what 

is known as the Dogtooth Bend. It is a 17-mile area around on the 

Mississippi, very much used for navigation. 

When that Len Small levee blew, it started cutting across the 3 

miles that is across. Now, the unfortunate issue is, is that is about 

a 12-foot drop in elevation. So over a 17-mile area it doesn’t bother 

navigation. If it ever makes the cut through—if it ever makes the 

cut through—we are going to have a navigational problem and all 

traffic will be stopped from New Orleans to the Great Lakes. 

34 

This is something I have tried to explain to the Corps, and I 

worked with the St. Louis Corps, getting the language right because the Corps has—now, understand you are spending millions 

of dollars right now in maintaining navigation, but unfortunately 

when it comes to a levee like that we won’t repair it because you 

have to have a cost effect—it is calculated only on flood prevention. 

That is the only calculation you can use. 

We actually put in the WRDA bill language that we discussed 

with the St. Louis Corps on how it would actually allow them the 

opportunity to come back and do the repairs necessary to keep that 

from cutting through and stopping navigation all along the Mississippi River. This is a nationwide problem if this occurs. 

Somehow someone went in the Senate whenever we passed the 

bill over to the Senate from the Corps, and requested that the language be moved out. So we are still stuck in a situation where we 

are not able to do the repair. 

Today, that is not a problem. It is a little frustrating because the 

floods keep coming right back in, we have some riprap there blocking it. But I want to know what we can do with the Corps to get 

this problem cured before we have a Nation trying to figure out— 

I mean, remember, I came from the trucking industry, and the 

trucking industry will be very, very happy if all of a sudden it is 

blocked there. They can actually start unloading the barges at one 

spot, haul it up river, and do that. But I think we probably want 

the make sure the navigation continues. 

So what can I do with you to work to make sure we get this problem fixed? 

General SEMONITE. So, Congressman, there is not a good clean 

answer right now. We know we need about $16 million. We have 

looked at it very closely. Tony Mitchell, our colonel out there, has 

personally briefed you on this. 

Mr. BOST. Yeah. Does a great job. 

General SEMONITE. We were able to justify the bank repairs. 

That is the only thing the current rules allow us to do. We do want 

to work with you very closely to figure out if there is some other 

way. 

As we look at the rules right now, we don’t feel that we are justified to be able to spend the $16 million on what is called Public 

Law 84–99 because it does need a benefit-cost ratio of 2.5. 

So I hate to say no, but right now the current rules we have 

don’t allow us to do this. My guys met with you last week. We want 

to continue to figure out are there some options out there. 

Mr. BOST. But here is the problem. We had the language. We 

sent it to the Senate. I don’t know who, but someone said, OK, we 

don’t think this is a good idea, and you pulled it out. And I was 

not contacted when that took place. My staff was not contacted. We 

found it out after the fact, after we had already made a commitment to our locals that we did our job, which is putting the wording 

in correctly to try to cure this problem. 

You know what? The locals would love to see the levee back. 

That is no problem. And I understand their frustration of watching 

the family farms be destroyed by 7 feet of sand being piled up 

along 10,000 acres of farmland. 

35 

But the real concern I do have is that navigation. And we need 

to do something quickly. I thought we had the problem cured. Don’t 

know what happened in the Senate. There are a lot of things that 

happen in the Senate. I don’t know what happens in the Senate. 

And in the short period of time I have been here, I became very 

frustrated with them, but we all are. But we have got to get this 

fixed. 

General SEMONITE. Sir, we are committed to working with you 

on this. We don’t know what happened as well either. 

On the other hand, you have got a gap in there, so there are 

some areas that could very easily be flooded again. So let’s continue 

to figure out what options are available. 

The Congress does a great job of laying out what our authorities 

are. We are committed to be able to work those authorities as best 

we can within those boundaries. But this one right now, we don’t 

feel we have the flexibility to apply that money to that particular 

hole in that levee. 

Mr. BOST. OK, let me explain this. The riprap that was put in 

place is just above—slightly above flood stage. So the spring floods, 

I went down there again, and the river was coming over just as fast 

and just as hard and cutting more. So we are limited on the 

amount of time we have before it cuts all the way through. 

And I think it is something that needs to be brought to a level 

where—I brought it up to my leadership, Senate leadership needs 

to know it, and I think the administration needs to know and understand. When a problem is this big—it is one thing if I am fighting for my district, but I am fighting for keeping a major transportation thoroughfare open for the economy and for just everything 

that is in this Nation. When we start taking out the center of the 

Nation’s ability to move products up and down that river, it is 

huge. 

General SEMONITE. And so we know you are prepared to propose 

legislation to do that. Our guys are willing to help draft that legislation and we will see what comes back out from that, and we will 

work within those authorities. 

Mr. BOST. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. LAMONT. Congressman, can I add one thing? 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Please, briefly. We need to move on. 

Mr. LAMONT. Colonel Tony Mitchell is now our executive officer 

in my office, thanks to General—— 

Mr. BOST. He knows the situation well. 

Mr. LAMONT. I will specifically talk with him about this issue 

also. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BOST. Thank you. 

Thank you for giving it extra time. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. 

We are going to go the best dressed member of the committee, 

the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Wilson. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Graves, for holding such an important hearing. 

And I want to thank our esteemed witnesses for sharing their 

perspectives on the implementation of WRRDA 2014 and WRDA 

2016. 

36 

Chairman Shuster should also be commended for his commitment to developing and passing water resources development legislation every 2 years. Passing this legislation has truly been a bipartisan effort. As cochair and founder of the Florida Ports Caucus, I 

have worked shoulder to shoulder with my Republican colleagues 

to build bipartisan support for WRRDA 2014 and WRDA 2016. 

The impact on Florida alone has been tremendous. This legislation has helped Florida become a premier maritime location for 

freight and cruise, and has provided much needed resources to repair and restore the Everglades, which is a State and national 

treasure. 

