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

98–873 PDF 2017

A REVIEW OF UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS 

OF ENGINEERS REPORTS TO CONGRESS ON 

FUTURE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT 

AND CHIEF’S REPORTS 

(114–34) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 24, 2016 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

CARLOS CURBELO, Florida 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) ................. 6 

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

of Engineers .......................................................................................................... 6 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano of California ................................................................. 43 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy and Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick, joint statement ...................................................................................................................... 45 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

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

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

Corps of Engineers, joint responses to questions for the record from the 

following Representatives: 

Hon. Todd Rokita of Indiana ........................................................................... 56 

Hon. Blake Farenthold of Texas ...................................................................... 56 

Hon. Mike Thompson of California ................................................................. 58 

Hon. Lois Frankel of Florida ........................................................................... 59 

Hon. Jared Huffman of California .................................................................. 61 

Hon. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York ....................................................... 63 

Hon. Ann Kirkpatrick, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona, request to submit the following: 

Letter of February 19, 2016, from Jim Bradley, Vice President, Policy 

and Government Relations, American Rivers, to Hon. Bill Shuster, 

Chairman, and Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, Ranking Member, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ............................................. 66 

Joint letter of February 19, 2016, from Cara Capp, National Cochair, 

and Jason Totoiu, State Cochair, Everglades Coalition, to Hon. James 

M. Inhofe, Chairman, and Hon. Barbara Boxer, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Hon. Bill Shuster, Chairman, and Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, Ranking Member, House 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ..................................... 83 

Statement of Melissa Samet, Senior Water Resources Counsel, National 

Wildlife Federation ....................................................................................... 85 

Joint letter of February 23, 2016, from American Sportfishing Association, et al., to Hon. Bill Shuster, Chairman, and Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, 

Ranking Member, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ................................................................................................................. 99 

Joint statement from American Rivers, et al., to Hon. Bill Shuster, Chairman, and Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, Ranking Member, House Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Hon. Bob Gibbs, Chairman, 

and Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, Ranking Member, House Subcommittee 

on Water Resources and Environment ........................................................ 102 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 98873.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 98873.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 98873.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 98873.004
(1) 

A REVIEW OF UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS 

OF ENGINEERS REPORTS TO CONGRESS ON 

FUTURE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND CHIEF’S REPORTS 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in room 

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

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, good morning. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment will come together. Welcome. Today we’re 

having a review of the United States Army Corps of Engineers reports to Congress on future water resources development and the 

Chief’s Reports. 

Almost 2 years ago, a strong bipartisan message was sent by 

Congress and the President with the enactment of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014. Congress made a 

conscious effort in WRRDA 2014 to enhance America’s competitiveness by strengthening the investment in the Nation’s water resources and infrastructure. 

While we’re turning the page and beginning the next WRDA 

[Water Resources Development Act] process, the Corps still has an 

issue. More than 40 percent of the implementation guidance of 

WRRDA 2014 needs to be completed. 

WRRDA 2014 contained many important provisions to improve 

the function of the program. However, the Corps seems to be slowwalking the implementation guidance. While the WRRDA law is 

transformative and in some places complicated, we remain disappointed at the pace and the prioritization in which the Corps of 

Engineers is carrying out the drafting of the implementation guidance. After all, WRRDA is the law of the land. It’s not a suggestion 

for the administration to casually disregard. 

Today we are holding a hearing to review the Army Corps of Engineers Chief’s Reports and two reports to Congress on future 

water resources development, commonly called the annual report. 

We intend to review these critical documents to ensure they balance critical investments in infrastructure along with environmental protections. 

2 

Since the first annual report of 2015 did not meet the committee’s expectations, in June of 2015, the subcommittee held a hearing on the implementation of WRRDA 2014 and provided guidance 

to the Corps, especially on how the annual report process should 

be carried out. The annual report delivered several weeks ago is an 

indication that the Corps heard our message and the 2016 annual 

report is an improved product. 

I want to especially highlight the fact that the Corps reevaluated 

many of the projects rejected in the 2015 annual report. It has included them for consideration as we move forward into WRDA 

2016. We intend to move a smaller WRDA bill this Congress. This 

bill will be consensus-driven, bipartisan, and address several clarifying and technical changes to WRRDA 2014. And we will hopefully 

authorize some of the projects that are included in the 2015 and 

2016 annual reports. 

The Corps of Engineers constructs projects for the purposes of 

navigation, flood control, shoreline protection, hydroelectric power, 

recreation, water supply, environmental protection, restoration and 

enhancement, and fish and wildlife mitigation. The Corps of Engineers planning process considers economic development and environmental needs as it addresses water resources challenges. The 

planning process address the Nation’s water resources needs by exploring a full range of alternatives and developing solutions that 

meet both national and local needs. 

The 24 Chief’s Reports we are discussing today are the result of 

a rigorous planning process. These projects are proposed by nonFederal interests in cooperation and consultation with the Corps. 

All these Chief’s Reports, while tailored to meet the locally developed needs, have national, economic and environmental benefits. 

These Chief’s Reports address all three missions of the Corps: 

navigation, flood damage reduction and aquatic ecosystem restoration. And they balance economic development and environmental 

considerations equally. 

I want to welcome Secretary Darcy and General Bostick to the 

hearing today, and I also want to recognize sitting in for Representative Napolitano is Mrs. Kirkpatrick from Arizona. 

Welcome, and the floor is yours. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome our two 

witnesses to this hearing, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Civil Works, the Honorable Jo-Ellen Darcy and the Chief of Engineers, Lieutenant General Bostick. Welcome. 

I want to thank you for your service and help with the passage 

of the WRRDA reauthorization bill. I know how challenging it was 

for all involved. This subcommittee convened a roundtable of stakeholders and interest groups to discuss priorities for a new water resources bill. Individuals at the roundtable highlighted the importance of a robust civil works program for the protection of communities, infrastructure, public health and safety. 

Equally important was a workable process for the Corps to partner with local communities to address local water resources challenges. In the 2014 Water Resources Reform and Development bill, 

Congress established a new process, the 7001 annual report to Congress process for the development of local Corps projects and studies. 

3 

Today’s hearing will examine how the 7001 process will work. 

