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

28–873 PDF 2018

S. HRG. 115–189 

AMERICA’S WATER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS 

AND CHALLENGES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 10, 2018 

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

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

GABRIELLE BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JANUARY 10, 2018 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Robinson, Scott, Port Director, Muscogee City-County Port Authority .............. 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Cassidy, Hon. Bill, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................. 47 

Ufner, Julie, Associate Legislative Director, National Association of Counties . 48 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Sanders ............................. 64 

Friedman, William, Chairman-Elect, American Association of Port Authorities ......................................................................................................................... 66 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68 

Carter, Nicole T., Specialist, Natural Resources Policy, Congressional Research Service ....................................................................................................... 73 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 75 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Barrasso ........................... 100 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 102 

Cochran, Steve, Associate Vice President for Coastal Protection, Environmental Defense Fund, and Director, Restore the Mississippi Delta Coalition ........................................................................................................................ 105 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 108 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 137 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Letter to Senators Barrasso and Carper from the National Audubon Society, 

January 10, 2018 .................................................................................................. 157 

Letter to Lieutenant General Todd T. Semonite, Commanding General and 

Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, from the State of Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, October 18, 2017 ......... 166 

State of Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority White Paper: 

Environmental Review and Permitting Process Challenges for Louisiana’s 

Coastal Program ................................................................................................... 191 

(1) 

AMERICA’S WATER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS 

AND CHALLENGES 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2018 

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

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso (Chairman of 

the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Capito, Boozman, 

Wicker, Fischer, Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan, Whitehouse, Merkley, 

Gillibrand, Markey, and Van Hollen. 

Also present: Senator Cassidy. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Good morning. I call this hearing to order. 

Today we are holding a hearing to highlight the importance of 

passing a new Water Resource Development Act, or WRDA, during 

the 115th Congress. WRDA is the bill that authorizes funding for 

the Army Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works Program. In order to 

write good legislation, we must consider the effectiveness of past 

WRDA provisions, the status of their implementation, as well as 

our country’s future water infrastructure needs. 

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has jurisdiction over much of our nation’s water infrastructure, including 

locks and dams, inland waterways, and ports. Prior Congresses 

have traditionally passed WRDAs on a bi-annual basis, going back 

to—Jim, what, 1986? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

Senator BARRASSO. Unlike other contentious issues, historically 

Republicans and Democrat members of the Senate Environment 

and Public Works Committee have been able to work together and 

pass WRDA legislation. To put it another way, this is legislation 

that moves. Regardless of party affiliation, we understand that 

these kinds of investments are far too important to our economy 

and security to fall victim to partisan politics. 

The members of this Committee represent a diverse group of 

communities with different needs. Our Committee has members 

that represent Baltimore, Maryland, and Anchorage, Alaska; Des 

Moines, Iowa, and Mobile, Alabama; Greybull, Wyoming; Wilmington, Delaware. The citizenry and millions of other Americans 

expect Congress to do its job by passing WRDA legislation to grow 

their economies and to keep them safe. 

2 

When it comes to rural areas in particular, many communities 

depend on Corps projects for their existence. Congress must act to 

make it easier for the Corps to prevent flooding and to modernize 

levees. We must find better solutions to minimize ice jams, such as 

those that caused the Big Horn River to flood small, rural communities such as Worland and Greybull, Wyoming. Ice jams are a 

major public safety concern for towns which can’t afford the out of 

control costs that come with severe flooding. 

In Wyoming and other western States, rural communities still 

face challenges associated with providing long term water supply 

and storage. Federal water storage facilities out west continue to 

lose existing space as a result of sediment build up. This is a major 

problem for western State economies, which have rapidly growing 

populations, significant ranching and farming communities, and 

enlarging energy industries. I believe the Corps and the Bureau of 

Reclamation need to work together to address this challenge. 

It is my hope that this Committee will work forward to find solutions in a bipartisan way to meet our country’s water infrastructure needs for urban areas as well. Our nation’s ports on our coasts 

and inland waterways are just as vital to the country’s economic 

well being. Goods, commodities, and raw materials from the heartland of America go through these ports for export. In Wyoming, our 

soda ash—the key component of making glass—gets shipped out of 

the Port of Portland, Oregon. We all have a vested interest in 

maintaining these ports, which are vital arteries of commerce. 

So I urge my colleagues to work with me in a bipartisan way to 

find these solutions to the enactment of the WRDA bill in 2018. 

With that, I will now turn to the Ranking Member of the Committee for his comments. 

Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks very much 

for pulling this together. 

Thanks to all of our witnesses for taking time to share with us. 

This is a really important issue, and encouragingly, an issue that 

we might actually be able to work on together and get something 

done. In past years Senator Inhofe, working with Senator Barbara 

Boxer, they have been good at showing us how this is done. So 

hopefully, we won’t screw up a good thing. With your help, that 

will be the case. 

I want to say that this is an extremely important authorization 

that we do about every 2 years. The most recent authorization expires this December. As we all know, coastal issues are extremely 

important to Delaware. But as the Chairman just said—in what I 

thought was a very good statement—you don’t have to be on a 

coast; you don’t have to be in Massachusetts; you don’t have to be 

in Rhode Island or Delaware in order to have a real strong interest 

in this issue. It affects us all every day. 

Delaware’s economic reliance on the Corps’ work is not unique. 

Ninety-nine percent of the U.S. overseas trade volume—over 99 

percent—moves through coastal channels that the Corps maintains. Additionally, the Corps’ inland waterways and locks form a 

3 

freight network. Think of it, if you will, as a water highway, connecting waterways and ports and providing direct access to international markets. They also serve as critical infrastructure for the 

U.S. military. 

In addition to navigation, the Corps of Engineers also works to 

reduce the risk to human safety and property damage from flooding. Flooding alone currently costs the United States billions of dollars annually. 

As the 2017 hurricane system illustrated, our nation needs to be 

a resilient one that is ready for the next storm or flood or drought 

event. Because they are coming. In fact, just this week, we were 

told by NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, they announced that in 2017, total costs for extreme weather 

and climate events exceeded $300 billion. If that seems like a lot 

of money, it is. That is a new annual record in the U.S. So it is 

clearly not a matter of if the next extreme weather event is coming; 

it is just a matter of when. 

Together, the Corps’ navigation and flood risk management activities account for more than 70 percent of the agency’s annual 

civil works appropriation. But the Corps has or shares jurisdiction 

over many other critical civil works programs as well, including environmental stewardship, hydropower, recreation, emergency management, and water supply. 

Unfortunately, in the mid-1980s, Federal funding for new project 

construction and major rehabilitation began to steadily decline. 

With this trend, the Corps’ actions have shifted to operations, to 

maintenance, to rehabilitation of existing infrastructure, and a 

backlog of deferred maintenance has continued to grow ever since. 

As a result, much of the Corps’ infrastructure is now exceeding 

its useful lifespan. 

We have a couple of graphics here. I am looking here at one 

Christine is holding up for us. It was provided by our friends from 

the American Association of Port Authorities; a busy chart, but a 

good one, nonetheless. Everybody should have it at your desk, a 

copy of this. About $66 billion in investment in port related infrastructure is needed over the next decade to ensure U.S. job creation 

and economic growth; over $66 billion in investment in port related 

infrastructure is needed over the next 10 years to ensure that the 

U.S. job creation and economic growth continues. 

We have another graphic also provided by the American Association of Port Authorities. As this graphic shows, investment in our 

freight network, which is an interconnected network of ships, 

barges, trucks, and trains, is essential to the safe and efficient 

movement of goods, both into and out of the United States. This 

freight network serves as the backbone of our economy; it is not 

just ships; it is not just barges; it is not just trains; it is not just 

trucks; it is all of the above and more. 

With respect to flood damage risk, the American Association of 

Civil Engineers Infrastructure Report Card tells us an unsettling 

story, with dams and levees and inland waterways grading out at 

a D, receiving a grade of D. Deplorable. Representing an overall cumulative investment backlog of nearly $140 billion and an authorized but unconstructed portfolio of another $60 billion. 

4 

The Corps faces a sizable math problem as they try to service that roughly $200 billion—if you have the $140 billion and add 

that to the $60 billion requirement, and more. Match that up, if 

you will, with an annual budget that hovers around $4.6 billion. 

The math just doesn’t work, does it? 

Clearly, we have a lot of important work to do. We need to work 

in a bipartisan fashion, if we are to really address these concerns 

and build consensus on a path forward, in a smart, cost efficient 

way, leveraging both green as well as gray infrastructure solutions. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing. We all look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

I want to submit for the record these letters of acclaim for the 

newest member of our Committee. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. I just want to say, Chris, welcome aboard. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. [Remarks made off microphone]. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Harris came up to me yesterday at the 

Caucus lunch and she said, ‘‘I’m moving off your Committee.’’ I 

said, ‘‘I know, we are sorry to hear that.’’ She said, ‘‘It’s not because 

I’m not interested in the issues, I’m keenly interested in the issues 

and very much want to be part of your extended family.’’ I thought 

we could work that out. 

But for an attorney general, somebody that is going to be on the 

Judiciary Committee, if you can get there, I think it is a good thing 

for her. She will still be part of our team. 

Thanks very much. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

5 


28873.001
6 


28873.002
7 


28873.003
8 


28873.004
9 

Senator BARRASSO. We would like to welcome Senator Van Hollen to the Committee. We now, with you and Senator Cardin, and 

since my mom grew up in Maryland working in Dundalk, Maryland, a summer job, I can tell you with two of you from Maryland 

and this history, that now we can make sure that the Chesapeake 

Bay is fully protected. I know that is an issue. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I will say no more. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Welcome to the Committee. 

We are now going to hear from our witnesses. We are going to 

start with an introduction in a second from Senator Inhofe. 

We have Mr. Scott Robinson; we have Ms. Julie Ufner, who is 

the Associate Legislative Director of the National Association of 

Counties. We have Mr. William Friedman, who is the ChairmanElect of the American Association of Port Authorities; Ms. Nicole 

Carter, the Natural Resources Policy Specialist for the Congressional Research Service; and Mr. Steven Cochran, who is the Associate Vice President for Coastal Protection, Restore the Mississippi 

Delta Coalition. 

And I believe Senator Cassidy is going to be here in a few moments to introduce Mr. Cochran. 

But if I could start by asking Senator Inhofe to please introduce 

our guest. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that, 

and also having the presence of Scott Robinson here. He has spent 

a lot of time in this business, and we have become good friends. 

I have to say one thing, though, building a little bit on what Senator Carper just said. It is not just the coastal States that we are 

interested in. We are, in Oklahoma, America’s most inland warm 

water port. Now, the problem is, nobody knows it. And I remember 

back when I was in the State Senate, many years ago—in fact, it 

was back in the 1970s—we conceived something that we thought, 

we are going to tell the whole world that we are navigable in Oklahoma. 