WRDA legislation also has had a significant economic impact on 

Florida’s 15 seaports, which, based on a recent 2016 study, provide 

nearly 900,000 jobs. Port Miami was one of the more recent harbordeepening projects just completed by the Corps. That port is now 

able to receive post-Panamax vessels with 50-foot drafts that travel 

to Miami through the Panama and Suez Canals. Two other seaports on Florida’s east coast will soon join them. 

The 2017 Corps of Engineers budget includes funding for construction on a deepening project, Port Jacksonville, and engineering and planning for the Port Everglades deepening project. I look 

forward to working with each of you to ensure that these projects 

are funded in future years and stay on track. 

I have a couple of questions. The General Society of Civil Engineers estimates that our Nation’s ports and harbors will need an 

additional investment of $15.8 billion between now and 2020 to 

meet the demands of larger and heavier ships that will use the 

Panama Canal. This increased investment would protect $270 billion in U.S. exports, $697 billion in GDP, and 738,000 jobs annually. 

Given this increase in demands that will be put on our waterborne infrastructure in the coming years, can you say with confidence that the Corps will be able to meet these needs in the current fiscal environment? 

General SEMONITE. Ma’am, we are committed to be able to continue to make sure that Congress understands the value of harbor 

deepenings, because it is a direct input back to our economy. 

We have done a lot of these. You mentioned a couple in Florida. 

We are continuing to work east coast ones. We are working ones 

in the gulf right now. 

I can’t commit to what is going to happen anything past fiscal 

year 2018 based on the funds that are out there. But with the 

money that Congress gives us to do harbor deepenings, we are committed to be able to make sure that that money is able to directly 

go back into the economy and it goes back to jobs and taking care 

of the Nation. 

Ms. WILSON. OK. Section 2106 of WRRDA of 2014 authorizes a 

new program to provide funds to donor and energy transfer ports. 

Section 1110 of WRDA of 2016 amends 2106 and includes revisions 

to the provision that enables payments to shippers or importers. 

Can you advise when the department will provide the implementation guidelines on section 1110? And this is the specifically for Port 

Miami. 

37 

General SEMONITE. We came prepared to talk all these because 

we are tracking them in great detail. Chairman Graves has been 

very aggressive on asking us to get implementation guidance done. 

If we can’t find you an answer in about a minute, we will come and 

we will walk you through exactly where we are at on that particular section. 

Ed, do you have that section? 

So, ma’am, we will come over and lay this out for you on that 

particular one. We need to get this guidance done. Our guys are 

cranking as fast as they can to work through it, but we want to 

do it right so that we can make sure that we don’t have problems 

down the road. 

Ms. WILSON. We will be looking forward to that guidance. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. 

We are going to go to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Semonite, you came to my office and I sure appreciated 

that. And I am glad to hear Representative Garamendi commending you for your preparation here, because I am going to put 

you to the test. 

You and I have both been made aware of inaccuracies in the 

Sabine-Neches Waterway BCR over in my area. You know that 

MARAD has ships there. I don’t remember how many ships there 

are, but I think it is—is it one of three of the original anchorages 

left there, MARAD and Beaumont. Sixty percent of the Nation’s jet 

fuel is produced there in our district. Almost 20 percent of the Nation’s gasoline east of the Rockies, 6 percent of the Nation’s strategic petroleum reserve in this district. 

In your discussion with Michigan Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence you talked about, was it the Soo locks and what would happen because of the iron ore deficiency to our Nation? 

Well, I would argue that Sabine-Neches Waterway is so very valuable and important. If we don’t get it dredged out, we are going 

to tie up those naval ships and we are going to tie up a lot of traffic. We could ostensibly tie up the Nation’s energy supply in a lot 

of different directions. 

We know that there are inaccuracies in the BCR. Will you 

check—I don’t know if you have that information in front of you— 

but would you check on the status of this with the Deep Draft 

Navigation Planning Center of Expertise, with Colonel Owen and 

Colonel Zetterstrom of the Galveston District, put your finger on 

those inaccuracies? 

General SEMONITE. Sir, I am going to go to General Jackson in 

a minute, but we will definitely do that. The Deep Draft Navigation 

Center does exactly that. We want to make sure that those BCRs 

are calculated appropriately so we can stand behind those numbers. 

Ed, can you—— 

Mr. WEBER. Let me break in before General Jackson does that, 

if I can. So in your discussion with Brenda Lawrence of Michigan 

you talked about the deficiency of iron ore. Do you use a national 

security calculation on this, because if we lose our fuel capability, 

38 

if we lose our ability to get naval ships out quickly—and here is 

a shock, there are enemies in the world that hate us. 

So how do you include that in your BCR? How can we be sure 

the Sabine-Neches Waterway is included in the President’s fiscal 

year 2019 construction budget? 

General SEMONITE. So I will defer to Mr. Lamont. But I will tell 

you that the current analysis is based on certain types of calculations. My personal assessment is there are some variables that 

don’t come into that. A good example is exactly what you are talking about, is defense and some of those kind of things. 

So, Mr. Lamont, I don’t know if you want to talk in more detail. 

But there are some projects that might need the chairman and 

Congress to be able to look to see if they have some additional type 

of criteria that should be justified. 

Mr. WEBER. OK. You wanted to go to Major General Jackson. 

General SEMONITE. I am going to go to Mr. Lamont. 

Mr. WEBER. OK. You are going to go here first. 

OK, Mr. Lamont, you are up. 

Mr. LAMONT. Sir, this will be pretty quick. For Sabine, there is 

$557,000 in the fiscal year 2017 workplan to initiate PED 

[preconstruction engineering and design]. 

Getting back to General Semonite’s point about employing the 

Deep Draft Harbor Navigation Center of Expertise, that is going to 

be critical to developing the economics that would allow this project 

to compete for new start construction. 