First, while it seems that the administration improved its process 

for including projects in the 2016 annual report, the fact is that 

many projects and study requests were screened out by administration priority calls rather than using the exact criteria in section 

7001 of WRRDA 2014. I believe there are communities who are still 

confused by this new process. Most likely a number of communities 

with traditional water resources challenges simply do not know 

about or understand this new process and may find themselves on 

the outside as Congress considers a new water resources bill for 

2016. 

Their needs are probably no less deserving than many of the 

projects and studies included in the annual report. However, because these communities are not included in the annual reports or 

have been included in the appendix, is our response going to be 

‘‘you don’t have the right paperwork so you simply have to wait 

until the next water resources bill’’? I have a number of low-income 

communities and tribal communities in my district that lack the financial means of other larger communities. 

We should not have a process so complicated that communities 

are forced to hire outside individuals to run the traps of both congressional committees and administration officials. Today’s hearing 

will discuss an array of pending Chief’s Reports and potential 

projects and studies that did clear the annual report process. These 

will form the basis of a new water resources bill for later this year. 

Both Congress and the Corps need to provide some reasonable direction to communities and their elected officials to address their 

local needs. I look forward to your testimony. 

And Mr. Chairman, I have two unanimous consent requests. I 

ask unanimous consent that the statement of the ranking member 

of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment be 

made part of today’s hearing record. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. I ask unanimous consent that the statement 

of a list of organizations included in the packet be made part of today’s hearing record. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

[The written statement of Ranking Member Grace F. Napolitano 

can be found on pages 43–44 and the statements from the organizations can be found on pages 66–103.] 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. I recognize the chairman of the T&I [Transportation 

and Infrastructure] Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 

Chairman Shuster. 

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

you for holding this very valuable hearing. It will help us in the 

development in the next water resources bill. 

Secretary Darcy, welcome, and, General Bostick, welcome. As I 

said when I first became chairman, I think it’s critical that we get 

back to regular order, get back to going through this water process 

every Congress so that Congress maintains its role in overseeing 

the Corps work and improving your infrastructure. So, Secretary 

Darcy and General Bostick, here we go again. 

4 

We’ve got a number of members on the committee who care deeply about these issues, a number of new members. I see Congressman Rouzer from North Carolina and Bost from Illinois who have, 

through their districts, tremendous interest in what’s going on with 

beach restoration or within the waterway system, flood protection. 

Congressman Graves is here, and he’s from the Louisiana coast. 

Nobody knows better than him what happens in the waterways in 

coastal restoration. And on that side of the aisle from Mr. DeFazio 

down, you have a lot of people very interested. So we’re looking forward to working with both sides of the aisle to produce a bipartisan 

water resources act for 2016. 

The Chief’s Reports that have been delivered were 23, I’ve been 

tapped on the shoulder and told now it’s 24, so two dozen. These 

reports have undergone rigorous economic and environmental analysis and many may be included in the next WRDA reauthorization. 

The annual report required under WRRDA 2014 allows the Corps 

the opportunity to provide Congress with a list of non-Federal 

project-sponsored priorities that reflects the needs of the Nation, 

and that report was intended to reflect the broad spectrum of activities for Congress to consider rather than just the administration’s priorities. 

While the first annual report delivered last year did not meet our 

expectations—quite frankly we were very disappointed in it—I 

think there was a major improvement on the second annual report, 

and I thank you for stepping up your game and we continue to 

work to improve that. We appreciate that the Corps reevaluated 

projects rejected in the 2015 report, but more work needs to be 

done for the Corps to comply with the law. I expect the Corps will 

address these and other concerns as we, in Congress, look to the 

next Water Resources Development Act. 

So again, looking forward to working with you, and I know many 

members on the committee are eager to get started on crafting this 

legislation. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Next I want to recognize the ranking member of the 

full Committee on T&I, the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Ms. Darcy, General Bostick, and thanks for what you 

do. 

I’m going to return to a theme I’ve brought up for years which 

is that Congress is not adequately funding the Corps of Engineers. 

We have a backlog of somewhere between $48 billion and $54 billion for ongoing budgeted projects, for instance, spillways for the 

dams on the Willamette River, which restrict our capability of flood 

control, and this might be a year when we’re going to need full 

flood control, and we won’t have it. 

The Corps has a plan to reduce—replace these spillways which 

have far exceeded their lifespan. But it’s drawn out over years because of a lack of resources. And that’s—that occurs all around the 

country. I have jetties that are failing and if they go to full failure, 

they’re more expensive than if we get in there and do maintenance 

work. Again, for Coos Bay, we’ve begun at least on the Columbia 

River on the critical jetty there in the forest harbor entrance in 

North America. 

5 

But that’s a huge backlog. And we began to deal with at least 

one side of it. Obviously the Corps jurisdiction goes far beyond 

things that are eligible for moneys out of the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund, but when they have to balance between harbor maintenance issues and inland issues or dams or whatever, it makes 

their job all the more difficult. 

So I congratulate the chairman on what we did and other Members who were involved in that a couple years ago. I actually started working on the idea of capturing the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund with Bill’s dad, Bud, back in the mid-1990s, and it took us 

a long time to get there, but Bill delivered. 

Now the administration, unfortunately, I don’t know what was 

submitted by the Corps, but after the green eyeshade trolls at 

OMB [Office of Management and Budget] got done with it, you 

didn’t meet our goal, which was 71 percent in the President’s recommended budget of the harbor maintenance taxes. 

Now this is something that should resonate on both sides of the 

aisle. We assess a tax, a minuscule tax. It’s 1.25 mils, that is .125 

cents on the value of products moving through our ports. It raises 

about $1.5 billion a year, yet for years Congress has diverted those 

funds elsewhere, who knows where or for what, as opposed to the 

intended purpose. We have begun to move toward full allocation of 

those funds for their intended purpose, I hope, in the next WRDA 

reauthorization. We can move that process even more definitively 

and more quickly. 

But I would also second Representative Kirkpatrick’s concerns 

about the difficulty of the application process when we only had 61 

communities that submitted. Back in 2007 we had 3,000 project 

and policy proposals that were vetted as we developed WRDA 2007. 

And now there’s only 61 projects across the whole United States 

that might be eligible? I think, as she said, the process is too complicated, and it needs some additional work on the administrative 

side. 