So the World War II submarine veterans came in, we worked out 

a deal. They said, if you can procure a submarine, we have figured 

out a way to get it all the way up from Texas to Oklahoma. Now, 

we are talking about a submarine, the USS Batfish, it was the 

length of a football field, a huge thing. And all my adversaries were 

saying, we are going to sink Inhofe with his submarine. 

Nonetheless, we got it up there, and there it is, in your port, Port 

of Muscogee, a 300 foot submarine that shows the world that we 

are in fact an inland port. 

So Scott, it is nice to have you here. You have a tremendous 

background there. You have been at the Port of Muscogee for 28 

years now, with more than 1,000 acres of land within the jurisdiction of the Port that is poised to continue its growth and provide 

several transportation options for Oklahoma industries. 

Scott has been active in the waterway communities, serving on 

a variety of related boards and commissions, including the National 

Waterways Conference, the Marine Transportation System, National Advisory Council, Arkansas-Oklahoma Port Operators Association. So it is great to have you here. You bring a lot of knowledge to this meeting, and I appreciate it. 

10 

Mr. ROBINSON. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe, for that 

introduction. It is good to see you. I could spend my 5 minutes talking about stories about you, but I won’t do that. 

Senator BARRASSO. We will extend your opportunity. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Don’t feel limited to 5 minutes if you are 

going to talk about him. 

But I do want to remind all the witnesses that your full testimony will be made part of the official hearing records, and except 

for Mr. Robinson, I would ask you please to keep your statement 

to 5 minutes, so that we will have time for questions. 

Mr. Robinson. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT ROBINSON, PORT DIRECTOR, 

MUSCOGEE CITY-COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY 

Mr. ROBINSON. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, 

members of the Committee, it is an honor and a privilege to testify 

before you here today about America’s infrastructure needs and the 

importance of WRDA 2018. Thank you for this opportunity to contribute my thoughts. 

I am, as Senator Inhofe said, Scott Robinson, Port Director, Port 

of Muscogee. I have been there since 1990. The Port of Muscogee 

is one of two public ports in Oklahoma and one of five in Oklahoma 

and Arkansas. 

I commend the Committee for the work it has accomplished 

through 2014 and 2016 WRDA legislation. As I hope to illustrate 

further in my testimony today, the absence of regularly enacted 

WRDA legislation during the period 2001 through 2013 caused serious harm to an important infrastructure development project 

along the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, 

which in the interest of time I will refer as NKARNS. The 

NKARNS is a 445 mile, multi-purpose waterway that runs through 

Arkansas and Oklahoma. Completed in 1970 at a cost of $1.2 billion, it was the largest Federal investment ever made in a civil 

works project, connecting the two States—Oklahoma and Arkansas—with domestic river ports and terminals along the inland waterways of the United States and with ports all over the world via 

the Port of New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico. 

In 2015 there was a regional impact study for the NKARNS conducted and published, documenting the impacts, $8.5 billion in 

sales, 55,000 jobs, $289 million in taxes to the national economy. 

You will find a copy of that in Attachment A to my testimony. At 

Attachment D you will find a letter signed by the President of the 

Arkansas-Oklahoma Port Operators Association, endorsing its priorities for the NKARNS. You will find my briefing that we made 

to the Congress and to stakeholders and congressional staffers in 

Attachments B and C. 

I would like to take a few minutes to talk about three infrastructure priorities for the NKARNS, and in doing so, hopefully give this 

Committee a glimpse of waterway infrastructure needs of the nation. No. 1 priority was modification of an existing structure, the 

Molenda structure. Near the confluence of the NKARNS and the 

Mississippi River, the Arkansas River and the White River are trying to come together. Every time it floods, the Corps has to spend 

11 

money trying to fix the problem. Failure is imminent, and a solution is imperative. 

The prominent solution to the problem will soon come out of a 

Corps study now in progress, that is cost shared by the State of Arkansas. Once the study is completed, and the chief’s recommendation is issued, the Molenda structure will face new start and cost 

share hurdles. Until then, the NKARNS is at risk of failure. 

No. 2, backlog of critical maintenance. There is a serious and 

growing backlog of deferred maintenance on the NKARNS, 

$143 million of which is deemed critical by the Corps of Engineers. 

The Corps defines critical maintenance as having a 50 percent 

chance of failure within 5 years. 

In March 2017 there were 42 such critical maintenance items on 

the NKARNS. More alarming than that, the critical backlog is 

growing rapidly. In his testimony to this Committee in 2016, Tulsa 

Port of Catoosa’s Director Bob Porter expressed concern that the 

critical backlog had reached $70 million. So that is twice as much 

today. 

The problem on the NKARNS is no different than the problem 

faced all across the nation. In order to spread too little funding too 

far, we are fixing critically important infrastructure as close to failure as possible, and in some cases after it fails and on an emergency basis. This is not an acceptable asset management strategy. 

It is a prescription for failure. 

No. 3 was the 12 foot channel and the vacuum created by the absence of regularly enacted WRDA legislation before 2014 and 2016 

WRDA. Congress, in Section 136 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2004, authorized the deepening of the 

NKARNS from 9 to 12 feet. In the 2005 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, $7 million was appropriated for the 

channel deepening; $5.5 million was used in 2006 for design and 

construction activities, which reduced the $172 million estimated 

project cost by a like amount. In 2009 the Corps expressed a 

$49 million capability, but it never ended up in the President’s 

budget. 

In Oklahoma we call this the WEWOKA switch. I don’t have 

time to explain. Suffice to say, being lost in the WEWOKA switch 

is not good. The Committee can rescue the 12 foot channel and resolve the new start dilemma by including clarification language in 

WRDA 2018 as follows: Congress finds that the initial funding was 

provided and construction started on a 12 foot navigation channel 

of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, as directed in Section 136 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, thereby meeting the new start requirements. 

In conclusion, according to the Institute of Water Resources, from 

2010 through 2012, the Civil Works Program of the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers provided an annual estimated national 

economic development net benefit of $87 billion and stimulated 

$27 billion in returns to the U.S. Treasury. Sixteen to one returns 

in terms of economic benefits and five to one return in revenue to 

the Treasury. Waterways investment is a wise investment. 

If there is finally going to be a comprehensive infrastructure reinvestment plan, then my plea on behalf of NKARNS stakeholders 

is that it not be just for roads and bridges, but for waterways, too. 

12 

Not just for deep draft coastal ports and harbors, but inland waterways as well, together with modern, multi-modal connections, truck 

and rail, for efficient, competitive movement of freight. 

To the extent waterway projects are favorably considered in such 

an infrastructure reinvestment plan and require private investment as leverage, then the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program, created in WRDA 2014, may be just the tool 

necessary to track such investment in projects for which the Inland 

Waterway Trust Fund Revenues are not sufficient to share. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy 

to answer any questions you may have. 

I realize I have gone over my time. If you want me to tell some 

of those stories, I will. 

[Laughter.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Robinson follows:] 

13 


28873.005
14 


28873.006
15 


28873.007
16 


28873.008
17 


28873.009
18 


28873.010
19 


28873.011
20 


28873.012
21 


28873.013
22 


28873.014
23 


28873.015
24 


28873.016
25 


28873.017
26 


28873.018
27 


28873.019
28 


28873.020
29 


28873.021
30 


28873.022
31 


28873.023
32 


28873.024
33 


28873.025
34 


28873.026
35 


28873.027
36 


28873.028
37 


28873.029
38 


28873.030
39 


28873.031
40 


28873.032
41 


28873.033
42 


28873.034
43 


28873.035
44 


28873.036
45 


28873.037
46 


28873.038
47 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Robinson. 

Before moving to Ms. Ufner, I would like to invite Senator Cassidy, if this is a convenient time for you to introduce your guest 

here today. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL CASSIDY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator CASSIDY. Steve Cochran is sitting behind me; I gather he 

is on the next panel. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to introduce him. 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper and other members, thank you again for allowing me to introduce Steve Cochran, 

a dedicated Louisiana public servant. Steve has worked for many 

years in pursuit of a long term solution that will restore and protect Louisiana’s incredibly fragile coastal ecosystem. He has worked 

with former Louisiana Congressmen then-Governor Buddy Roemer, 

the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, the Mississippi River 

Delta Coalition and the Environmental Defense Fund, which 

makes him uniquely qualified to speak to the need of an integrated 

strategy that utilizes innovative approaches to restore wetlands 

and support coastal ecosystems. 

Now, coastal Louisiana is losing land as we speak. As we speak, 

there is something on a Google map that looks green that if you 

really had an updated Google map would no longer look green, it 

would now look like open water. That is the crisis we have. It poses 

a serious threat to our State, to our communities, and upon our 

State’s and nation’s economy. It has required our State to develop, 

in a bipartisan fashion, a comprehensive plan referred to as the 

Louisiana Comprehensive Master Plan for Sustainable Coasts, a 

$50 billion over 50 years plan to restore Louisiana’s coast, based 

on sound scientific and modeling principles required to be updated 

every 5 years. 

While Louisiana is prepared to implement projects detailed in 

the master plan, the problem is the environmental review and permitting processes challenges that threaten to stop these projects 

from going forward. Currently, the average timeframe for the government to approve a Federal project is close to 5 years. Now, remember I said we are losing coastline like this minute? We get 5 

years to permit something, and by that time, there has been dramatic change. 

This timeframe is unacceptable given the magnitude of the 

threat to Louisiana’s coastline. Revising the permitting approach 

for the Corps and for other agencies, particularly where multiple 

Federal agencies are involved, is critical, so that regulations focus 

on finding ways to expedite consideration of long term ecosystem 

projects that restore wetlands and protect communities, rather 

than maintain the current short term regulatory focus that again 

only seems to impede these important projects from moving forward. 

The Mid-Barataria Bay Sediment Diversion, a WRDA authorized 

project south of New Orleans, offers a textbook example of the need 

to increase transparency and improve coordination between Federal agencies. The Diversion will take freshwater and sediment 

48 

from the Mississippi into threatened wetlands on the western side 

of the river to be able to sustain new and existing wetlands. 

Now, the existing regulatory hurdles in multiple Federal agencies will likely lead to multi-year permitting delays for this and 

other large ecosystem restoration projects, resulting in the loss of 

more Louisiana coast. 

I look forward to working with this Committee to restore the 

Mississippi River Delta Coalition, the Corps of Engineers, and 

other interested parties, to update and modernize the Federal permitting process in the next WRDA reauthorization bill, so that we 

are better able to sustain coastal environments and communities in 

both Louisiana and across the nation. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning to introduce Mr. Cochran. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Cassidy. I 

know you have other pressing matters. You are welcome to stay as 

long as you like. I appreciate your coming here today to introduce 

Mr. Cochran. 

Now I would like to call on Ms. Julie Ufner, who is the Associate 

Legislative Director for the National Association of Counties. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JULIE UFNER, ASSOCIATE LEGISLATIVE 

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 

Ms. UFNER. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper and members of the Committee. 