And, unfortunately, Congresswoman Frankel was not happy with 

my answer there before, but it is consistent that we have to see a 

benefit-cost ratio ultimately of 2.5 to 1, at a 7-percent discount 

rate, to qualify for new start construction. However, there are other 

factors that need to be brought in. 

Mr. WEBER. So who do we need to bring into it? When you say 

other factors, that actually was my next question. And we are glad 

that the fiscal year 2017 workplan for PED is in it, but we are still 

working with the Sabine-Neches Navigation District, OMB, and all 

to ensure that the CIP is eligible to compete for the President’s 

budget in fiscal year 2019. Who else do we need to bring into this 

conversation with us? 

Mr. LAMONT. It is incumbent upon us, sir, Army Civil Works and 

the Corps of Engineers, to work our due diligence relative to examining the full benefits to the Nation of not only that port, but all 

ports through our feasibility report process and making sure that 

we are accounting for all benefits across the table. That is the challenge that we have. 

Mr. WEBER. Let me break in here. Mr. Bost described something 

on the Mississippi River that would be a problem and would block 

traffic. Mrs. Lawrence talked—you talked about the Soo—was it 

Sioux, S-i-o-u-x, locks? 

General JACKSON. S-o-o. 

Mr. WEBER. S-o-o. 

So obviously if there was a problem there, priorities would 

change. Who makes that decision? The locks close up and you can’t 

get iron ore. General, by your own admission, that is a really big 

problem. Who makes that decision to change that priority? 

39 

General SEMONITE. So where I was going, sir, is that basically 

some of those priorities have to be—I would recommend to be incorporated into that guidance. They are not currently in there. So 

those projects are based on an economic benefit-cost ratio, not necessarily a national defense criteria. 

Mr. WEBER. So if that kind of a calamity occurred, somebody has 

the wherewithal to say, look, we have got to jump on that and fix 

that problem. Who is that person? 

Mr. LAMONT. Sir, our principles and guidelines, which is the 

framework under which we do our planning and formulation of 

projects to seek authorization—— 

Mr. WEBER. I am not talking about planning. You don’t plan for 

disaster. 

Mr. LAMONT. No, no, no. I am going to try the answer your question directly. We have full latitude and there is broadness in there 

to look at all benefit categories, including national defense. So each 

individual project has its own unique aspects, and we should look 

not only on the economic—— 

Mr. WEBER. Mr. Chairman, if you will indulge me. 

I get that. But what I am saying is, when that lock locks up, pardon the pun, somebody says is the Corps is going to go in there and 

fix that. Who is that that says that? 

General SEMONITE. I think Chairman Graves has asked us to be 

able to give him some smart recommendations how to change some 

of those rules. Right now, there is not a clean answer to that solution if in fact the rules don’t allow us to work in an area that is 

not justified. 

But I think that this is an area where we want to continue to 

work with the committees to build some of that in, so if there is 

a crisis, sir, we have the tools to be able to do that. 

Some areas we do have that, for very, very unique type disaster 

areas. But if there is something that is related back to a very specific requirement right now, I am not sure we have the flexibility 

we need to be able to go in and solve one of those problems. 

Mr. WEBER. So the Nation just loses its iron ore capability? 

General SEMONITE. Sir, I don’t want to go there. I am just saying, I think that there could be some more parameters we have to 

give the Corps more flexibility. And I am just not smart enough to 

answer exactly where we want to go—— 

Mr. WEBER. Mr. Lamont, you have been handed a note by the 

brain trust behind you. Is that salient to this discussion? 

Mr. LAMONT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WEBER. She handed you a note. Does that describe who is 

responsible, would make that call? 

Mr. LAMONT. Well, it is an effort between the Corps of Engineers 

and my office to make sure that we come not only to the administration, but to the Congress with our best possible recommendations. 

Mr. WEBER. OK. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

Mr. LAMONT. Sir, I am willing to work with you on anything in 

that arena. 

Mr. WEBER. And that is a good point. Please, let’s make plans 

for you come to my office. 

40 

Mr. LAMONT. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. WEBER. And I have a letter for both of you all before you all 

get away. 

Mr. LAMONT. I understand your concerns, sir. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. 

We are going to go to the other Texas delegation Member, the 

gentlewoman, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And let me thank the witnesses for being here. 

I am from north Texas, with my district being in Dallas. We are 

inland, and yet we are probably the number one trade city in the 

Nation. Therefore, we have an inland port. But with all the growth 

we have, we have a lot of manmade lakes for drinking water—Joe 

Pool, Ray Hubbard, Ralph Hall—in the making. Then we have the 

Lewisville Lake in the area that will probably impact my district 

more than anybody else’s if it floods, the Trinity River, and the 

Brazos. But we remain concerned about the supply of drinking 

water because we are very heavily populated. 

And, General, in an article that was published in March of this 

year, you were quoted as saying that: Another big question we are 

really trying to look at are the ramifications of the budget cuts on 

other agencies that we are trying to work with. If EPA gets cut 25 

percent in their budget, and we need EPA to look at a permit, but 

we can’t get it to the right people, that is going to slow our work 

down. 

Now, we have some projects that we are heavily depending on 

EPA to work with you now in that area. Can you elaborate on this 

point for the subcommittee, and state if you believe insufficient 

funding at EPA may inadvertently affect the pace of the completion 

of these Corps projects? 

General SEMONITE. Yes, ma’am. Good question. 

Again, back in March or April we weren’t exactly sure what the 

other agencies were going to get with respect to their budget. There 

were some dramatic cuts. Some of those other agencies were proposed to have been cut up to 31 percent. 

We work very, very collaboratively with those interagency partners. So if there is an issue out there and Fish and Wildlife has 

to give an opinion, or EPA, we want to make sure that we are giving a Federal solution back to this, not just a Corps of Engineers 

recommendation. 