But then also to chastise the majority a little bit, you know, this 

wacky ban on earmarks where you say, gee, we don’t want elected 

representatives of the people to determine where their tax dollars 

are spent; we want the bureaucrats in Washington, DC, to decide 

where that money will be spent. And this—we’ve tied our hands. 

We used to do study resolutions all the time. We don’t do study resolutions anymore because they’re considered earmarks. I mean how 

stupid is that? 

So I would hope that we could also confront the—our in-house 

crippling of the—that has been put in place under misbegotten 

rules and we could challenge that also in this next WRDA bill. But 

in the interim, we’re stuck with the workaround process, and that 

does need to be simplified so that more communities who have 

needs will apply. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

At this time, I want to welcome the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army for Civil Works, Secretary Darcy and Lieutenant General 

Thomas Bostick, who is Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers. And, Secretary, the floor is yours. Welcome. 

6 

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

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

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

Ms. DARCY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Shuster, ranking members. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify 

today to discuss the 2016 report to Congress that was submitted 

in response to section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, the Chief’s Reports as well as the Post-Authorization Change Reports. 

I’d like to outline the process by which the annual report to Congress in response to this section was developed and the requirements and criteria of projects meet for inclusion in the report. Section 7001 of WRRDA 2014 requires an annual notice to be published in the Federal Register requesting proposals from non-Federal interests for proposed feasibility studies and proposed modifications to authorize water resources development projects and 

feasibility studies. 

Section 7001 then requires that the Secretary of the Army annually submit to Congress a report that includes feasibility reports, 

proposed feasibility studies and proposed modifications to authorized water resources projects or feasibility studies that satisfy five 

specific criteria. The notice for the 2016 report submission was 

published on May 26th of 2015. The deadline for non-Federal interests to submit their proposals to the Corps was September 23rd of 

2015. 

We evaluated proposals strictly based on the five statutory criteria. 

Mr. GIBBS. Secretary, can you pull the mic a little closer to you? 

We’re having—some of us are having trouble hearing you. Thank 

you. 

Ms. DARCY. Is that better? We evaluated the proposals strictly 

based on the five statutory criteria. In order to provide more transparency to non-Federal interests, we sought to clarify in the public 

notice the process and the criteria under which the proposals would 

be evaluated. We did this in developing this 2016 report. 

We also implemented a Web-based proposal submission process 

ensuring greater consistency in the content used for the evaluation 

of the proposals. We accounted for all Chief’s Reports completed 

since the enactment of WRRDA 2014 and increased our outreach 

to non-Federal interests throughout the process. We also undertook 

a one-time reevaluation of proposals submitted in 2014 which were 

included in last year’s appendix in light of this revised process. 

The proposals were reviewed at the district, at the division and 

at the headquarters level. The five criteria that the proposals must 

meet are they must be related to missions and authorities of the 

Corps; require specific congressional authorization, including an act 

of Congress; the proposal must not have been congressionally authorized; it must not have been included in the report table of any 

previous annual report; and if authorized, the project could be carried out by the Corps of Engineers. 

There are requirements that all water resources development 

projects must meet before the Corps can request Federal funds to 

proceed to construction. These requirements are included in our 

7 

joint written testimony that you have before you. As was stated 

earlier, a total of 61 proposals were received; 25 were for new feasibility studies, 34 were for modifications to existing projects or 

changes to legislation, and 2 were proposals for a study modification. Of these proposals 30 met the criteria and are listed in the 

annual report table. The 31 proposals that did not meet the criteria 

are in the appendix. 

The two primary reasons for proposals that were included in the 

appendix are that either authority already exists to perform the requested work or the proposal did not fit within the identified Corps 

core mission areas. Where authority already exists to undertake 

the efforts described in the proposals, inclusion in the appendix to 

the 2016 annual report does not preclude the Army from carrying 

out either the study or construction. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and we, again, appreciate the opportunity to testify today and look forward to answering questions as well as working with you on a WRDA 2016. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

General Bostick, the floor is yours. Welcome. 

General BOSTICK. Chairman Gibbs, Chairman Shuster and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the annual report due to Congress and the summary of Chief’s Reports completed since the passage of WRRDA 

2014. 

First, I want to thank this committee for your great support of 

the Civil Works program. Your work has been essential in all of the 

progress that has been made over the years. The details about the 

Chief’s Reports submitted to Congress are contained within my 

written statement. I would like to provide a brief update on the 

progress we’ve made with our four campaign goals and provide 

some of my perspectives on water resources challenges facing the 

Nation. 

First, support national security. We like to talk about the investment in the Civil Works project, not the cost. It is an investment 

in the work that we do to provide protection to the American people. But it’s also an investment in our people. And whether they 

serve in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India or in over 100 countries, our people are making a difference. 

As part of Civil Works transformation, we continue to improve 

and modernize the project planning process. Since the inception of 

Civil Works transformation in 2008, 59 Chief’s Reports have been 

completed with recommendations of over $30 billion in water resources investments. 

During the first 4 years of Civil Works transformation, 19 Chief’s 

Reports were completed. In the last 4 years, the number is 40, 

more than doubling our progress. We’re on schedule to complete 

another 12 reports by the end of the fiscal year. One Chief’s Report 

I just signed yesterday; it is the Princeville, North Carolina, Flood 

Risk Management project. This brings the number of reports 

signed but which have not completed executive branch review to 

10. 

While we may have made great progress, we can and must continue to improve. The third area of our campaign goals is to reduce 

disaster risks. We had historic floods in 2011, 2015 and again in 

8 

2016. And because the systems performed as designed, many 

Americans do not even realize the magnitude of these floods. In addition to the fact that no one died in these events, the return on 

investment is $45 for every $1 invested in the Mississippi River 

and Tributaries system. Approximately $234 billion of damages have been prevented over 

time due to these investments. As you know, our Nation’s infrastructure is aging. The American Society of Civil Engineers rates 

the Nation’s overall infrastructure at a D-plus. The Corps is managing 225 billion dollars’ worth of that infrastructure. Funding 

across the Federal Government remains challenging. In order to 

complete the construction of projects that we are currently budgeting, we would require $19.7 billion. With construction funding at 

just over $1 billion per year, it would take us nearly 20 years to 

complete the current projects. 

As a Nation we must continue to think creatively and innovatively about how we gain support beyond the Federal Government in areas such as public-private partnerships so that we can 

complete these projects and future projects in a more reasonable 

amount of time. 