I am honored to testify before you today on water infrastructure 

needs and challenges. My name is Julie Ufner. I am from the National Association of Counties. We represent the nation’s 3,069 

counties. 

I have been asked to share with you our western counties’ experiences with the Water Resources Development Act, how we use 

WRDA to work with the Army Corps to keep our communities safe. 

Consider this: counties own 45 percent of the nation’s road miles 

and close to 40 percent of the nation’s bridges, along with harbors, 

ports, inland waterways, levees, dams. These play vital roles to 

keep our economy safe. 

This especially plays out in the west, where water issues can be 

more complex. The Federal Government owns vast tracts of land 

within counties, which prevents counties from raising property 

taxes. Yet we are still responsible for law enforcement and emergency services on these lands, while also protecting our residents 

on non-Federal lands. 

The Federal Government owns 97 percent of the land in the cityborough of Juneau, Alaska, which leaves the borough of 33,000 

with only 3 percent of usable land. They are highly dependent on 

tourism, mining, and fishing to drive their $2.6 billion economy. A 

large part of their success comes from WRDA funding that helps 

them maintain those navigation channels leading to their port. 

In Park County, Wyoming, a community of 30,000 residents and 

comprised of 81 percent public lands, in the last year has had 

mountain flooding and ice jams. This has resulted in flooding which 

has destroyed county bridges and roads, many of which lead to the 

49 

gateways of the national parks. The county is now working with 

the Army Corps and FEMA to replace these structures. 

But WRDA could do more. Counties have aging infrastructure in 

their communities, some of which is close to 100 years old. We have 

a limited pot of funds to pay for this. One example, Tuolumne 

County, California, where the local economy of 54,000 is almost 

solely dependent on an old wooden flume and ditch system for its 

water, which was built in the 1850s. This flume is located in a 

heavily overgrown national forest, which is vulnerable to wildfires. 

If it were destroyed, the community would be without water for 

months. It would take over a year to rebuild, devastating the local 

economy. 

Additionally, some Federal regulations slow down construction 

and significantly increase costs for public safety projects. Orange 

County, California, maintains several hundred miles of flood control channels that are intended to protect homes, businesses, and 

roads from flooding. But for maintenance activity in these channels, such as cleaning out debris, the county is required to obtain 

Section 404 permits from the Army Corps of Engineers. 

It took the county approximately 3 years to obtain the permit, 

which mandated them to clear 13 acres of vegetation and required 

20 acres of mitigation at a cost of over $3.5 million for a permit 

that is only valid for 5 years. This is not an isolated example. 

Additionally, our counties note that there are challenges within 

the existing Army Corps structure, which includes cumbersome and 

complex requirements, the length of time that it takes to complete 

water studies, limited funding, and competing agency requirements. Congress has a unique opportunity to address this issue. 

We are encouraged by the Senate’s stated commitment to complete 

a WRDA bill this year. 

We look forward to working with you to identify ways in which 

we can address challenges within the Section 404 permitting program for public safety infrastructure. We would also like to address 

funding needs, because without WRDA and the Army Corps, our 

counties would not have been able to accomplish the multitude of 

projects that we have been able to carry out in the past several 

decades. 

Finally, we encourage Congress to provide a framework of meaningful consultation between the Army Corps of Engineers and State 

and local government partners on pending rules and policies that 

directly impact those entities. We believe that this will solve many 

of the conflicts that now exist between the Army Corps and its 

intergovernmental partners. Simply put, WRDA is a project that 

works. Together, we can work to make the partnership stronger. 

On behalf of NACo, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I 

would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ufner follows:] 

50 


28873.039
51 


28873.040
52 


28873.041
53 


28873.042
54 


28873.043
55 


28873.044
56 


28873.045
57 


28873.046
58 


28873.047
59 


28873.048
60 


28873.049
61 


28873.050
62 


28873.051
63 


28873.052
64 


28873.053
65 


28873.054
66 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Ms. Ufner. We appreciate your being here today. 

I would like to turn now to Mr. William Friedman, who is the 

Chairman-Elect of the American Association of Port Authorities. 

Thanks so much for joining us today. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM FRIEDMAN, CHAIRMAN-ELECT, 

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, 

Ranking Member Carper, and members of the Committee. I want 

to thank you for the opportunity to provide remarks to the Environment and Public Works Committee on America’s water infrastructure needs and challenges. 

I am William Friedman, President and Chief Executive Officer of 

the Cleveland Cuyahoga County Port Authority, which we usually 

shorten to the Port of Cleveland, because that full name is a 

mouthful. The Port of Cleveland anchors northeast Ohio’s maritime 

sector, which is a major economic contributor to our State and local 

economy. Maritime traffic in excess of 13 million tons annually 

through Cleveland harbor drives $3.5 billion in annual economic 

activity in our community and supports 20,000 jobs in our community as well. 

I am also speaking on behalf of the American Association of Port 

Authorities, AAPA, as the Chairman-Elect of its Legislative Policy 

Committee that sets policy for our members. My remarks today 

will provide illustrative examples of water infrastructure needs 

faced by public ports and recommendations for WRDA legislation 

to improve the Corps of Engineers navigation program. 

AAPA members appreciate that Congress understands the importance of our seaports’ role in the U.S. economy. Constructing and 

maintaining the nation’s 21st century maritime infrastructure is 

essential to the nation’s economic future. Public ports and their private sector partners are committed to this challenge, with plans to 

invest upwards of $155 billion between 2016 and 2020, in port related facilities. 

It is imperative that related infrastructure be a part of any broad 

infrastructure investment legislation the Committee develops. 

AAPA has identified $66 billion in potential waterside and landside 

investments over the next decade that will help assure the benefits 

from an anticipated $155 billion in port related capital infrastructure investments. 

The waterside amount consists of full use of Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund revenues over the 10 year period, use of the $9 billion 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund surplus to restore Federal navigation channels, and $6.2 billion for the Federal share of cost share 

channel improvements authorized in WRDA 2014 and WIIN 2016, 

and projects that are currently being studied that will get authorized in the coming years. 

AAPA believes a significant Federal investment would grow the 

U.S. economy, increase family wage supporting jobs, enhance 

America’s international competitiveness, and generate additional 

tax revenues. I have provided two infographics which Senator Carper had pointed out at the outset of the hearing. Those are both 

available to you. They look like this. The first provides details on 

67 

the $66 billion needs, and the second infographic highlights the 

types of port related projects that can benefit from infrastructure 

investment legislation. 

Turning to WRDA, it is vitally important that this legislation be 

passed on a 2 year cycle, as it enables both major and smaller policy changes and improvements to be made and navigation projects 

to be authorized. I look forward to the next WRDA legislation to 

continue making these improvements in the legislation. 

I would point out AAPA’s three key priority issues for the next 

WRDA as follows. First, WRDA 2014 was landmark legislation establishing a path to full use of the Harbor Maintenance tax revenues for its intended purposes, which is navigation channel maintenance. WRDA 2016 adjusted the annual funding target approach so 

that progress is made toward full HMT use each year. We are 

grateful the annual funding targets are currently being met by 

Congress through the appropriations process. 

However, we maintain that the ultimate solution is for full HMT 

revenues to be provided directly to the Corps of Engineers. We appreciate the bills that have been proposed to address this issue. My 

fellow AAPA members and I are working on an approach that accomplishes full HMT revenue use that includes an industry supported spending formula. 

No. 2, authorize and proceed to construct navigation project improvements recommended in Chief of Engineers’ reports. This includes a project authorization change report for the Soo Locks 

major rehabilitation on the Great Lakes. 

No. 3, past WRDAs include streamlining of the Corps of Engineers study process for navigation channel improvements. That has 

worked well. We think that additional streamlining improvements 

can be made in this upcoming WRDA. AAPA will submit a list of 

specific streamlining improvements to the Committee soon. 

I commend the Committee leadership for recognizing the nexus 

between water resources development and economic prosperity. I 

urge you to develop and pass infrastructure investment in WRDA 

legislation at the earliest possible time. I would be happy to address any questions you might have for me. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Friedman follows:] 

68 


28873.055
69 


28873.056
70 


28873.057
71 


28873.058
72 


28873.059
73 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. 

Friedman. We look forward to the questions in a little bit. 

I would like to turn first to Ms. Nicole Carter, who is a Natural 

Resources Policy Specialist for the Congressional Research Service. 

Thanks for joining us. 

STATEMENT OF NICOLE T. CARTER, SPECIALIST, NATURAL 

RESOURCES POLICY, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE 

Ms. CARTER. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and 

members of the committee, my name is Nicole Carter. I am a specialist at the Congressional Research Service in Natural Resources 

Policy. Thank you for inviting CRS to testify. 

The Committee requested that CRS focus on the legislative process for a Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, and related 

issues in 2018. I will start with a WRDA primer, then discuss executive branch reports relevant to WRDA deliberations, and end with 

some broader context for water resource authorization and infrastructure deliberations in 2018. 

Congress is often involved at the project level when it comes to 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Congress authorizes the Corps 

to perform specific projects to improve navigation, reduce flood 

damage, and restore aquatic ecosystems. Congress typically authorizes new Corps studies and projects in statute in an omnibus Corps 

authorization bill, a WRDA bill, prior to providing Federal funding. 

Most authorities for previous WRDAs do not require reauthorization. A small number of time limited authorities and authorizations 

of appropriations end in 2018 and 2019. Authorization, however, 

does not guarantee Federal appropriations for a project. 

Although Congress does not appropriate funds in a WRDA, 

WRDA provisions may affect the use of appropriations. For example, WRDA provisions have provided targets for navigation trust 

funds, and have established the non-Federal/Federal split of project 

costs. The timing of enactment of WRDAs has varied. WRDA 1986 

marked the end of a decade long stalemate between Congress and 

the executive branch regarding cost sharing and user fees. 

Since WRDA 1986 Congress has aimed to avoid long delays between the planning and the execution of projects. Biennial enactment of WRDA was roughly followed from 1986 until the early 

2000s. Since then enactment has been less regular. An issue that 

complicated enactment in the 111th and 112th Congresses was how 

to develop a bill without congressionally directed, geographically 

specific activities, commonly referred to as earmarks. In response, 

the 113th Congress developed new reporting processes that I will 

discuss later. 

The 113th Congress enacted the Water Resources Reform and 

Development Act of 2014. It expanded non-Federal opportunities to 

lead Corps studies and projects and authorized 34 new construction 

projects. The 114th Congress enacted the next WRDA in December 

2016. It authorized 30 new Corps construction projects, as well as 

dozens of studies. WRDA 2016 was a title of a broader water authorization bill that covered a range of water infrastructure issues, 

including programs and activities of the Bureau of Reclamation 

and EPA. All 64 new Corps construction projects authorized in 

74 

WRDA 2014 and WRDA 2016 had a completed report by the Agency’s Chief of Engineers. 