So there could be scenarios where if, in fact, an agency gets reduced in the amount of people they have, that a permit might take 

longer, a decision, a biological opinion. I think it is incumbent for 

us to be able to then figure out how do we prioritize those to keep 

the most important ones going. 

We aren’t trying to say that we need to put more money back out 

there to be able to grow all these organizations, but there will be 

ramifications if the right amount of manning is not in some of 

these other organizations. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Now, there are several ongoing Corps construction projects that 

were initiated under the new starts are provided ongoing construction funding in the fiscal year 2017 workplan. However, for the majority of these projects, additional construction funds are required 

41 

in fiscal year 2018 and beyond to complete this construction. Yet, 

for a significant number of these projects, no construction funding 

was identified in the President’s 2018 budget request. 

As you know, inefficient funding of construction projects can 

cause a delay in the realization of benefits of these projects where 

we are in many places depending on stopping of flooding or providing for drinking water. What is your plan to try to complete 

projects that obviously are necessary if they have already been 

identified? 

General SEMONITE. Ma’am, I am going to give you my personal 

opinion here. Once Congress makes a decision to start a project, I 

personally think we ought to see that project through. 

There are some projects where we don’t see a continued amount 

of funding to be able to finish those that have been started. The 

best thing we can do is to continue to be able to justify those so 

when the committee makes decisions on money, whether it is in the 

administration’s budget, or the committee provides funds in the 

workplan—then we are able to try to keep the momentum going on 

those. 

Because it goes back to the longer you take to build something, 

the more expensive it gets. That is just the law of human nature. 

Mr. Lamont, do you want to jump in? 

Mr. LAMONT. Yes, ma’am. I want to also add that it is clear that 

as these things are drug out, they are going to get more expensive. 

Unfortunately, as a result of the tight competition for these funds, 

it makes things difficult when you are authorizing projects. They 

are added to the backlog and they can’t get to construction. 

That is why I think you are seeing a lot of project sponsors willing to use some of the tools that this authorization committee has 

provided, which is to allow sponsors to start the work, fund the 

work themselves, and then hopefully have the Federal Government 

catch up. 

In fact, what we are seeing in a lot of cases, this is very obvious, 

we are having to go back and look at the economics to see if it can 

compete for new start funding or a continuation of funding. 

And that gets to be very difficult, because you get in kind of a 

back and forth here. You have already completed a Chief’s Report, 

the project is authorized. Will it compete for new start construction? It may. It may be funded by a workplan. Can it be continued 

in the budget? It may not compete because of the benefit-cost ratio. 

There needs to be a concerted effort of looking at how this Nation 

is going to move forward relative to authorization of projects, construction, and the consequences of delaying these things and maybe 

the tools that are available to other entities, such as private-public 

partnerships to keep things rolling. 

This is a very valid question that we have heard not only at this 

committee, we have heard it through the Appropriations Committee staff also. Thank you ma’am. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. My time has expired, but 

let me express my appreciation for the work of the Corps, the responsibility that you have taken, the great responsibility ahead of 

you. Thank you. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. I wanted to check with you all. I 

know we talked about taking a brief break. I believe Mr. Webster 

42 

has one more question left. I have got a number of questions. How 

are you all doing? Any urgent matters to attend to? Are you OK 

now? OK. All right. 

I am going to go ahead and do my questions, and then we will 

go to Mr. Webster and see if there are others. 

Sections 1144 and 1322 of the WIIN Act, in addition to section 

1011 of WRRDA 2014, all give different prioritization criteria for 

budgeting projects. And I really want to highlight 1144, section 

1144 of the WIIN Act, of WRDA 2016. 

The legislation says that any project that is within a Presidentially declared disaster area, a project where there is a partnership agreement signed, and that the area is at significant risk for 

flooding, that it is to be prioritized in budgeting. Unfortunately, 

you have not done implementation guidance. 

We have the Comite Project, General, you and I have discussed 

this at length. In fact, General Jackson, I believe we have discussed this as well. This project was in the area where we had an 

extraordinary flood in August. We have had some homes that have 

flooded, as I recall, I think a total of three times since then. 

This project is not going to be the silver bullet, but it together 

with other proposals that have been put out there, including things 

considered by the Corps of Engineers such as the Darlington Reservoir and projects that could divert additional water off the Amite 

River, will provide substantial relief. 

I want to understand how these laws are being implemented to 

advise your budgeting decisions whenever there is not even implementation guidance. How are you factoring these sorts of provisions into your overall budgeting decisions? What do I tell these 

people at home? 

Mr. LAMONT. Mr. Chairman, I would say in the case of the 

Comite River I understand exactly what your concerns are and 

your frustration. We have $6.7 million in the fiscal year 2017 

workplan. 

The concern there relative to loss of life really troubles me, as 

far as the ability to look at this hard for fiscal year 2018 and possible workplan money. It gets back to the same issue, there is a 

common theme here. How do things—— 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. And reallocation of 2017 funds. 

Mr. LAMONT. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 

I am bringing home from this hearing a very loud concern from 

the committee about the possible disparity on how we authorize 

projects versus how they compete. I want to look into this further 

and have discussions with our senior leadership, also with the administration. But when it comes to tight funding what are the 

mechanisms to allow projects to either to complete, if they are 

started, or to compete for continued funding. And I understand 

your frustration there, sir. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Another WRDA 2016 provision, section 1163, this dates back to either 2008 or 2009 where work related to the hurricane protection system in the greater New Orleans area was going to require mitigation. At one point the estimates were the mitigation was going to be in the $600 million to 

$700 million range. As a result of, candidly, a different application 

43 

of mitigation for the Corps as compared to the public, that number, 

I think, got whittled down to about $250 million. 

Regardless, myself, the Governor of Louisiana, and many others advocated that the Corps had $250 million in hand. That was the 

largest amount of money that you all have ever had to do wetlands 

restoration in Louisiana. And you are all familiar with the fact that 

we have lost 1,900 square miles of our coastal wetlands. 