Finally, our last goal is prepare for tomorrow. It’s about our people. In the nearly 4 years I have been in command, I’ve traveled 

to all 43 districts in the 9 divisions to see the vital work that we 

conduct at home and abroad. I remain convinced that we have an 

exceptionally skilled and talented workforce. I’m very proud of the 

people who serve in the Army Corps of Engineers and our fellow 

teammates including military, civilian, local, Federal, and of course 

our contractors. 

As we have done for over 240 years, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers remains focused on engineering solutions to our Nation’s 

toughest challenges. Thank you again for the opportunity today, 

and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, General. 

And there’s time, Chairman Shuster, for questions. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs. 

And General Bostick, I just want to echo your same sentiments 

here. The men and women that serve in our military in whatever 

capacity, we certainly appreciate what they do for our Nation to 

keep us safe and hopefully we keep them out of harm’s way. So 

thank you for that. 

I just want to respond to the ranking member talking about the 

funding levels which he’s correct. I think the congressional budget, 

we hit those targets. The administration did not hit those targets, 

and in the last WRRDA, WRRDA 2014, we tried to move in a direction to take those trust funds, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 

and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, off budget. That’s going to 

be something that we need to work together across the aisle to 

eventually do because I think that just like we did with the Highway Trust Fund, those dollars are put into a fund, and the American people trust we’re going to spend them in an appropriate way, 

the way they were intended. 

And of course that hasn’t happened. And if we were able to do 

that, take them off budget, take them, make sure they only go for 

those purposes that they were intended, we’d be able to solve a lot 

9 

of our problems when it comes to our harbors and waterways in 

this country. So that’s something I want to continue to work to do. 

First question, Secretary Darcy. Copies of completed Chief’s Reports are sent to Congress prior to executive branch review. I wonder why doesn’t the administration furnish Congress copies of PostAuthorization Change Reports prior to executive branch review? 

Ms. DARCY. We currently are reviewing the Post-Authorization 

Change Reports within the administration before we send them to 

Congress. They’re sort of a different animal than the Chief’s Reports. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Sure. 

Ms. DARCY. The Chief’s Reports, once they are signed by the 

Chief, come directly to Congress; and that’s in the statute. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And so that may be something we’ve got to look 

at putting in the statutes so that when you do post a change report, it comes to us, too, so that we can begin that review process. 

That is something you would recommend? 

Ms. DARCY. It’s not something I would recommend; I understand 

why the Members would want to see those. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

General Bostick, in October of 2014, the Corps of Engineers Civil 

Works Review Board met and approved a Chief’s Report related to 

three replacement navigation locks on the Upper Ohio River. While 

at one point the draft schedules show the Chief’s Report being 

signed January of 2015, no Chief’s Report has been submitted at 

this time to Congress. And since the Corps has suggested that the 

failure of only one of the three existing locks would be catastrophic 

to the inland navigational system, I’m told over $1 billion in economic harm would occur. Could you update us on the status of that 

Chief’s Report? 

General BOSTICK. We expect that the report will be completed in 

October of this year, Mr. Chairman. What happened in this particular case was that the independent external peer review identified that, during the duration of a closure following a significant incident without project condition, there would be significant issues. 

And based on that, we had to delay the State and agency review, 

rerun our models and then make an assessment of their concerns. 

So we’ve done that in the Pittsburgh district. That effort has taken 

the better part of a year. The review is ongoing, and we expect the 

report to be completed by October. 

Mr. SHUSTER. You’re highly confident in—— 

General BOSTICK. I’m confident that it will be. 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK. Because, as you might know, I’m deeply concerned about that. That project means an awful lot to the economy 

of western Pennsylvania. And of course with our shale play, while 

the gas we produce there is down, we believe it’s coming back and 

that water system is absolutely critical to getting product in and 

product out of that—of the Marcellus gas play. So I’ll be following 

it very closely and I appreciate you keeping us updated on that. 

General BOSTICK. Mr. Chairman, I just do need to clarify. I 

meant to say the economic review that we’re doing will be completed in October. We still then need to do State and agency review 

to complete the Chief’s Report. 

Mr. SHUSTER. So we’re not even close to a Chief’s Report then? 

10 

General BOSTICK. The Chief’s Report would come sometime after 

the State and agency review assuming there are no significant 

issues. But based on the independent review, and this one issue 

that we’ve resolved, I would assume that most of the issues have 

been identified. But we still have to do a State and agency review. 

So I can’t really estimate when the Chief’s Report would be complete. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Taking a look at 2017 maybe. 

General BOSTICK. I really couldn’t give you a date on that. 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK, well, again, that’s very concerning because 

this has been going on for I think 8 to 9 years. And again, the good 

news is we put it into law, and again your folks worked with us 

and really it was your idea, the 3x3x3 concept. Again, this one’s 

been out there forever. 

So any way you can accelerate that, any way we can help you 

to accelerate that we certainly would because it means an awful lot 

to the economy, as I said, of western Pennsylvania and, in fact, to 

the economy of the United States when gas prices go up a bit and 

they’re able to get it out of the ground. Getting product in to develop it and getting product out is going to be critical. So again, 

I’m going to be watching very, very closely how this proceeds. So 

thank you very much. 

General BOSTICK. And we’ll follow up with you on that. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mrs. Kirkpatrick. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Assistant Secretary Darcy and 

General Bostick, for your help with three Corps projects in my district. I have concerns about two of these projects, and that is the 

Rio de Flag and the Winslow levee. 

So my first question has to do with the Rio de Flag. And while 

I appreciate the allocating funds in the fiscal year 2016 workplan 

to complete the LRR [land resource regions], can you assure me 

and this committee that the LRR will be completed expeditiously? 

Can you commit to a concurrent review with headquarters and 

your office to reduce the amount of time for completion? My goal 

is to see this project receive a new, higher authorization number 

in WRDA 2016. 

Assistant Secretary Darcy and General Bostick, can I get your 

assurance that you will help with this endeavor? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

General BOSTICK. Absolutely. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. General Bostick? 

General BOSTICK. Absolutely. We’re working all three levels concurrently now, and we’re aggressively moving forward to complete 

it. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. OK. Thank you. My second question has to do 

with the Winslow levee. Regarding the Little Colorado River in 

Winslow, what can you tell me about completion of their Chief’s 

Report? Being listed in the 7001 report does not—does this cover 

authorization for construction once the Chief’s Report is complete, 

or does it need to be resubmitted? 