Since WRDA 2016 five Chief’s reports that recommend congressional authorization of new projects have been completed—two 

projects in Texas, two in Florida, and one in New York. An additional 12 to 18 Chief’s reports may be completed by the end of 

2018. Congress also uses WRDAs to authorize significant changes 

to previously authorized projects. The Corps is completing a report 

recommending an increase in the authorization of appropriations 

for the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project. 

WRDA 2014 created a new process and requirement for the Secretary of the Army to annually collect and report on publicly submitted proposals for Corps studies and projects. The most recent 

annual report was delivered in March 2017. It includes 13 public 

proposals for new feasibility studies and modifications to existing 

projects. The deadline for the next annual report to Congress is 

February 2018. 

Many topics may shape deliberations on water resource infrastructure in 2018, such as the use of two navigation trust funds 

and the safety and operation of Corps dams and levees. Three 

broad topics of relevance to deliberation in 2018 are infrastructure 

initiatives. How may a broad infrastructure initiative relate to authorized Corps projects and reinvestment in aging federally owned 

infrastructure? 

Two, non-Federal expectations and partnerships; what will the 

Federal Government expect of non-Federal project sponsors in coming years? And what can non-Federal entities expect from the Federal Government in terms of partnering and financing of projects? 

Three, floods. Recent disasters, including the 2017 hurricanes, 

have raised numerous questions, like how effective and efficient are 

current processes for identifying priority Federal investments to reduce the nation’s flood risk? 

Thank you. This concludes my statement. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Carter follows:] 

75 


28873.060
76 


28873.061
77 


28873.062
78 


28873.063
79 


28873.064
80 


28873.065
81 


28873.066
82 


28873.067
83 


28873.068
84 


28873.069
85 


28873.070
86 


28873.071
87 


28873.072
88 


28873.073
89 


28873.074
90 


28873.075
91 


28873.076
92 


28873.077
93 


28873.078
94 


28873.079
95 


28873.080
96 


28873.081
97 


28873.082
98 


28873.083
99 


28873.084
100 


28873.085
101 


28873.086
102 


28873.087
103 


28873.088
104 


28873.089
105 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Ms. Carter. We appreciate your testimony. There may be some questions in a little bit. 

I would like to now welcome Mr. Steven Cochran, the Associate 

Vice President for Coastal Protection, Restore the Mississippi Delta 

Coalition. 

Thanks so much for joining us today. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE COCHRAN, ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT FOR COASTAL PROTECTION, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, AND DIRECTOR, RESTORE THE MISSISSIPPI 

DELTA COALITION 

Mr. COCHRAN. Thank you, Senator Barrasso, Senator Carper, 

and members of the Committee. I also want to thank Senator Cassidy for coming here this morning. I don’t know if you noticed it, 

but he has a bad cold, so I particularly appreciate him being willing to come out here today. 

I want to thank Senator Kennedy from our State as well, both 

of them do diligent work on behalf of our State’s vulnerable coastal 

communities. 

For the record I am Steve Cochran, Associate Vice President with 

the Environmental Defense Fund, and the director of a coalition 

called Restore the Mississippi River Delta. We are a coalition of 

three national organizations—the Environmental Defense Fund, 

the National Audubon Society, and the National Wildlife Federation—and two Louisiana based organizations, the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana and the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation. 

For over 10 years our coalition has worked together on landscape 

scale restoration across the Louisiana coast. In addition to my own 

written statement, which is submitted for the record, Coalition 

members National Wildlife Federation and Audubon have also submitted written testimony. I hope the Committee can give them due 

consideration as well. 

This morning I would like to tell you a little about the challenges 

in my home State of Louisiana, where, to be blunt, as Senator Cassidy said, we have a coastal crisis. As Congress begins to look at 

WRDA, I want to focus on possible solutions from what we believe 

are lessons from the front. 

The Louisiana coast, since the 1930s, has lost about 1,900 square 

miles. As Senator Carper knows, that loss is roughly the size of the 

State of Delaware. Without action, we are projected to lose up to 

another 4,000 square miles within the next 50 years. 

These losses have dramatic implications for millions of people 

and their communities along the coast; for nationally significant 

energy and refining infrastructure, for globally significant port facilities, and for world class habitat that supports countless wildlife 

species, including a huge diversity of commercial and recreational 

fisheries. 

While the crisis along Louisiana’s coast is unique, its challenges 

are reflected across the country. As the Committee knows, 2017— 

Senator Carper pointed this out earlier—set the record for weather 

related damages across the country, the majority of which were 

from hurricanes and floods. As you would imagine, we spend a lot 

of time in the Delta thinking about solutions. From that perspecVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:27 Mar 26, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\28873.TXT SONYA
106 

tive, here are some general concepts that we would recommend as 

you consider WRDA. 

First, coastlines are complex systems, and each area requires its 

own carefully considered measures to adapt to changing conditions. 

Second, no engineered or natural structure is 100 percent effective against all storms, but structural solutions can be rendered far 

more effective in concert with restored natural features and processes. 

Third, in many cases our nation’s wetlands and floodplains are 

themselves critical infrastructure that needs to be restored so that, 

in addition to their ecological benefits, they can be used specifically 

to reduce the impacts and costs of floods and storms. 

In Louisiana, the State and its partners have used these concepts 

in constructing their own approach. Louisiana’s Master Plan for a 

Sustainable Coast is a document which guides comprehensive State 

planning initiative based on cutting edge science and modeling. It 

is driven by priorities, recognizes finite funding, and enjoys quite 

remarkable bipartisan support. This Plan is iterative, which means 

it is updated every 5 years to incorporate the latest science and reflect progress. Each update must be approved by the State legislature, and each of its three iterations over 15 years have all been 

unanimously approved. 

This plan is also informed by an exceptional and growing public 

engagement process, giving communities a voice in their own future. We strongly recommend that other States facing significant 

flooding challenges examine the Master Plan’s approach as a useful 

guide. 

As for details, gray projects like rocked shorelines or levees are 

complemented with restored wetlands, barrier islands, and oyster 

reefs, as well as non-structural approaches. A combination of these 

measures are organized to create a ‘‘multiple lines of defense.’’ As 

you can see, my colleague Shannon is holding here, you see the 

array of various approaches that can be married together, both 

structural and natural, to really provide multiple lines of defense. 

That is true along rivers; it is true along coastlines. It is this kind 

of thinking that we would strongly recommend to the Committee 

in thinking about the kinds of projects that it encourages and supports, incentives that it builds into the system going forward. 

This next chart is just simply a specific version, done specific to 

Louisiana, where you can actually see how it works in our setting. 

These charts are in the written testimony, and you can look at 

them in more detail that way. 

Now, the natural aspects of these are really beneficial, because 

they have so many co-benefits. Oyster reefs, which help reduce 

wave problems, also grow oysters. Storm surges that can be 

stopped by wetlands, wild wetlands maintain significant habitat. 

The maritime, swamp and mangrove forests can lower wind speeds 

from storms, while also supporting vast numbers of wildlife and 

commercial species. So it is these things together that we think 

really make the most sense, particularly as we have limited assets 

and finite resources going forward. 

One final element I want to tell you about that Senator Cassidy 

mentioned is the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion. It is a unique 

and innovative approach. This was originally authorized—I will 

107 

make this point—in WRDA 2007 under a different name. It will 

take up to 75,000 cubic feet of fresh water and sediment from the 

Mississippi River, and at strategic times in the river’s cycle, deliver 

it to the threatened wetlands on the western side of the river. In 

doing so, it will use the power of nature to build and sustain tens 

of thousands of wetland acres, including those created through separate projects. These wetlands will in turn provide buffering for the 

levees, inside of which are our communities and the industry that 

we depend upon. So you get the mix of natural infrastructure, protecting built infrastructure, protecting our communities and coasts. 

It is that combination that we think makes the most sense. 

It is a wonderful approach for us, but I have to add here that 

these kinds of projects are not without challenges. In this case, because of the project’s essential nature for our work, the State has 

decided to fund it entirely on its through resources that came 

through the Deepwater Horizon penalties. Those of course are subject to Federal agency permitting, as they should be. I want to underscore the importance from our perspective of environmental review, and frankly, even our opposition to some of the forms of 

streamlining that we have seen. 

However, the Federal permitting timeline of nearly 5 years for 

this urgent, already long studied project is unacceptable, given the 

urgency that we face. In this case, some delays stem from several 

factors, including the challenges some agencies confront in accounting for what happens if no action is taken at all. 

Given the urgency of the crisis in Louisiana and the challenges 

associated with it, it may be that a targeted legislative solution is 

required, which if done carefully and without damage to the underlying statute, we support. Here and elsewhere, we are encouraging 

permitting agencies, including the Corps and NOAA, to work cooperatively and expeditiously to find ways to consolidate the permitting timelines. 

In summary, Louisiana is deploying multiple lines of defense and 

pursuing innovation to address a coast in crisis. But to be successful, it needs a reliable, effective Federal partner that can provide 

timely and appropriate resources, and stay focused on solutions. As 

the Committee moves forward with this authorization, we encourage you to think about that formula for the rest of the country as 

well. 

I went a little long. Thank you for your patience. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cochran follows:] 

108 


28873.090
109 


28873.091
110 


28873.092
111 


28873.093
112 


28873.094
113 


28873.095
114 


28873.096
115 


28873.097
116 


28873.098
117 


28873.099
118 


28873.100
119 


28873.101
120 


28873.102
121 


28873.103
122 


28873.104
123 


28873.105
124 


28873.106
125 


28873.107
126 


28873.108
127 


28873.109
128 


28873.110
129 


28873.112
130 


28873.113
131 


28873.114
132 


28873.115
133 


28873.116
134 


28873.117
135 


28873.118
136 


28873.119
137 


28873.120
138 


28873.121
139 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

We appreciate all of you being here. We are now going to move 

on to a series of questions from members. 

I will start with you, Ms. Ufner. Many stakeholders who work 

with the Corps of Engineers have commented and maybe complained a little bit about the process that it follows to get from 

identifying a water resources problem to implementing a solution, 

and that there can be long and costly delays. For example, in the 

arid west, there are many water supply challenges that have not 

yet been solved, such as removing sediment from reservoirs, to providing more water supply capacity and effectively managing multiple water supply needs, such as flood risk management, drinking 

water, irrigation, all from a single reservoir. 

So as a result, the water supply is becoming scarce and more expensive. Could you please share any thoughts you might have as 

to how to improve the Corps’ processes, so that the water resource 

projects are operated more efficiently? 

Ms. UFNER. Thank you, Senator. We actually have a number of 

suggestions, but in the interest of time, I am going to limit it to 

two. First, improve the intergovernmental collaboration between 

the Corps and local governments. The Corps has a lot of technical 

assistance that is very valuable to local governments. But the processes and permits they have often prohibit or slow down projects 

from moving forward. 