Rather than taking those dollars and advancing any one of per- haps $20 billion in coastal restoration projects, many of which have 

been authorized by this committee, authorized by this Congress, 

the Corps instead decided to go out and do some smaller rifle shot 

projects that will not have the same cumulative environmental 

benefit than if some of these projects had been advanced. 

There was a very thorough process that the State went through 

to put their master plan together. In many cases the Corps of Engineers was working with them to identify priority projects. I will say 

it again, the Congress has identified projects that were authorized 

through the LCA. 

Section 1163 was designed to give the Corps some flexibility. Although I didn’t agree with the Corps’ reason initially for not spending the money on these larger restoration projects, the Corps identified what they believed were obstacles in the law. Section 1163 

was designed to provide some flexibility or relief. 

Congressman Scalise, Senator Kennedy, Senator Cassidy from 

Louisiana have all weighed in with the Corps on this and asked 

specifically for the NOV project in Plaquemines Parish and the parish president from Plaquemines have asked that the Corps instead 

look at project investments, wetlands restoration investments that 

are truly complementary to resiliency in south Louisiana, ecological 

production in south Louisiana. And I understand that that discretion is not being exercised. 

I just want to ask you, certainly if you are familiar with it, I 

would love to hear your feedback. If not, I want to ask if you could 

please consult with Colonel Clancy, with General Wehr, and see if 

we can find more reasonable use of these dollars. 

Let me say it again. Between the NOV dollars and these other 

funds, $250 million. You can do real restoration. We tried to give 

you flexibility. You may be familiar, General, we have talked about 

the environmental bank provision that we included in the WRDA 

2016 bill as well, designed to give you flexibility to make some of 

these investments where you can get greater environmental good, 

greater resiliency for the ecosystem and for the communities. And 

I see the Corps passing up these opportunities. 

Listening to the Members of this body, this committee, sitting 

here talking about lack of funding from the Corps, you reading between the lines. You are saying that you have funding challenges 

as well, I get it. And then you have opportunities like this to use 

funds and actually advance your mission and you are striking out. 

And so I want to urge you to go back and look at this. Here is 

an opportunity we are giving you to do what would be done in the 

private sector, to do what would be done if you want to have greater environmental good here. And again, I think the Corps is missing the opportunity. So I want to ask you to go back and look at 

that if you could. 

44 

General JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, I will take that up and I will 

get with General Wehr this week to figure out where the state of 

play is. I know we are working hard on the implementation guidance. But I want to make sure that I don’t miss anything in the 

discussion. Then I would like to sit down with you and just make 

sure I get your perspective so we can move this forward and take 

advantage of the opportunities Congress intended. So thank you. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Any time, any time. I am happy to 

meet and talk about this at length. Thank you. 

I am going to go to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Webster. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In the 2014 WRRDA bill there was a provision dealing with resilient construction, which I had a big interest in then, and it directed 

the use of durable and sustainable materials and resilient construction techniques to be used. 

Unfortunately, the previous administration decided that sustainability was going to be injected. And so in March of 2016, they did 

some guidance documents, which in my opinion facilitated the use 

of two of the three pigs building materials and left out the one that 

actually withstood the windstorm that came. So hay is certainly renewable, but I don’t know that it would be a part of sustainable— 

I mean of resilient construction. The same with sticks. But the 

brick, which is not renewable, would be left out. 

And my point is, is there any way that could be reversed or 

changed or is there anything you are thinking about that would 

bring about to ensure that we don’t sacrifice resiliency for something else that is less desirable in that kind of construction? 

General JACKSON. Sir, I will take this one. You and I spoke about 

this a year or so ago when we were working through the implementation guidance for this provision. So let me circle back with my 

staff and make sure I understand what the state of play is, what 

options we have to relook anything. Then I will get it with your 

staff and try to figure out how we can address the concerns that 

you just brought up. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Great. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. OK. Thank you. I am going to go to 

round two—or, I guess, round two for me. 

Another question I have is related to the Mid-Barataria sediment 

diversion project in Louisiana. You may be familiar, this project is 

very similar to a project that was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, known as the Myrtle Grove 

project. It is designed to divert water from the west side of the Mississippi River into Barataria Bay. 

The State decided, after trying to work for a few years with the 

Corps, the State decided to move on this project on their own. But 

I want to be clear that there is a very similar project that has been 

authorized in law. The State has approximately $800 million to $1 

billion in non-Federal funds available to them in the bank. 

We talked earlier about the section 408 process in response to 

Ms. Esty’s questions. It is my understanding from the State that 

we are looking at a 5-year approval process, largely attributed to 

section 408 review and Marine Mammal Protection Act work by 

NOAA, which, I understand you are not NOAA and we are going 

to work on that NOAA issue separately, but 5 years. 

45 

I want to be clear, this is an environmental restoration project, 

it doesn’t provide benefits to navigation or anything else. In fact, 

I would maybe take that back and argue that this actually will, is 

designed and will divert sediment from the Mississippi River, 

thereby hopefully reducing your O&M budget Baton Rouge to the 

gulf. But it is designed to restore the environment, restore coastal 

wetlands, restore salinity, haloclines. This is designed to be an environmental project. 

The alternative of no action means additional wetlands lost, additional loss of ecological productivity, and we are looking at a 5- 

year review process. This is supposed to be FAST–41. FAST–41 is 

5 years. This is on the dashboard. 

General SEMONITE. So, Chairman Graves, 5 years is unacceptable. You know, we got an application from the State in, in June 

of 2016. We are working. We published a notice of intent to prepare 

an EIS in April of 2017. Right now it looks like all the information 

that we are going need from the State to be able to continue to be 

able to work this, we should be done by December of 2019. That 

is still an awful long time, that is 3 years. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Wait, say that last part again, December of 2019 is what? 

General SEMONITE. December of 2019 is when we think we will 

have that required information back in and to be able to complete 

this. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Back in? 