General BOSTICK. I don’t have the answer to that. We’ll have to 

follow up with you. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Secretary Darcy? 

11 

Ms. DARCY. It is in the report, in the 7001 report. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. But my question is: Does that authorization 

include construction once the Chief’s Report is complete? 

Ms. DARCY. No, it would need to have a completed Chief’s Report 

and get authorized for construction. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. And then does it have to be resubmitted for 

construction? 

Ms. DARCY. No. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. OK. Thank you for clarifying that. I yield 

back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. So I yield to myself. 

Secretary Darcy, since WRRDA 2014 was enacted, no general reevaluation reports have been delivered to Congress. Since these 

documents are analogous to Chief’s Reports, how many are currently under development, and then can you provide us a schedule 

of when they will be completed? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, I’d be happy to provide that—I don’t know exactly how many, but I will provide that to you. 

Mr. GIBBS. But there are some, because that’s—— 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, there are. I think—— 

Mr. GIBBS. These are really—reevaluating prior Chief’s Reports 

seems like it’s pretty important. 

Ms. DARCY. It is, and I want to say three, but I want to check 

to make sure, and then we’ll get you that number. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Secretary, in the proposed Chief’s Report on the 

Los Angeles River ecosystem project, it was proposed there was 

going to be a cost of about $161 million, and now the completed 

Chief’s Report, the Federal cost has increased to more than $200 

million additional. So it puts the cost at about $375 million. What’s 

going on with that project in Los Angeles River? 

Ms. DARCY. The Los Angeles River ecosystem restoration project 

is what you’re talking about? There are several alternatives that 

were considered in the development of that project, and the final 

alternative—that was the locally preferred alternative—would be 

more expansive than one of the other alternatives, and I think 

that’s what’s attributing to the cost, because there’s more land involved, and it would be more real estate development or real estate 

purchasing that would need to be acquired by the city of Los Angeles. 

Mr. GIBBS. Because I visited there a couple years ago, and—I referred to it as the cement trough, and I think the locals want to 

actually change some of that and make it more eco-friendly, right, 

restoration? 

Ms. DARCY. Right. The project purpose is ecosystem restoration. 

Mr. GIBBS. That wasn’t part of the first Chief’s Report, changing 

some of that to more environmentally friendly I guess? 

Ms. DARCY. They were looking at more alternatives and more 

land—it was mostly for habitat, increased—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Yeah, that’s what I mean. 

Ms. DARCY. Right. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. So the scope did change some then? 

Ms. DARCY. Right. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Because I was understanding the scope wasn’t 

changing. OK. That’s good to know. I want to talk a little bit here 

12 

about the process, the annual report. I have a concern that maybe 

the Corps hasn’t done a well enough job communicating down to 

the regional and especially the district levels of how the new process works, and I think Ranking Member DeFazio kind of raised the 

issue of 61 projects being submitted to the 2016 annual report, 

while in WRDA 2007 there were 3,000-plus. 

So the questions, there is: what’s the process, how are you 

verifying the process, how are you working with local project sponsors so they understand. Because I’ve had some local stakeholders 

in my office in the past year and they had no clue of what the new 

process was to submit these projects. So how is the Corps working 

to facilitate the new method so we get this working better? 

Ms. DARCY. I think what we learned from last year—and I hope 

we can recognize that there’s been an improvement made since last 

year’s report—we’ve done a couple of things. One is in the public 

notice that goes out in the Federal Register, we’ve outlined the 

process for the local sponsors so that there’s more of a template 

about what’s required in order to submit your proposal. We also 

have put this all online so that it’s Web-based so that everybody 

can see what the proposals are and everyone can see what’s required in order to submit the proposals. 

We also, at the district level, have engaged all of our District 

Commanders and staff there to help local sponsors in developing 

their proposals as well as submitting them because they work 

through the district, and then it goes to the division, then it comes 

to headquarters online so that we can evaluate them. 

Mr. GIBBS. That communication, especially with the District 

Commanders, do you have a time of when that started? Because 

we’ve seen a lot of differences between districts in the interpretation of this and how they’re handling that. We passed this bill in 

June 2014. When did you start implementing that conversation? 

Has it been fairly recent, or was it—— 

Ms. DARCY. It was in response to some of the concerns expressed 

by the committee last year as far as the fact that we needed to do 

more outreach. It was developed after the 2015 submittal of the report, so we’re hoping that the 2016 report can show some signs of 

improvement in that communication. 

Mr. GIBBS. General Bostick, do you want to comment on that, 

too, since—— 

General BOSTICK. Yes, we always are concerned about variability 

in how we approach things between our districts, so this is a constant effort from the leadership at every level to ensure that our 

District Commanders understand the policies and the laws and 

what we’re trying to do. I would say even from the very beginning 

we tried to ensure that this was understood, that 7001 was understood. We work with stakeholders all the time. 

Part of this is communications on our part from the headquarters, to ensure that our districts understood the guidance that 

needed to be provided. And once we were able to get that clarity, 

I think we’ve seen it take off. Even at our headquarters you saw 

in the reports that we provided to you last year we did not have 

the kind of fidelity and clarity which resulted in a report that was 

somewhat disappointing to the Congress. And as Secretary Darcy 

13 

said, immediately after that we were able to push out and set up 

more communication mechanisms to allow the districts to be—— 

Mr. GIBBS. That’s why I brought up my first additional questions 

because I think we really need to hold that up because this process 

has to work, and it’s just human nature, communications sometimes, it’s just human nature that we always have to work at. It’s 

a challenge, so I appreciate your comments. And this time, Mr. 

Garamendi, questions? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A couple of issues. First of all, my district has some 1,100 miles 

of levees and some very serious flood control issues. Your Sacramento district office has been very aware of the issues and very 

in-tune with the local concerns, and I want to thank the Corps and 

particularly the Sacramento office and Colonel Farrell for their constant attention to the issues and their willingness and, in fact, 

their constant engagement with the various flood control districts, 

reclamation districts in the area. So basically doing a very good job 

all the way around. 