Second, Congress may want to consider requiring the Corps to do 

a regulatory efficiency assessment of Corps processes, and have the 

Corps submit to Congress the results of this with potential alternatives on how they are going to address it. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. You said you were just going to share two. If 

there are some additional ones you would like to add in writing, 

we would be happy to receive those. 

Ms. UFNER. We would be happy to do so. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Mr. Robinson, as well as Mr. Friedman, ports and inland waterways are very important to the lifeblood of the American economy 

and our economic activity. Every year, over a trillion dollars’ worth 

of goods moves through the ports and inland waters, and to every 

basic corner of the United States and around the world. Can you 

talk a little bit more about the importance of ports and inland waterways and how their management impacts your ability to transport goods, allowing us to keep jobs at home and help us to more 

effectively compete globally? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Senator Barrasso, just speaking on behalf of the 

NKARNS, from Tulsa, Oklahoma, to Muscogee, just in that segment of the waterway, 53 miles, there are more than 8,000 jobs, 

there has been $5 million invested. Annual payrolls to the counties 

and to the cities are $320 million annually. 

In Muscogee, which is a community of 39,000 people, most of the 

manufacturers in that community—and Muscogee is a manufacturing town—depend on the waterway. So they depend on the reliability of the waterway. They depend on the transportation cost 

savings for delivering and receiving goods on the waterway. It is 

critically important to the economy of rural America. We are not 

140 

investing in the system like we should be. Therefore, we are encountering delays, and it is not a good situation in rural America. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Friedman, would you like to add? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Yes, thank you for the question, Senator Barrasso. I will address that from the perspective of the Great Lakes 

and the St. Lawrence Seaway, which is a unique waterway system, 

where we are all interconnected as ports, and we trade with one 

another, both within the system domestically. There is also of 

course the international waterway, St. Lawrence Seaway, where we 

connect to all parts of the globe. 

The partnership that we have with the Army Corps under 

WRDA to keep our harbors fully dredged is a critical lifeline for big 

cities like Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, as well as a number of rural 

communities. It is critical for agriculture, for heavy manufacturing, 

for steel making, which takes place in Cleveland, based on iron ore, 

which comes down from Minnesota. That is one of the primary examples of the types of trade in our region. 

Then we have many cargoes that flow in and out of the heartland 

through the St. Lawrence Seaway, both exports from American 

manufacturers and imports like specialty steel that we rely on in 

the appliance manufacturing sector and other manufacturing sectors. So I think in total, the number for the entire system is something like on the order of 227,000 jobs, both on the U.S. and Canadian side of the Seaway and the Great Lakes. So making sure that 

we continue to get WRDA right, streamline the process, authorize 

new projects, and get to full use and full spend of the Harbor Maintenance Tax is a critical priority for us. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I will start out with Nicole Carter. 

Let me say, excellent testimony; very helpful. A question for you. 

Given our current operating environment, with recently passed tax 

reform which reduces revenues over the next 10 years by about 

$2 trillion, the state of our crumbling infrastructure with a grade 

of D, and we are talking about the kind of situation we face here 

with our ports, our rivers, and so forth, it is just as bad with respect to roads, highways, and bridges. 

Complete with limited numbers of Chief’s reports and a large 

backlog of Corps projects, what are the big issues that we should 

tackle on the next Water Resources Development Act? 

Ms. CARTER. Thank you for the question. In WRDA 2014 Congress established new ways for non-Federal entities to be involved 

in projects. This has resulted in additional projects being led by 

non-Federal entities, and trying to understand how well are those 

projects and processes working for those non-Federal entities, as 

well as delivering on projects would be part of the process to understand how to incorporate Corps projects into a larger investment 

package. 

Basically right now that process consists of the non-Federal entities often providing the funds up front, and essentially signing an 

agreement that upon the availability of appropriations, they may 

receive some reimbursements. GAO recently did a study that identified that there are about $4 billion in projects like this in the 

141 

country, and about $400 million has been reimbursed. But we don’t 

know the total amount that requires to be reimbursed. 

How well those are working, well, [indiscernible] how well other 

non-Federal entities in the future want to make those investments 

and what they can expect in the way of the Federal Government 

partnering in those investments if they do choose to lead rather 

than wait for the Corps. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very much. 

I will turn next to Mr. Friedman. Thank you very much. 

Does the Cuyahoga River still catch on fire? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. No, sir. We are coming up on the 50th anniversary of that infamous fire, Senator Carper. I am happy to report 

that the environmental health of the river has been restored significantly. We are proud of what we have been able to achieve since 

that dark day. 

Senator CARPER. I was a student at Ohio State University about 

that time. We used to talk about fish fries up on the Cuyahoga 

River. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. The wrong kind. Question for you, if I could. By 

2020 the total volume of cargo shipped by water is expected to 

more than double by what it was just 17 years ago in 2001. As 

ships continue to get bigger, we see more congestion at the docks, 

longer ships required, deeper navigation channels, as we know, 

which only a few U.S. ports currently have. 

How do we ensure that ports are able to effectively distribute 

and receive goods as ships continue to grow in size? Is it a policy, 

funding? Is it policy issues, or funding issues, or both? If it is a 

funding issue, how do we go about doing more with less? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Thank you for the question, Senator. I will try to 

address that. Yes, it is certainly a funding issue and a policy issue, 

both. As you heard me say earlier, AAPA is asking for $66 billion 

over the next 10 years to address many of those issues that you 

just spoke to, deepening waterside projects, such as deepening in 

order to keep up with the ships that are, of course, enormous 

today, as well as some landside projects to ensure that we have the 

intermodal connections, so once that cargo comes off that ship at 

a port, or moves onto that ship, it can get to that port efficiently 

from an inland point. 

So we absolutely need a Federal partnership. I would also point 

out that there is already what I would call a robust public-private 

partnership in place, because our port authorities work very closely 

with private sector port terminal operators and ship owners who 

invest heavily in our ports in partnership with our ports and the 

Federal Government. The Federal dollars will leverage additional 

private investment and go toward those sorts of infrastructure 

projects, which there is no direct pay back on. 

So we look forward through this next round of WRDA, and in 

this infrastructure discussion we will be having this year to ensuring that we can put a plan in place to fund those important needs 

at our ports. 

Senator CARPER. In my opening statement, I mentioned that the 

Corps faces a rather sizable math problem, as it tries to serve 

142 

roughly a $200 billion requirement, and more with an annual budget that hovers around $4.6 billion. Think about that. Think about 

that, a $200 billion requirement to meet and an annual budget that 

hovers around $4.6 billion. We are just, we know it costs a lot of 

money. We know how economically important it is in our country. 

We are just not spending the money; we are not investing the 

money. We can do streamlining from now until the cows come 

home. We have done a lot of smart streamlining. I think we are 

prepared to do some more. 

There is good news, and good opportunity to figure out how to 

leverage Federal resources, State resources to bring in private sector resources. We are doing that right now with an extension of the 

Port of Wilmington. 

But at the end of the day, one of the things we need is for the 

Federal Government to do its share, to do its part. That is not 

something that requires a response from any of you. I think that 

is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. I think Senator Carper brought out something 

that is significant and that is very unique, and that is that in this 

area, where we are trying to bring in private sector funding, we actually had to pass a bill and a provision into law to allow that to 

take place. I can’t think of any place else in government where you 

have to ask permission to let the private sector pay for something. 

So that was something that was good. 

Mr. Robinson, I again appreciate your being here so we can make 

it very visible to people that we have problems on this inland waterway. I can remember back when I first came to Congress, I 

would go up through some of the eastern States and see the problems they have had with their old ports, thinking, well, we are 

pretty fortunate in Oklahoma; we don’t have those problems. Well, 

now we do have those problems. Enough years have gone by, we 

have outlived the lives of some of our ports. So we have to address 

that. 

We had a Subcommittee that I chaired not long ago on transportation and infrastructure. Someone suggested that the cost share 

of the Inland Waterway Trust Fund should be changed in some 

way. One suggestion was from, to 15 percent from the trust fund 

and 85 percent from the general fund. Are you familiar with that 

suggestion? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, Senator Inhofe, I am, and I think there probably needs to be an adjustment. The problem, as Senator Carper 

acknowledged, is not doing more with less. We have been trying to 

do that forever. It is not working. We need to do more with more 

and do it efficiently and in a businesslike manner. 

Senator INHOFE. Those of us who have been down there and observed the problems that we have in some of these relatively new 

ports through where we carry our goods and services, our nation’s 

system directly touches 38 States, as has been brought out. It is 

not just the coast. Three of our ports go through Senator Boozman’s 

State, then two more ports are in Oklahoma. 

Now, in the FAST Act, for the first time, and I have been 

through all seven of them since 1987, that we were able to have 

143 

a freight provision. That freight provision left a lot of the authority 

up to the States as to how to expend that and so forth. 

So I would ask the question, would allowing the States to use 

FAST Act freight funds on our waterways, if they chose to do it, 

would that be a valuable tool to address the issues and the needs 

in the States? 

Mr. ROBINSON. I think so, Senator Inhofe. I think we need more 

tools, and that would be one of them. The question, of course, 

would be whether States who are so focused on their highways’ 

needs, roads and bridges, how much effort or how much expenditure they would allow from those funds for waterways. 

The other question is, what would they use those funds for? 

Would they use it to cost share new projects? If that were the case, 

I think there is a real need to cost share new projects. There is not 

enough money in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund to do that. 

Perhaps the States are going to have to pick up a little bit of the 

load there. 

Senator INHOFE. It is not going to happen unless somebody does 

something. You have to get aggressive and come in with the State, 

decide what the alternatives are and then what percentage perhaps 

might be appropriate for that. I look at sources, and I run out of 

ideas. So anyway, I think that is something we can do, and something that doesn’t affect us as much here in the Federal Government as much as it does in State government. 

Mr. ROBINSON. I also think, Senator Inhofe, the Water Infrastructure Financing Act that the Congress authorized in 2014 is 

another tool that could be used. It is leveraged, because the Federal Government is getting the money back, it is a loan. So I think 

that is another one of the tools at our disposal, like the TIGER program. 

Senator INHOFE. There is a variety. We can get together and decide what we want to do on a State level. 

Ms. Ufner, the counties and cities are facing a lot of issues when 

it comes to water resources, in trying to address these. I know 

other States, not just the State of Oklahoma, have some of these 

problems. In the city of Bartlesville, Oklahoma, the community is 

growing and in need of additional water storage. Now, we had 

water storage from one lake in that city. As a result, it increased 

our rates to the customers by over 100 percent. 

But when we tried to open up another one, and I am not sure 

you are familiar with this particular issue, but we went to the 

Corps of Engineers, and they increased—they had a rate increase 

of 3,000 percent, which obviously our cities, that particular city of 

Bartlesville, was not able to do anything. When I asked the GAO 

to investigate how the Corps comes up with their prices, they reported back that they couldn’t, because the agency’s recordkeeping 

was so bad and varied they could not actually study how the agency arrives at their numbers. That is shocking. 