General SEMONITE. Let me just make sure. The State—— 

General JACKSON. Sir, the State has committed to giving us the 

information that we need to inform their section 408 recommendation by December 2019, that is the date that the New Orleans District has worked with the State of Louisiana. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. So they are waiting on information 

from the State? 

General SEMONITE. They are, yes, sir. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Look, I just met with the State last 

week. This is a priority for all of us. I just want to reiterate that 

5 years is just an unacceptable timeline you are having that kind 

of money in the bank. 

Like I said, I know the onus is on us to address the NOAA 

MMPA issue and we are going to do that. But I just want to ask 

you in regard to section 408, section 404, section 10, anything else 

that you are reviewing, that this be on the front burner. 

And we don’t need to get into the debate right now, but I blame 

some of your predecessors for the land loss in Louisiana, and I am 

just asking you to be part of the solution. 

General SEMONITE. Chairman, we will take this on. Like any different process, we can crash those schedules. We will go back and 

work with the State, figure out what can we do to streamline to 

be able to get this thing done faster. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Another fun one, deferred payback. 

You may remember in 2008 the State of Louisiana and the Corps 

of Engineers signed a 30-year deferred payback agreement under 

section, what was that, 103(k) of 1986, something like that. I don’t 

remember which section it was. But it effectively allows the State 

46 

to pay back the—or to pay the non-Federal share for the hurricane 

protection system work over a 30-year period. 

When that agreement was signed, the Corps of Engineers estimates were that the HPS was going to be completed—at one point 

it was 2009, another point it was 2010. I believe when we signed 

it, it was 2011. Right now I understand that deadline is actually 

2019. And based on what I have seen, I think it could actually slip 

even a little bit more based on some of the settling and sinkage 

rates, subsidence rates of some of the levees that are being attempted to be handed over. 

So what happens under that agreement is that the interest accrues until the project is completed. So what at one point was, as 

I recall, about a $60 million annual payment, we are now looking 

at $90 million to $100 million a year. 

I am not going say that the State’s activities, including mine 

when I was there, were flawless, but these delays are not attributable largely to the State’s actions. Yet, they are the ones that are 

going to be penalized by these much higher costs annually, which 

is going to potentially, based on what I understand is the State’s 

financial situation, that they may be paying this out of the coastal 

program. 

So this is directly taking money out of the wetlands restoration 

projects and hurricane protection projects. I will make note that 

that was not the plan initially, this was going to come out of the 

general fund. 

But regardless, do you think it is appropriate for the State to 

have to pay the additional costs as a result of the delays attributable to the Corps? 

General JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, first of all, that is a huge issue, 

as I understand it. You and I have talked about this before. 

My understanding from the staff is that, according to the deferred payment agreements, the State of Louisiana can go ahead 

and pay at any time. They don’t have to wait for the project to be 

100 percent complete. 

So that is my understanding, but if my understanding is in error, 

then I want to make sure that I get that—— 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. I asked that question, and if I recall, 

and certainly don’t let me be the expert on this, if I recall, the attorneys told me that actually they were supposed to wait. But I 

will go back and circle back and make sure I understood that correctly. 

General JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, let’s circle back together so 

that all of our attorneys see the same thing, and we will make sure 

that we move forward on this together to do what is right for the 

State. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. 

IHNC lock project. As I recall, the IHNC lock and the Panama 

Canal were built sometime around the same time and they fully 

renovated the Panama Canal. IHNC lock is in dilapidated condition. And it really is amazing. This goes back to just the frustration, I think, with many members of this committee about the inability to finish projects. 

One thing that we are concerned about has to do with the traffic 

impacts of some of the bridge work. Specifically, language was inVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:02 Mar 26, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\WR\2017\7-19-2~1\26375.TXT JEAN
47 

cluded in the law that requires that the Corps of Engineers do a 

post-construction traffic study, that they are to coordinate with 

Saint Bernard Parish and the Old Arabi Neighborhood Association. 

And full disclosure, this is Congressman Scalise’s district. I have 

been asked to ask these questions. 

From what I understand from talking with those organizations, 

they have not been consulted with and that the traffic study perhaps is being considered after the fact, as opposed to informing 

some of the decisions. 

I don’t need a response because I am guessing it is a weedy 

issue, but I just want ask if you could go back and please review 

the law, review the obligations of the Corps of Engineers in this 

case. And, again, Saint Bernard Parish, Old Arabi Neighborhood 

Association, please do work with them to address concerns. And I 

think this should be done on the front end versus the back end to 

inform decisionmaking as opposed to trying to come back and mitigating after the fact. 

Congressman Lowenthal hit on the section 1122, which is the 

beneficial use of dredged material. General, once again, I view this 

as an opportunity for the Corps to expand the available resources 

of the Corps, beneficially using that dredged material to advance 

your ecological restoration projects. 

And in the case of Louisiana, it is a perfect example, I know 

there are many other examples around the Nation, we are double 

handling sediment. It doesn’t make any sense from a cost-effectiveness perspective. I am concerned that the Corps of Engineers has 

a big fat wall between their CG program and their O&M program, 

between their ecological restoration and their navigation maintenance. 

And I think this is an opportunity for the Corps to see much 

greater benefit by coordinating activities, not double handling material, talking to States and non-Federal sponsors in some cases 

about paying the incremental cost of perhaps moving that material 

an extra half mile in some cases. 

But at the end of the day, it is going to significantly reduce backlog, it is going to advance some of the projects that we have for ecological restoration. And I urge you to please look at opportunities 

there. 

General SEMONITE. Chairman, I am in violent agreement with 

you. There is a lot we have got to continue to do with regional sediment management. We have seen some areas we have had great 

successes, New York Harbor is a good example. 

But I think throughout the Corps we have got to do a better job. 