There is one question just outside my specific district, but very 

much a part of the community, which is the West Sacramento 

issue. That question arises 53,000 residents in an area that is subject to significant flooding. And the question is: Will the Chief’s Report, which I understand is in process, be available sometime this 

spring probably, possibly in April, so that we might include that 

project in the new WRDA bill? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Terrific answer. Thank you. [Laughter.] No 

elaboration needed. The rest of the programs are underway. Your 

district office is working very diligently, and I want to thank you 

for the headquarters and for the work that’s being done. General, 

thank you for the service and for taking care of the issues in my 

district. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Webster. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Darcy, the Port of Tampa is planning to move forward 

with authorized improvements to the Tampa Bay Big Bend Channel. And they had formed a public-private partnership that would 

cover up to over 70 percent of the cost of that project. The delegation applied and was part of correspondence dealing with getting 

Federal contributions to that public-private partnership, and the 

answer to that was that that project would have to compete as 

a—— 

Ms. FRANKEL. Excuse me, Mr. Webster. Could you talk a little 

louder? 

Mr. WEBSTER. Sure. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thanks. 

Mr. WEBSTER. That project needed to compete with Federal funds 

as a new start program, and the new start program is for construction. The Big Bend navigation project has been a significant part 

of the construction appropriations since 2003 when it got a designation of a new start and has been funded several times since then. 

Why did the categorizations change from continuing or ongoing to 

a new start? 

14 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman, unless the Chief knows the—I would 

have to get back to you, because I want to give you an answer, but 

I don’t know the answer at this time. 

General BOSTICK. I don’t know the answer as well, but given 

what you’ve said, if it is going to a public-private partnership, that 

changes the project, and we would have to go back and look at it. 

We’re looking at public-private partnerships now, and those would 

have to be a new start if we’re moving in that direction. So I don’t 

know the details of the Tampa public-private partnership, but we’ll 

take a look at it and get back to you. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Even though it had been approved as a new start 

in previous years and gotten funding for several years after that? 

General BOSTICK. I believe so. It depends on what the public-private partnership or what the approval was for. If it was a Federal 

and a non-Federal sponsor working together on a project that was 

defined, clearly, based on the Chief’s Report—and now we’re going 

to turn it into a public-private partnership—that would be a different project. But I don’t know the details of—— 

Mr. WEBSTER. I think our idea was to move up further on the 

ladder because we could get about 70 percent paid for by locals. 

And so we thought that would enhance our opportunity as opposed 

to sort of push it aside. 

General BOSTICK. Well, as I said in my opening remarks, I do 

think that we have to look at opportunities like this as part of the 

solution for how we complete these projects faster and work in 

partnership with communities and private entities, so we’ll take a 

look at this and get back to you. 

Mr. WEBSTER. OK. I have one other question about the Kissimmee River project. One of the showcases for the Everglades restoration in our State, and I understand the State of Florida did 

critical engineering work for the project that would save money. 

However, because of that a legislative adjustment was necessary in 

order for the State to receive credit for the engineering work. And 

I understand the Corps supports us and that project and the 

change. But could you tell me or get for me the status of the PostAuthorization Change Report for this legislative remedy? If you 

could do that, that would be helpful. I don’t know if that’s a question or not, just either yes or no. 

General BOSTICK. We’ll get the answer, but my understanding of 

the Post-Authorization Change Report is expected to be completed 

in August of this year. 

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

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Frankel. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you. Thank you both for your service. I 

know you always hear a lot of complaints from our offices, but I 

just—I want to thank you. We’ve had a very cooperative, excellent 

relationship with you all, and we’re very appreciative of that. 

I have a few local issues that I would just like to go over with 

you. In Palm Beach County, as you know, the—our Lake Worth 

Inlet is very important both to recreation and commerce there. And 

you have all—you have spent many millions of dollars over the 

years dredging that inlet. We have a project there called the sand 

transfer plant, which we believe reduces the need for some of the 

dredging and saves considerable expense to the Corps. 

15 

And so one of my—my question really is: What do you think 

about assisting local communities who find less expensive and 

more efficient operations to maintain the channels and inlets? 

Ms. DARCY. Is the question whether we would be supportive of 

local interests taking on that—— 

Ms. FRANKEL. Well, no, the question is whether or not you would 

pay for it instead of it, for example, being considered an earmark. 

In other words, I think we discussed a little bit about this when 

we had our meeting on water a couple weeks ago is: If a local community has an alternative method that would reduce the expense 

of the Corps, but it may be unique to that particular area, why 

would that be considered an earmark and not something that the 

Corps could help fund? 

Ms. DARCY. I guess from what I know of this in my view it 

wouldn’t be considered an earmark. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Well, OK, well, we’re going to write that down. 

[Laughter.] OK, well, that’s good. OK. I like that answer. Herbert 

Hoover dike which serves to protect the communities and farmlands surrounding Lake Okeechobee from flooding, this is a 143- 

mile dike. It’s susceptible to erosion and considered one of the 

country’s most at risk of failing. The FY [fiscal year] 2016 workplan 

included $64 million for construction and the President’s FY 2017 

budget included almost $50 million. My question is if you know: Is 

the amount of money that’s now projected for the current budget, 

will it be enough for this year to fund what you can do? Because 

this—these repairs need to be moved forward as quickly as possible. 

Ms. DARCY. We will be able to meet the needs of that project in 

this fiscal year. 

Ms. FRANKEL. OK. Thank you very much. On the Port of Palm 

Beach, we actually finally have something that all the communities 

agree on, which is a welcome change, which is the full maintenance 

dredge that will hopefully alleviate safety issues for 2 to 3 years. 

It is my understanding, though, from the Corps that an additional 

$900,000 is needed to complete the dredge which the Corps has 

told my office they intend to find through reprogramming. Can you 

commit to that? 

General BOSTICK. We would have to look at that. I couldn’t commit to it here. 

Ms. FRANKEL. OK. Well, will you get back to me on that. Yes? 

General BOSTICK. We will. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Next is just really a big thank you on Port Everglades. That expansion is a half a billion dollar economic impact to 

south Florida. I want to just thank you so much on including that 

in this report and for the cooperation we’ve been getting. Excellent. 

Thank you. That’s easy. And next as you know, the restoration of 

Port—of the Everglades, different from Port Everglades, serves 

drinking water to over 9 million people in Florida, has great economic impact. There are a number of projects that you are working 

on. I just have some questions on them. 