Ms. UFNER. I almost feel like that is a trick question, Senator. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. No, it is not a trick question; it is a serious 

question, and I would like you to talk about it. Because we have 

new people coming in, and we have had a hearing already with the 

Civil Division of the Corps of Engineers. They recognize that 

144 

changes have to be made. But not if we all sit around and keep 

quiet and don’t talk about it. 

Ms. UFNER. I think that you hit a strong point on the head. 

There is a lot of information that is not available out there. It is 

something that we need to figure out and work together to do it. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, well, my time is expired, but that is something we need to address. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate the 

panel being here. Particular welcome to Mr. Friedman. 

Rhode Island has two ports that we are investing in and proud 

of, ProvPort and Quonset. We are the home of Moran Shipping 

Agencies, which is one of the world’s best ship servicing agencies. 

So we are keenly interested in ports. 

I am interested in your take on what sea level rise infrastructure 

impacts our ports are looking at. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. I think our ports are keenly interested and concerned about sea level rise and what they can do in partnership 

with local, State, and Federal governments to enhance resiliency, 

as we heard Mr. Cochran speaking to earlier. I think we would look 

toward this WRDA bill to increase our ability to work in innovative 

ways with the Army Corps of Engineers. 

I think you usually find that a lot of the new and interesting 

ideas tend to bubble up from those of us who are on the ground 

at our local ports and communities. We need the ability to sit down 

with our Army Corps districts and work together on those solutions. We are engaged in those discussions with the Buffalo District 

of the Corps, which oversees Cleveland. Believe it or not, we have 

had some coastal resiliency issues in Cleveland. SuperStorm Sandy 

did a tremendous amount of damage to our breakwater and other 

structures in our port. We are looking at dredge material, for example, to fortify our port. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Is it fair to say that the concern of America’s ports about sea level rise goes beyond the actual seashore 

itself, that you can raise piers and sea walls and so forth. But if 

the sea is infiltrating through, for instance, water systems and 

bubbling up behind, if it is flooding access roads that are necessary 

to get goods in and out of the ports, those are matters that are of 

equal concern to the actual shoreline itself; is that correct? 

Mr. FREIDMAN. No question, Senator. I think our ports are literally on the front lines of this issue, and they are very concerned 

about the upland impacts of sea level rise as well as being inundated right on the docks. There is no question that all our ports 

are focused on that question. I think they are all working very hard 

to figure out how do we mitigate going forward. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Ms. Ufner, you are here on behalf of all 

counties, but if I could direct your attention to coastal counties, 

could you tell us what you are hearing from coastal counties about 

the infrastructure hazards and risks and problems and challenges 

that they are seeing related to sea level rise and storm surges and 

so forth? 

145 

Ms. UFNER. It is much broader even than sea level rise and 

storm surges. We are definitely getting the flooding in the coastal 

counties. I also work very closely with our Gulf States Counties 

and Parishes Caucus, and especially with the hurricanes that have 

come through this past fall, they are increasingly focusing on how 

to address those issues. Because the weather events have been getting more severe, and the population growth within those communities makes it even more essential that the communities can address these issues at the local level. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So my view on this is that this is a problem that coastal communities face, counties and municipalities. 

That very often those counties and those municipalities don’t have 

a lot of resources to do the planning. 

I see your head nodding, for the record, yes. Good. 

It is also my view that a lot of the FEMA mapping has proven 

itself to be wildly inaccurate. So you have counties that are counting on the Federal Government for planning as to what sea level 

rise and flood risk looks like, and they are being given bad information, which puts it again back on the community to try to reach its 

own better planning process. But without the resources it is really 

hard to ask a local community to take on a task like that. Is that 

a fair description of the problem as you see it as well? 

Ms. UFNER. It is. Counties derive a large part of their income 

from property taxes, and States set the limit of how we can even 

raise property taxes. So it sets an ugly cycle of how do we fund for 

something, how do we strengthen our local communities. And that 

is why the Federal-State partnership is so valuable to us. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. 

Well, let me just make one point to my colleagues. I think that 

as we are beginning to address these WRDA issues, one of the 

areas in which we can become more efficient and more helpful to 

the Army Corps would be to try to find a good, honorable, and 

transparent way for Congress and this Committee to be able to assert its own priorities in the process. 

It concerns me that we shovel projects in one side of the WRDA 

bill and we shovel money in the other side of the WRDA bill, and 

how the Army Corps of Engineers connect that money to those 

projects is a giant black hole. I think we need to fix that. I know 

we have been through a problem of earmarks that received a lot 

of justified criticism. Our response was to abandon this responsibility entirely. I think that was an overreaction, and that we can 

and should in this Committee try to frame out an honorable, transparent, proper way for these priorities to be met under our supervision, rather than just throw it off to the Army Corps bureaucracy. 

I hope that statement was not unwelcome, and I appreciate that 

time. 

Senator BARRASSO. It was very welcome. Thank you very much, 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator Wicker. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you. 

Mr. Friedman, let’s talk about the Harbor Maintenance Trust. I 

notice in your testimony you advocate full use of HMT revenues 

over a 10 year period. What we have been doing, as has been pointed out, is we have been taking in more HMT revenue and sort of 

146 

setting it aside, making the deficit look better by not spending it 

for its intended purpose. 

If we take your recommendation and restore—and restore over a 

10 year period the full use of these revenues, will that get us where 

we need to be in terms of meeting our funding needs? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Thank you, Senator Wicker. It gets us part of the 

way there, but not all of the way there. If you look at the numbers 

that AAPA has submitted in the infographic, and they can provide 

more detail, we are calling for full spend every year of the revenues 

that are brought into the trust fund, and spending the roughly 

$9 billion surplus that has been built up, as you just mentioned. 

Then on top of that, we would need additional moneys through an 

infrastructure bill to reach the $66 billion, which we identify as the 

full need. 

So we would certainly be fully maintaining our harbors at that 

point, if we fully spend the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, catching up with the backlog if we use the surplus. And then for some 

additional waterside improvements, such as deepening, which was 

mentioned earlier, some of our largest harbors for the larger ships, 

some of the big container ports, then some critical landside 

multimodal connections, using infrastructure dollars, we think that 

gets us to where we need to be as a nation. 

Senator WICKER. OK, so it is your hope that the President’s infrastructure plan, which should be outlined to us and to the public 

within a couple of weeks, or at least within a month, that that 

$1 trillion infrastructure plan will be the third step in getting us 

where we need to be to meet our needs? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. We hope so, Senator, yes. 

Senator WICKER. OK, and I hope so, too. 

Thank you for this chart and these graphics. Senator Carper 

showed a bigger copy of this. They are illustrative examples of port 

related investment needs. I notice you have three rail projects, one 

being the Mississippi Rail Relocation Marine Terminal Project at 

Pascagoula, Mississippi. That is the only city in the United States 

that rhymes with hallelujah; you might tuck that away as a fact 

to be learned today. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WICKER. Also, Cross Harbor Rail Tunnel in New Jersey 

and Port Arthur Rail Project. How are we doing in rail access to 

ports? And why aren’t we where we need to be? What have been 

some of the challenges in getting that rail to the ports? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. I think we have made good progress in the last 

20 or 30 years or so in improving rail access to ports. Intermodality, or the whole concept of putting a container onto a train, 

is not that old a concept. So many of our ports had to be retrofitted 

with the kinds of rail connections that would be functional for 

them. 

The granddaddy of all those would be the Alameda Corridor 

project in southern California, which consolidated all the rail lines 

in a cut, so as to eliminate grade crossings. We have seen those 

sorts of projects on somewhat smaller scale at many of our ports. 

That has been, I think, a good public-private partnership between 

the railroad industry and between ports themselves, between the 

Federal Government. 

147 

But we do need more. We are seeing increased volumes to and 

from our ports. I think it is particularly important for exports. We 

tend to think about containers coming in through our ports. But 

where I am in Cleveland, we think a lot about exports. We need 

those strong rail connections from the hinterland into the ports in 

order to move exports, which quite often are heavy and bulky products that we make here in the U.S. 

That is why, in that $66 billion, we have included those critical 

rail connections. In some cases it is tunnel clearances; in some 

cases, it is rail bridges; in some cases it is grade crossings, it is 

more track in order to manage those trains as they move in and 

out of the ports. Thank you. 

Senator WICKER. Quickly, Mr. Cochran. This loss of land in Louisiana is something I am more than familiar with, as a next door 

neighbor. Truth of the matter is, I am not advocating doing away 

with flood control, but it is actually flood control over the centuries 

and decades that has caused the absence of sediment and the loss 

of land, is that correct? 

Mr. COCHRAN. One of the significant factors, yes, sir. 

Senator WICKER. Just the point I would make is, no one would 

advocate the solution to the problem is to go back to the wild days 

that we used to have that caused the sediment. I appreciate you 

and your testimony by thinking of different ways, innovative ways 

to address them and that we can’t change back to the way it used 

to be. I appreciate that. 

Also let me just say, I understand you that we are all for streamlining permitting. You have some doubts about some of the suggestions at the other end of the table. We are going to have to come 

together across the aisle on ways that we can streamline the permitting processes. I am glad to see a consensus among all five of 

our witnesses, I believe, that we need to address that. I hope we 

can work on the nuances that can be a happy solution and a winwin for all parties. 

Mr. COCHRAN. I would offer, and I appreciate that. The key there 

is what you identified, which is sitting down together, sitting down 

together on the things that we have been lucky enough, and maybe 

threatened enough in Louisiana to do, is to recognize that hurricanes and other things are completely non-partisan. We need to be, 

too, as we figure this out. So looking at how to make the system 

work better, how to make underlying protections do what they are 

intended to do, but to do so in the most efficient way, that is a 

great conversation to have. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Wicker. 

Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking 

Member. I am very grateful for your holding this hearing. It is important work that our Committee does, to draft the new Water Resources Development Act this year. 

My State of New York has a wide range of diverse water infrastructure needs and challenges. We are a coastal State threatened 

by the impacts of climate change, coastal storms and sea level rise. 

We are also a Great Lakes State, constantly challenged by aquatic 

invasive species like Asian carp, that have the potential to destroy 

148 

our fisheries if they are not stopped from gaining a foothold in the 

Great Lakes Basin. 

We have the largest and busiest port on the east coast, which is 

essential to international commerce. And we have a number of 

small ports and harbors across our State that are important to the 

local economies and need to be properly maintained. 

We cannot address all of these challenges without a strong investment in the Army Corps. But funding is only a part of it. We 

need to ensure that we are investing our Federal dollars so that 

we are more resilient in the face of these challenges. 

I was very disappointed that the Trump administration chose to 

rescind the Flood Risk Management Standard implemented by the 

Obama administration, which required federally funded projects to 

incorporate best available and actionable science on climate change 

and sea level rise and build above the base floor elevation levels. 