Some of our ports are actually running out of areas to be able to 

put sediment. So the more that we can figure out how to be able 

to cut those costs down it is to everybody’s advantage. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. I had a number of Members, including Mr. DeFazio, talked about Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 

and concerns with dredging and certainly for navigation channels. 

Hearing the President talk about America First, talking about the 

need for us to advance our economy, increase our global competitiveness, and then watching these nav channels silt up and not be 

maintained at authorized depths is frustrating. It seems like it is 

contradictory. 

48 

And I remember that the previous President established a goal 

of doubling exports for this Nation by, what was it, 2015, I believe, 

and that goal wasn’t even close to being met. And I think part of 

it was the lack of complementary investment in infrastructure, 

such as ports and waterways. 

In the case of the Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and 

Black project, again, another navigation channel affecting the Port 

of Morgan City, we have the Houma Navigation Canal in 

Terrebonne Parish is another one, all of these—Calcasieu River— 

all these ports come visit with us and talk about this lack of navigational certainty. Even the Mississippi River has had navigation 

restrictions. 

I signed a letter together with Congressman DeFazio asking the 

President to dedicate the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, to fully 

dedicate it and the remaining balance. I think that is what should 

be done. I think it is going to address this backlog. And I think, 

quite frankly, it is the honest thing to do in regard to budgeting. 

But section 1113 of the WIIN Act does allow non-Federal interests to carry out dredging activities in cases when the draft is not 

meeting authorized levels. It has been 8 months since that bill has 

been signed into law. There has been no implementation guidance 

the last I saw. Could you give me a timeline on when that is going 

to be done? 

General SEMONITE. You said 1118? 1113? 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. I tell you what—— 

General JACKSON. We will get back with you, sir. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA [continuing]. I am going to go ahead 

and go to the gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa, while you 

are digging around. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Earlier this year, in northern California, we were all aware of 

the Oroville Dam and the challenges there with a lake that thankfully it was able to fill this year. I love to see full lakes. So with 

some issues with it, with the spillway, the main spillway breaking. 

And then a rapid rise of water that ended up utilizing for the first 

time in 50 years the emergency spillway system at the lake. And 

there was great concern since it hadn’t been used before and erosion that happened on a mud hillside instead of a concrete apron 

area, that there was fear of collapse of part of that infrastructure, 

which would have had obviously big effects with at least a 30-foot 

head of water behind that. 

So with that uncontrolled flow and with that high amount of flow 

during that time and a lack of maintenance and some other issues 

with the levee system farther down the Feather River reaching 

through Butte County, Yuba, and Sutter County, several breaches 

of this levee system require emergency repairs. Indeed they were 

having to spend effort and money during February and March to 

go out there and shore it up just to get through the season. And 

the lost opportunity from the previous year of actually making the 

permanent repairs that would have been done, now we have good 

money going after bad of those repairs not having been done. So 

they shored that up. 

So my understanding now, the only thing standing in the way of 

these repairs is a signoff from the San Francisco Division of the 

49 

Corps, and here we are on July 19 for a problem we knew about 

in February or March. We have known it actually for years. 

Can the gentlemen from Corps update me on something hopefully right now that shows that they are ready to sign off or the 

signoff has been done for that Yuba, Sutter area? Well, the Feather 

River system levee projects need to be done and certainly we 

should we be well aware of. 

Please, Major General Jackson. 

General JACKSON. Yes, sir. I don’t have the specifics to answer 

the question. I know that the answer is out there. Let me get with 

South Pacific Division and let me circle back with you and your 

staff and give you the answer that you are looking for. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. I appreciate it. Because, again, they stand at 

the ready to make this project happen. It is needed and people are 

dependent upon this for the safety of the area. 

So maybe Mr. Lamont here, on the Sutter Basin Project being 

carried out by the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency, a local entity, during the discussion about the Corps workplan for 2017, do 

you know how the Corps will further involve and increase the use 

of non-Federal resources to decrease the amount of time and money 

it would take to complete water projects like this? Because they 

stand ready to go and they can do things very fast, very efficiently, 

lower cost. 

Can you tell what the Corps’ plan is to further involve a local 

agency like is a SBFCA. 

Mr. LAMONT. Mr. Congressman, I understand there was a bit of 

a disparity between the Corps district and the sponsor on the 

project cost and the ability to move forward. And that got caught 

up in our timeframe on developing not only the fiscal year 2017 

workplan, but also the fiscal year 2018 budget. And I am hopeful 

that that can be resolved as quickly as possible so we can look 

strongly at this one as a contender for fiscal year 2018 workplan 

funding. 

Mr. LAMALFA. 2018. What about 2017? Again we need to signoff 

from the San Francisco Corps Division. Can we come back to that? 

Because we are burning daylight. It is July 19, and they need to 

be doing this, otherwise we are subjecting ourselves to another 

year of risk, another year of winter patch-up jobs to keep boils from 

happening at the edge of the levees. Can you elaborate? 

Mr. LAMONT. PED, preconstruction engineering and design, was 

funded in fiscal year 2017 to continue the process to get it ready 

for new start construction consideration. So we are not losing any 

time on that aspect. The time that you are concerned about was, 

did it get a new start designation, which it did not this year, that 

is true. 

Mr. LAMALFA. General Jackson, why would that not be—why 

wouldn’t we be it getting that new start? 

General JACKSON. I don’t know. Mr. Lamont, you are going have 

to answer that. I am not sure why we did not get a new start. But 

it has to compete with all the other projects that are out there to 

compete for new starts. 

Mr. LAMONT. Right. My understanding in talking with folks from 

my office in concert with the Corps is that it just wasn’t ready to 

go. I will look more clearly into this for you and get you a specific 

50 

answer as to what the problem was and to try to resolve this and 

get this for consideration for the next cycle. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Not ready to go certainly wouldn’t reflect any of 

the local effort—— 

Mr. LAMONT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LAMALFA [continuing]. For local funding or local ability or 

input on that. It would merely be Federal Government dithering, 

what we are talking about here, and that is very, very frustrating. 