The Broward County Water Preserve Areas and the Biscayne 

Bay coastal wetlands are stuck in the PPA [project partnership 

agreement] negotiation phase. The Picayune Strand and Kissimmee River both require reports from the Corps. Would you be 

16 

able to provide us—obviously not right this second, but with an update on these particular projects? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, we will. 

Ms. FRANKEL. And I had—just for the coastal communities—OK, 

very quick. The coastal communities just some questions on the 

beach restoration because the beaches are much more than just 

places for people to get sunburns as you know. The—a couple questions. Can you—our stakeholders are asking that you take some 

more time to work with them in terms of when you decide which 

projects to do. And next question they had on that was what the 

Corps is doing to ensure that all districts are using dredge sediment as a resource to improve coastal protection. If you could, just 

get back on those questions because I’ve taken my time. 

Ms. DARCY. OK. 

General BOSTICK. We will. 

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

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Graves. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I 

want to thank you and Chairman Shuster, the ranking member, 

everyone who came down to New Orleans, for you all taking the 

time to come to south Louisiana to take a look at all the challenges 

we have going on in regard to balancing water resources. 

Madam Secretary, I didn’t want to ask this question, but Let 

Mon told me I should. [Laughter.] It’s no secret that we have pretty 

strong frustrations in regard to the efficiency of the Corps of Engineers in regard to project delivery. We could talk about the 

Morganza project, been in study phase for 24 years now; the West 

Shore project that just issued a Chief’s Report after being studied 

for 44 years about. Obviously if that same scenario were in the private sector, that construction company would have been shut down, 

appropriately, many, many decades ago. 

Right now you’re seeing an interesting trend within the Federal 

Government, and I’m not sure if anyone’s really paying attention 

to it, but, Mr. Chairman, I think it’s something we should be paying very close attention to in this committee. You’re seeing Corps 

of Engineers budget numbers that are relatively stagnant. Yet you 

saw the President come out this year and announce that he was 

going to do a $2 billion coastal resiliency fund, which is your mission. You saw HUD [U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development] last year, if I recall, was $1 billion resiliency, which is 

your mission. You’ve seen FEMA [Federal Emergency Management 

Agency] repeatedly awarding grants that under hazard mitigation 

grant program pre-disaster mitigation which effectively is your 

mission as well. 

One difference with all of those other efforts that really distinguished them from the Corps of Engineers is that in many—in fact, 

in all cases, those are largely grant programs that cooperate with 

State and local governments to carry out the projects. And going 

back to Congresswoman Frankel’s comments earlier about the efficiency of delivery, why is it that the Corps of Engineers remains 

stagnant and all of the funding and opportunities and actual 

progress is being done in these other agencies? 

17 

Ms. DARCY. Well, as you are aware, as you mentioned, these are 

granting agencies. The Corps of Engineers is not a granting agency. We’re a project funding agency. So that’s where—— 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Should that change? I mean is a 

project in study phase for 40-something years, is that OK? 

Ms. DARCY. No, that’s why we’ve instituted smart planning and 

3x3x3 so that we can be more efficient in our planning process. Because I think that 40 years is too long to be studying anything. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Well, I just—I think that if you look 

at the numbers, I think some of the frustrations—incredible frustrations that we have are being verified in the budget process. And 

if I were any of the people sitting right there in the front row and 

at the table, I would take that threat very seriously and be thinking about whether—what changes you need to make in order to efficiently deliver projects. 

And one thing that I think is really important to connect the dots 

on with some of the bigger waters—flood insurance reforms that 

happened in 2012 and then again in 2014, the Corps, by them 

choosing—by you choosing winners and losers in terms of which 

projects are going to proceed, which ones aren’t, which ones are 

going to remain in this stagnant phase for decades, you’re 

compounding the problem by leaving these people vulnerable with 

the belief that they have some authorized project that’s going to 

pop up at some point. Yet they’re subject to exponentially higher 

flood insurance rates. When you add in levee standards and other 

things, you’re really causing exponential impacts on these communities. I mean there are real repercussions of these delayed 

projects, and I think it’s something that needs to be thoughtfully 

considered by this committee as we proceed on the new WRDA. 

I want to go to the HPS [hurricane protection system] in the 

greater New Orleans area. When President Bush was President, he 

issued a document saying that the repairs and recovery of the HPS 

was going to be completed in 2009. And I’ve had people at the 

Corps refute that. I’ve got a copy of the document. I’d be happy to 

share it with you. It was when he gave his Jackson Square speech. 

As you recall, in 2008, we signed a 30-year payback agreement— 

deferred payment agreement on the hurricane protection system 

recovery work. That work, again, was supposed to be completed in 

2009. 

The Corps came back and started issuing documents saying it 

was going to be completed in 2010. At some point, the Corps held 

a day of recognition ceremony or something, which I’m not real 

sure what that was. But here’s the reality. The reality is we’re still 

not at that finish line. Hurricane Katrina was in 2005, we’re 11 

years later or approaching 11 years. We haven’t hit that deadline 

yet. What’s happened during this time in a deferred payment 

agreement is that the principal has grown to where we’re at the 

point now that the payments by the State whenever this project is 

finished, the payments are going to be almost double what they 

were supposed to be because of the accumulating interest by this 

delayed implementation or completion of the project. What do you 

say to that? 

Ms. DARCY. The delay in implementation of which—— 

18 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Of the hurricane protection system, 

the SELA [Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Damage Reduction 

Project], the New Orleans to Venice, the Lake Pontchartrain vicinity, Westbank, the HPS, which you all came up with the new acronym HSDRRS [Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System] because that rolls off the tongue I think. So—— 

Ms. DARCY. That’s the—what we considered with the $14 billion 

of Federal investment. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Sure. Right. 

Ms. DARCY. The completion of the other projects that you’re referring to I think are all hopefully on some kind of glide path, the 

details of which I don’t have at the ready at the moment. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Does that concern you at all, though, 

that the State is facing a payback agreement of nearly double what 

it was before when that agency is the same agency that’s supposed 

to be helping to restore the coast and do all the other things in 

terms of mitigating some of the impacts of Federal actions? 