If we are spending, as we are in the northeast, billions of dollars 

to build the infrastructure to protect our communities, it defies 

logic that we would leave taxpayers exposed to the types of catastrophic losses we saw after SuperStorm Sandy, and more recently 

hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, but not building to withstand 

the current and future flood risk. 

So to Ms. Ufner, what are the consequences to counties and local 

governments and their taxpayers if we fail to properly assess risks, 

both current and future, when planning to build in flood plains? 

Ms. UFNER. Thank you, Senator, for your question. Ultimately, 

counties are responsible for the public health and safety of our 

communities. Probably, if you look at what has happened in Santa 

Barbara County, California, within the last day, with the flooding 

that is due to the wildfires, there are only limited things you can 

do after a wildfire to address risk. But it demonstrates that when 

floods happen, people die, homes disappear, roads are gone, memories are gone. This is something that local governments want to 

prevent, and they want to be there to help with their residents. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Are we doing enough to ensure that we are 

adequately protecting ourselves and our assets from future storms 

and floods? What could we be doing better? 

Ms. UFNER. It is a combination approach. There is a responsibility on the local governments. A lot of our local governments, 

though, they have the limited income and technical assistance to 

follow through with these projects. And that is where they really 

look to the Army Corps of Engineers and other Federal agencies to 

bring the technical assistance, the data, the modeling, the communities can use. We have been working with our counties on best 

practices that they can use in their own communities to build their 

resilience at the local level. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. What else could we be doing? 

Ms. UFNER. We just keep on going in the direction we are going. 

The way NACo views it is that these are steps on the ladder that 

we can help the communities that are out there, really being aggressive. There are trend setters. They are the ones we learn from 

on what may work in other communities. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. 

149 

To Mr. Cochran, what needs to change in terms of Army Corps 

policies and procedures to allow for greater use of nature based solutions to mitigate flood risks along our coastlines? 

Mr. COCHRAN. One of the things that I want to point out is that 

this multiple lines of defense system chart that we used earlier to 

illustrate the integration of hardened infrastructure and natural 

infrastructure is actually based on a chart that the Corps put together following in its post-Sandy efforts, as it did a comprehensive 

coastal study in the northeast. So I take that as both a positive 

sign that—too often what we do is learn about these things after 

the fact. This is a post-Sandy study, not a pre-Sandy study. 

So I think one of the things we really need to encourage within 

the Corps is to take the learnings that have occurred in these postSandy situations and really make sure that they penetrate across 

the Corps, across the various divisions, not just single in on one 

place, so all the areas, coastal and inland, can get the clear benefit 

of this kind of thinking, this kind of an approach. Because from 

that comes actual information and data, so that you can actually 

do the kinds of comparisons that let you select the things that will 

work best, not just take one old system because that is the way we 

have always done it, but actually integrate these things so that 

they become not only protected but sustainable in the process. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator Ernst. 

Senator ERNST. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. 

A number of my coastal colleagues have mentioned the detriment 

from hurricanes and so forth. I would offer them the opportunity 

to come inland a little bit. Iowa has about 1,000 miles of coastal 

setback in either direction. But regardless of those large scale effects that come from hurricanes, we do have flooding issues in Iowa 

that occur on a much more regular basis than those 100 year floods 

or 500 year floods that are recorded out there. 

Senator Whitehouse mentioned that black hole that exists within 

the Army Corps of Engineers. We get the projects in on one side, 

and as he said, the funding in from the other side. I tend to agree 

with the Senator, in that there is a black hole and we need greater 

transparency there. 

Part of that black hole, I feel, is the benefit to cost ratio. Mr. 

Cochran, in your testimony, you encourage Congress to direct the 

Corps to modernize that BCR, the benefit to cost ratio analyses, because you believe the estimated costs are often inaccurate. A priority of mine has also been to modernize the BCR metrics, so that 

more communities, particularly our rural ones, have an opportunity 

to get their projects funded. 

We have a flood mitigation project in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, that 

was authorized by WRDA in 2014. It was mentioned for 

prioritization in WRDA in 2016, but has not received any funding 

due to the low BCR that results from Iowa’s relatively low property 

values. I know that is true in other areas as well, and maybe Mr. 

Cochran in Louisiana, too, because your property values are low 

also. 

150 

Do you have any thoughts on how the BCR metrics could be 

modified so that projects like this flood mitigation project in Cedar 

Rapids have a better chance of receiving funding? 

Mr. COCHRAN. One of the recommendations that we have is really a focus on making sure that you can in fact take account for the 

range of benefits that can come from projects when you are doing 

protection. A lot of that has to do often with the benefits of wetlands, the benefits of setbacks, things like that that you are used 

to in your riverine situation that really don’t get accounted for any 

benefits when you get into the cost-benefit. It is just, well, there 

is some land there, but they don’t actually look at the benefits associated with it, this kind of benefits. 

So a true accounting for the benefits from natural infrastructure, 

for the benefits that are there, really needs to be done. It will end 

up benefiting these discussions in a lot of the ways that you are 

talking about because it actually gives a true picture, not just one 

that is just slanted toward and old way of doing things. 

Part of the challenge that I think a lot of people have had with 

these analyses, too, is a real lack of transparency. It is difficult understanding exactly where the numbers came from or how they got 

there, and no real requirement that they be justified in a way that 

allows people to actually engage in that conversation. So we think 

that that transparency is a fundamental piece of this. Data transparency, real accounting for real benefits, those things together 

really can make a difference. 

Senator ERNST. That is too true. Again, going back to that black 

hole that Senator Whitehouse was referencing. So thank you. I 

think that is important, and I hope we are taking a look at the 

BCR as we move forward. 

And of course, Ms. Carter, the Army Corps component of the 

WIFIA program that was established by WRDA in 2014 has yet to 

get off the ground. That is the Army Corps portion. The EPA has 

already implemented their portion. 

What are some of the challenges that the Corps is facing in implementing this program? And at this current pace, how long will 

it take for the Corps to catch up to where EPA is? 

Ms. CARTER. Thank you for the question. Indeed, the WIFIA program for the Corps has not been funded. And part of what has been 

going on is that the Corps has no real history with a loan or loan 

guaranty program, so developing the guidelines. And then understanding how will those projects be scored in terms of the risks to 

the Government have been some of the primary challenges. 

Basically, as those issues get worked through, with either congressional or Administration involved in those discussions of how 

to score the risk, as those progress, then funding could be provided 

and the Corps could start providing these loans and loan guarantees, which could assist with projects like flood levees where communities could potentially proceed on their own to be able to perform those projects. 

So those are the main ones, the ability to understand the scoring 

of it. 

Senator ERNST. Would it be helpful, since EPA already has an 

established process, would it be helpful then if the Corps could deVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:27 Mar 26, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\28873.TXT SONYA
151 

termine those projects and then fund those through WIFIA and 

EPA? 

Ms. CARTER. I have not looked at that as an option. But I believe 

there is some legislation that is out there to that effect. We have 

a CRS expert that covers the WIFIA program, and any questions 

for the record that you would like to provide for us, we are happy 

to answer. 

Senator ERNST. I appreciate it; thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Ernst. 

Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I don’t have a question for you, Ms. Carter, but we do appreciate 

CRS, we appreciate all of your knowledge and just CRS in general. 

You all do a great job and probably are not thanked enough by us 

as we try and get things together. Give yourself a big pat on the 

back. 

Ms. CARTER. Those types of comments are what keep us going. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOOZMAN. We do appreciate you. 

Mr. Robinson, to capitalize on America’s changing economy, it is 

clear that necessary infrastructure improvements must be made to 

our inland waterways and ports. Arkansas and Oklahoma have 

been working for years to deepen the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas 

River Navigation System so barges and boats can carry larger 

loads. I think about 40 percent greater loads. So it is very, very significant. 

Senator Inhofe and I both understand, and certainly we appreciate his leadership, but also the national significance of a 12 foot 

channel versus what we have now. We are going to work really 

hard in WRDA 2018 to try and get that accomplished. 

Can you explain why the 12 foot channel would be a benefit? Not 

just for Arkansas and Oklahoma but for the country as a whole. 

Mr. ROBINSON. As you said, Senator Boozman—well, let me give 

you an example. You know Scott McGeorge with Pine Bluff Sand 

and Gravel, operating a rock quarry there in the Pine Bluff area. 

The closest rock quarry to New Orleans in the country. So Scott 

McGeorge and Pine Bluff Sand and Gravel were not able to compete when New Orleans needed rock desperately. So as a nation, 

we paid more for that rock than we otherwise would have, because 

we weren’t willing to deepen the channel. Or we started the channel, but we didn’t complete it, we didn’t go forward with it. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Along that line, I have great concern in the 

sense that as recently as 2016 Bob Portis expressed concern that 

the critical backlog on the NKARNS was of that nature. That number is now ballooned to $143 million in less than 2 years. If we can 

continue to kick the can down the road and not address the critical 

backlog, talk about that. Talk about the effect of it, if we actually 

had to shut the system down, again, not only for Arkansas and 

Oklahoma, but for the rest of the country. 

Also, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 58 percent 

of locks and dams are past their 50 year life expectancy. Talk 

about, if we could do some more things, the positive effect. 

152 

Mr. ROBINSON. The locks and dams on the NKARNS are 47 years 

old. I realize that the locks and dams on the rest of the system and 

in the nation are older than that. One of the reasons that the backlog of critical maintenance is growing at such an alarming rate is 

because we are nearing the end of the 50 year life that most 

projects like that have from an engineering standpoint. So we are 

discovering new things every time we de-water a lock, and we do 

that quite often in order to make sure that we are keeping up with 

the maintenance that needs to be done. 

Unfortunately, the funds aren’t available to do the maintenance, 

even when we know they need to be done. If NKARNS were shut 

down as a result of failure of the system in one way or another, 

we have calculated that the cost in Oklahoma would be $2 million 

a day. That is a significant cost to shippers, to ports and terminal 

operators, and to the nation. It is just not a good way to do business. 

These projects were justified on expectations that the benefits 

would exceed the cost. They have done that. There is significant 

earnings to the Federal Government to go into the Treasury. It is 

not a matter of not enough benefits and revenues. It is a matter 

of using those revenues for other purposes. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Mr. Friedman, a top priority for the Chairman and Ranking Member, for the entire Committee, is passing a 

WRDA bill. We went through a period from 2007 to 2014 where we 

had a gap. In 2014, 2016, we have gotten back on track. Can you 

talk about what it means to have certainty with having a WRDA 

bill every 2 years to address these problems? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Sure, thank you, Senator. Yes, it is critically important for the port industry, American industry to have a WRDA 

reauthorized every 2 years, or on a regular cycle. Because adjustments need to be made to the new construction start authorizations 

as projects are designed and then being built that, as we know, the 

Army Corps has been plagued with projects that string out for 

many, many years, adding costs. 

It hurts the competitiveness of the nation if we can’t complete 

these harbor improvement projects, complete these deepenings. A 

gap of 7 years, as you mentioned, is very, very harmful. 