We have some people extremely motivated and concerned in the 

community. This is an area that had almost 200,000 people evacuate due to the various factors here, whether it was the dam spillway itself or the levee system that is on the edge in some areas. 

And they are darn tired of it. And so we need answers on that. And 

I would appreciate them. 

And I will yield back because I am over time. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. 

Look, in wrapping up, I want to say, one, I appreciate you being 

here. I appreciate your endurance today. 

I want to circle back to what I said at the beginning. The mission 

you have is absolutely critical to this Nation, whether it is facilitating maritime commerce from global trade, it is improving the resiliency of our communities, improving the resiliency of our ecosystem. These are critical missions to the Nation. They are fundamental. 

And the implementation schedules that we have seen are simply 

unacceptable. The West Shore Project in Louisiana was in a study 

phase for 42 years before the report being finished last year, which 

I do appreciate, but 42 years. 

You can never explain, justify those types of schedules to any 

taxpayer and we shouldn’t ever have to. It is unacceptable. 

And moving forward, we have an opportunity, I think. I think 

there is a strong desire on both sides of this committee to change 

things, to give the tools we need to actually get these projects completed. 

I think there were a number of tools in the 2014 and 2016 bill 

in many cases where the implementation guidance has not been 

finished. I am looking, there were sections where the 2014 bill said 

that within 90 days of enactment certain things needed to happen, 

and we still don’t even have implementation guidance from those. 

Other cases 180 days. We are over 3 years later. 

In the 2016 bill, again, 90 days, 180 days, 180 days, 180 days, 

180 days of enactment. The Secretary shall do X. And these things 

aren’t happening. 

I will say what I said before, I don’t understand how the Corps 

can go enforce laws and say to the American taxpayer, you have 

to comply with this law, yet the Corps itself is ignoring many laws 

that we write here on this committee. 

It is one thing that really bothers me personally, I know it bothers a lot of members of this committee that accountability is not 

happening. And it is something that we are going to work on to 

make sure that moving forward we don’t have these continued 

lapses. 

51 

It is in our shared interest. I know that Congress has culpability 

and responsibility to make sure that we are cleaning up laws, providing streamlined processes and appropriate resources to get 

things done. We need to work together to do these things. We are 

talking about an infrastructure package moving forward. 

The Corps’ regulatory practices and others are all going to be integral to the success of this. The last thing in the world we need 

is to have $1 trillion sitting in the bank because we can’t spend it 

because we are stuck on preconstruction activities. 

And so I want to work together with you all and many other 

stakeholders and this committee included—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA [continuing]. On putting together a 

process that recognizes the urgency, is corresponding to the urgency of many of these projects around the Nation that we need to 

build. 

Mr. LaMalfa. 

Mr. LAMALFA. I am sorry. I would like to point out an irony here. 

You said a 42-year wait on a project. Tomorrow will be the 48th 

anniversary of landing on the moon. So we put a man on the moon 

48 years ago tomorrow and we have 42-year lags in doing projects 

on Earth here. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. And that was 42 years just to finish 

the study on a project that we haven’t even gotten the first penny 

of construction funds on yet. 

General SEMONITE. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is unacceptable. 

We all know that. I think we are all committed to continue to be 

able to figure out how to make recommendations to the process so 

we can streamline this and get back to these answers to the American public. They deserve that. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. I appreciate it very much. 

As you know, I mentioned early on, I am sure we will have some 

questions for the record, and I would appreciate your prompt responses to those, in addition to following up on some of the other 

things where you committed to do so. 

If no other Members have anything else to add, the committee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:44 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

52 


Insert offset folio 7 here 26375.007
53 


Insert offset folio 8 here 26375.008
54 


Insert offset folio 9 here 26375.009
55 


Insert offset folio 10 here 26375.010
56 


Insert offset folio 11 here 26375.011
57 


Insert offset folio 12 here 26375.012
58 


Insert offset folio 13 here 26375.013
59 


Insert offset folio 14 here 26375.014
60 


Insert offset folio 15 here 26375.015
61 


Insert offset folio 16 here 26375.016
62 


Insert offset folio 17 here 26375.017
63 


Insert offset folio 18 here 26375.018
64 


Insert offset folio 19 here 26375.019
65 


Insert offset folio 20 here 26375.020
66 


Insert offset folio 21 here 26375.021
67 


Insert offset folio 22 here 26375.022
68 


Insert offset folio 23 here 26375.023
69 


Insert offset folio 24 here 26375.024
70 


Insert offset folio 25 here 26375.025
71 


Insert offset folio 26 here 26375.026
72 


Insert offset folio 27 here 26375.027
73 


Insert offset folio 28 here 26375.028
74 


Insert offset folio 29 here 26375.029
75 


Insert offset folio 30 here 26375.030
76 


Insert offset folio 31 here 26375.031
77 


Insert offset folio 32 here 26375.032
78 


Insert offset folio 33 here 26375.033
79 


Insert offset folio 34 here 26375.034
80 


Insert offset folio 35 here 26375.035
81 


Insert offset folio 36 here 26375.036
82 


Insert offset folio 37 here 26375.037
83 


Insert offset folio 38 here 26375.038
84 


Insert offset folio 39 here 26375.039
85 


Insert offset folio 40 here 26375.040
86 


Insert offset folio 41 here 26375.041
87 


Insert offset folio 42 here 26375.042
88 


Insert offset folio 43 here 26375.043
89 


Insert offset folio 44 here 26375.044
90 


Insert offset folio 45 here 26375.045
91 


Insert offset folio 46 here 26375.046
92 


Insert offset folio 47 here 26375.047
93 


Insert offset folio 48 here 26375.048
94 


Insert offset folio 49 here 26375.049
95 


Insert offset folio 50 here 26375.050
96 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 51 here 26375.051