It also gives us an opportunity to address the issue that was 

brought up in terms of transparency and opening up the decisionmaking process at the Corps, the so called black box which we 

think would be good for all stakeholders to be able to have input, 

to modernize the benefit cost ratio, to make sure we are funding 

the best projects for the nation. So AAPA is strongly in favor of getting back to the regular order on WRDA. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A question again for you, Ms. Ufner, dealing with stakeholder involvement. The ground rule is that stakeholder and project sponsor, in collaboration with the Army Corps of Engineers, is essential 

to solving our water resource challenges, which are many. And this 

collaboration helps to limit the cost of missed opportunities, proVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:27 Mar 26, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\28873.TXT SONYA
153 

motes better planning, provides better transparency, results in 

more fiscally and environmentally sound projects. 

A question for you, if I could. How can the Army Corps adapt its 

efforts to promote integrated planning and management? Please. 

Ms. UFNER. You are talking integrated planning from the concept 

of Environmental Protection Agency but using it also within the 

Army Corps of Engineers? 

Senator CARPER. Yes. 

Ms. UFNER. And basically how to—it is a big issue for us with 

water issues, whether in the Corps or the Army Corps to address 

Clean Water Act issues in a holistic way. That essentially includes 

potentially—I don’t want to say bundling projects, but it is a way 

for us to look at what is the most important thing. We are still 

meeting our Clean Water Act goals in the Corps, or EPA. But we 

can do it in a much more affordable way. That is something that 

NACo has been supporting within the realm of the Clean Water 

Act. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. 

I want to go back to something I said earlier in my opening 

statement. I am going to ask you to join me in an airplane, and 

let’s go up to about 30,000 feet. I would like for you to react to 

what I am going to repeat, what I said earlier. As the 2017 hurricane season illustrated, our nation—I spent some time in Puerto 

Rico and spent some time in the Virgin Islands, spent some time 

in Houston and saw the kind of devastation that we are going to 

pay for for a long time, long, long time. 

But as the recently departed hurricane season illustrated, our 

nation needs to be a resilient one that is ready for the next storm, 

flood, or drought event, because it is coming. In fact, just this week, 

NOAA, as was said earlier, NOAA estimated that the total cost for 

extreme weather and climate events exceeded $300 billion, which 

is a new annual record for the U.S. So it is clearly not a matter 

of if our next extreme weather event is coming, but when. 

Together, the Corps’ navigation and flood risk management activities accounted for more than 70 percent of the agency’s annual 

civil works appropriation. But the Corps has or shares jurisdiction, 

as we know, over any number of critical civil works program. They 

include environmental stewardship; they include hydropower; they 

include recreation; they include emergency management and water 

supply. 

Unfortunately, in the mid-1980s Federal funding for new project 

construction and major rehab began to decline steadily. With this 

trend, the Corps in its actions has shifted to operations, to maintenance, to rehabilitation of existing infrastructure, and a backlog of 

deferred maintenance has continued to grow ever since. As a result, much of the Corps infrastructure is now exceeding its useful 

life plan. 

If you were sitting on this side of the dais, as members of this 

Committee, what would you be doing about it? 

We will start with you, Steve, please. 

Mr. COCHRAN. I think that situation you described is incredibly 

debilitating to the people who work at the Corps of Engineers. 

They are, many of them, quite skilled, quite talented, and quite 

able. And yet they—the vision of what it could be and what they 

154 

need to be is completely overwhelmed by a backlog of things that 

they are not getting done. 

So it does seem to me that it is essential to find a way to overcome the backlog. Not by doing all the projects; frankly, that is not 

going to work. But by creating a new vision that actually does, we 

talk a lot in Louisiana about getting ahead of the next storm, the 

same way you talked about in your opening statement. Well, that 

is critical, because otherwise you are always playing catch up. That 

is what the Corps is doing now. That is all they can do, is play 

catch up. 

I don’t actually mean this, but we should either give them a real 

job to do, or we should just get rid of them. Because the way it is 

right now—Mr. Robinson said earlier—everybody has learned how 

to do more with less. That is just business as usual. If you do that 

long enough, you give up on what you really need to do. I think 

that is what the Corps has done. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you for that. 

Ms. Carter, please. 

Ms. CARTER. CRS has no opinions or reactions. But one of the 

topics that may be of concern in the future is the dam and levee 

safety issues. The Corps should be coming out in the next few 

months with reports related to some of the infrastructure investment needs in that area, including related to I-walls, which are one 

of the pieces of infrastructure that failed in New Orleans and contributed to the costs to the Federal Government for emergency response and recovery. 

Figuring out how aging infrastructure like that fits into the infrastructure package in the long run will help or hinder the Government’s ability to manage its risk. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Well, I am going to ask you to react to what I said earlier and 

just repeat it, please. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Absolutely, Senator. With my AAPA hat on, I 

would repeat what I have said, which is that our ports want to see 

the continued movement toward full use and spend of the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund. That would make a tremendous difference for us. We are grateful for the progress that Congress has 

made and you have made in that direction recently. The numbers 

are remarkable from where we were 5 or 6 years ago. Then we 

would again submit that our waterways, our water infrastructure 

needs to be viewed very high priority in any upcoming infrastructure legislation that is passed out of Congress. 

And then speaking for myself, if I were on your side and in your 

shoes, I would think back to when the Army Corps, the days when 

the Army Corps was building some of the greatest public works 

projects known to man, the Panama Canal, our great dams, and 

other waterways and waterworks. I think we need to get back to 

that spirit of, we can do this. We have to fund it, but we can do 

it, we can address these issues. I could share the view that without 

enough funding, there is not much the Corps can do. They are 

fighting this backlog perpetually. I think we have to start thinking 

on a bigger scale to address these problems and make that a national priority. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

155 

Julie. 

Ms. UFNER. Thank you, Senator. Actually two thoughts on that, 

well, several thoughts. There is such a backlog within the Corps, 

and the need within the communities are so huge. There are communities out there that would love to partner with the Corps on 

projects, but there is no funding. They don’t meet the cost-benefit 

analysis. And the technical assistance that the Corps offers is so 

valuable. 

Having said that, there is a lot of challenges within the Corps, 

with the processes, the bureaucracy, complex requirements that 

make it very difficult, even if counties do want to partner with 

them, that they make go to other Federal agencies first, because 

it may take 10 years through the Corps as opposed to 7 years 

somewhere else. 

Senator CARPER. Good, thanks. 

Mr. ROBINSON. I hate to beat a dead horse, but the Civil Works 

program in the country for many, many, many years has delivered 

significant benefits to the country. And revenues to the Treasury, 

revenues far in excess of the cost of the program. It is time to reinvest some of those earnings back into the system, instead of using 

up the principal, the capital, that was originally invested. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks. That is good. Thank you all. 

This is a good hearing, and we appreciate very much all you have 

added to it. 

Senator BARRASSO. Just a couple quick questions. 

Mr. Friedman, when you talked about the days of the Panama 

Canal, there is an excellent book by David McCullough, I don’t 

know if you have had a chance to read it, The Path Between the 

Seas. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. I have read it. 

Senator BARRASSO. The comment about the time, the complexity, 

the bureaucracy, all of those things. The title is actually The Path 

Between the Seas: The Panama Canal, 1870–1914. It spanned a 44 

year plan and the issues. They actually had to find a cure for a 

major disease that was killing a lot of people down there at the 

time of the construction. So it was a remarkable achievement, and 

it was over 100 years ago. Thanks for bringing that up. 

Ms. Ufner, there were several projects and programs passed in 

the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, to reduce flooding, ice jam prevention, you mentioned mitigation pilot 

programs. In your opinion, how important is preventing flooding to 

the economic health of rural communities? 

Ms. UFNER. To reiterate what we mentioned before, it is immeasurable. Communities are responsible, counties in particular are responsible for health and public safety. We take many measures to 

ensure that our public is protected. We are the first on the scene 

of any emergencies, flooding disasters. When they result in deaths 

and/or damage to our economies, ultimately it impacts the national 

economy. So it is huge that we are able to address this long term, 

and figure out the steps that we need to get there in the end together. 

Senator BARRASSO. One of the things I don’t think I had mentioned yet was in terms of, because I continue to advocate maintaining this network of stream gauges and snow pack monitors 

156 

throughout the Upper Missouri Basin. I don’t know if you are familiar with these; these are gauges that are used to monitor snow 

depth, snow moisture, to help inform agencies like the Corps as to 

potential flooding, issues of drought as well. 

So in your opinion, is there more than can be done to better predict flood and drought than what we are doing here? 

Ms. UFNER. There is definitely more than can be done. What we 

are hearing from our counties is that there needs to be more available data, and that it is reliably updated. We hear this a lot about 

the LIDAR data used for NFIP, or also flood elevation data that 

is not readily available and/or updated. For communities to make 

the most efficient decisions in their community, they need the most 

up to date information. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. Thank all of you. Some members 

may ask—— 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question, 

but I am not going to ask it now. I just want to flag it for Mr. Cochran with regard to flood risk management and beach nourishment. 

I will submit a question for the record. One of the things that is 

important to a lot of us on the east coast, from Maine down to Florida, is the issue of cost-benefit ratio not just with regard to beach 

renourishment, but actually building the dune systems and so forth 

that protect a lot of our coastal towns and communities. We are 

going to send that to you. Be sure to take a good look at that. 

Thank you very, very much, all of you. You have done a great 

job. 

Senator BARRASSO. In follow up, members may submitting written questions to each and every one of you. I ask that you follow 

up quickly for the record. The hearing record will remain open for 

2 weeks. I want to thank all of you for being here, for your time 

and your testimony. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

157 


28873.122
158 


28873.123
159 


28873.124
160 


28873.125
161 


28873.126
162 


28873.127
163 


28873.128
164 


28873.129
165 


28873.130
166 


28873.131
167 


28873.132
168 


28873.133
169 


28873.134
170 


28873.135
171 


28873.136
172 


28873.137
173 


28873.138
174 


28873.139
175 


28873.140
176 


28873.141
177 


28873.142
178 


28873.143
179 


28873.144
180 


28873.145
181 


28873.146
182 


28873.147
183 


28873.148
184 


28873.149
185 


28873.150
186 


28873.151
187 


28873.152
188 


28873.153
189 


28873.154
190 


28873.155
191 


28873.156
192 


28873.157
193 


28873.158
194 


28873.159
195 


28873.160
196 


28873.161
197 


28873.162
198 


28873.163
199 


28873.164
200 


28873.165
201 


28873.166
202 


28873.167
203 


28873.168
204 


28873.169
205 


28873.170
206 


28873.171
207 


28873.172
208 


28873.173
209 


28873.174
210 


28873.175
211 


28873.176
212 


28873.177
213 


28873.178
214 


28873.179
215 


28873.180
216 


28873.181
217 


28873.182
218 


28873.183
219 

Æ 


28873.184