Ms. DARCY. It is concerning that that would be a doubling for the 

State’s responsibility. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Taking away money for ecosystem 

restoration to other important priorities? Thank you—— 

General BOSTICK. And one of the things that I would offer is that 

when you talk about civilian organizations and that folks might be 

fired if they took this long and you talk about different agencies 

and what they do, there’s probably no other organization that has 

to integrate like the Corps across all Federal agencies. If you look 

at something like the 3x3x3 that was put into law, that applies to 

the Corps, yet we have to work with all Federal agencies, we have 

to work with locals, and they don’t necessarily need to buy into the 

3x3x3. 

If you look at BRAC [Base Realignment and Closure] 2005, $121⁄2

billion in construction completed in 7 years, you look at the large 

proportion of the hurricane storm damage risk reduction, again, 

completed in 7 years, there’s no other organization in the world 

that could accomplish this. I brought the Chinese Minister of 

Water Resources here. He said no other organization in the world 

could have done what the Corps did. And part of that is bringing 

all the parties together, communicating and agreeing that in a crisis we’re going to get this done. BRAC was a great example of the 

Congress and the American people all coming together and saying 

here’s the priority, we’re going to get it done, and the Corps can 

deliver. The challenge we have is we don’t have that burning platform in many of these other projects. 

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

I just—pointing out the comparison of this other delivery mechanism compared to what we’re using right now, you’re doing projects 

like that in 7 years compared to what we’re taking decades to do. 

There needs to be fundamental change in the project development 

and delivery systems. 

Mr. GIBBS. That’s obviously a good point, which sometimes we 

study stuff to death. 

Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

19 

Secretary Darcy, General Bostick, the entire country has been 

awakened by the lead in the water crisis in Flint, Michigan. There 

was something of a similar crisis here, and of course the Corps produces drinking water for this Capital, for the Federal complex, for 

several adjoining counties in Virginia. And DC Water in particular 

purchases almost three-quarters of the water from the aqueduct, 

and of course we drink that water here in the Capital. 

Now does the Corps operate any other municipal drinking or 

water treatment in the country? 

General BOSTICK. We do not. 

Ms. NORTON. Only in the Nation’s Capital? 

General BOSTICK. Only in—— 

Ms. NORTON. This is a holdover from before the city had its own 

home rule and, of course, it has DC Water now. DC Water is an 

expert agency in delivering water. That is not your core expertise, 

is it? 

Ms. DARCY. No. 

Ms. NORTON. No. The Secretary says no. In addition, as I understand it, if there are capital improvements, you are not funded by 

this Congress in order to engage in those improvements because 

you cannot borrow, you cannot bond. Isn’t that the case? 

General BOSTICK. That’s correct. 

Ms. NORTON. Of course, DC Water can borrow and bond and is 

doing a great many things at the moment. How do you test for lead 

in the water for the water supply that comes to this Congress and 

throughout this region? 

General BOSTICK. How do we test in the water supply in Washington, DC? 

Ms. NORTON. To make sure there’s no lead in the water, General 

Bostick. 

General BOSTICK. Right. We know that there’s no lead in the 

water source, which is the Potomac River. And the water leaving 

the two Washington aqueducts water treatment plant is tested 

once a month for lead. Now lead can leach into the pipes going 

from the pipes that are coming from the house or the buildings to 

where the source of the water is, but our current indication is that 

we’ve tested the water coming from the aqueduct—— 

Ms. NORTON. But if it leaches from the pipes, which is of course 

the problem here and all across the United States, and Members 

had best look and ask what is the substance put into the water to 

counteract that lead leaching, is that substance being routinely put 

into the water here today? The wrong substance was being put in 

the water by the Corps in the early 2000s when the Nation’s Capital had a similar crisis. What’s the substance? 

General BOSTICK. The substance is orthophosphate, and it interacts with the interior surface of a lead pipe, and it provides a protective layer in the pipe to ensure that there’s no lead that’s going 

to leach. So—— 

Ms. NORTON. I want to alert you, Mr. Chairman, other Members 

to inquire in their own districts what is the substance. The Corps 

put the wrong substance in the water, and there was lead in the 

water. Forty-two thousand children had to be tested. It was a genuine crisis. We had to use bottled water just like they are having 

to do in Flint, Michigan. So Members are well advised to go home 

20 

and at least inquire what is the substance, how often is the water 

tested. 

Let me ask you about another—you do several projects here as 

a matter of routine. I want to thank you for agreeing to work in 

the Spring Valley community here to test groundwater in that community while allowing the neighborhood to make use of one of its 

parks. Has that groundwater testing started? And what are you 

looking for? What do you think you may find in the groundwater? 

General BOSTICK. I’ll have to follow up on the groundwater. I 

was not tracking that specific question, but we can follow up on it. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, you went to a great deal of—you put a great 

deal of energy into building a way to test the groundwater, and I’d 

ask you within 30 days to get back to the chairman and me—and 

I’m sure he would give to me what action the Corps plans, about 

what you are doing to test this groundwater, which was your intention and what you intend to do—what you’re looking for and what 

you intend to do about it. 

And finally, let me ask you about the levee that you were building. You had a problem with the contractor. Boy, I just saw a drawing of everything on the Mall underwater except the Washington 

Monument because of climate change. But at least in the near term 

we have this levee to protect the National Mall and nearby neighborhoods, but there have been lengthy delays. We are told that the 

levee system evaluation report—this is supposed to be the final 

piece of writing—is due to FEMA this spring and that the levee 

therefore will be approved. 

Lieutenant General Bostick and Secretary Darcy, is the Army on 

track to get this Federal report in, done and over with by this 

spring so that you can assure the Congress that, in fact, this levee 

to control flooding on the Mall has been taken care of? 

General BOSTICK. Yes, we’ll have that report completed and to 

FEMA this spring. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. And I appreciate it, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Welcome to our new member of the committee from 

Illinois, Mr. Bost. 

Mr. BOST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First up, I want to say a special thank you to the Secretary and 

the general. I’ve had the luxury of working with both, well, actually 

three intersecting areas: St. Louis, Louisville and also Memphis 

and all in one county where that one works there. But let me also 

say that your Colonel Mitchell is doing a fine job and has been a 

tremendous help to us working with them. 

That being said, we do have a unique situation that has occurred, which 6 days ago I was on the ground seeing, and that is 

when the—what was known as the Len Small levee which was a 

secondary levee system that was put in in the 1920s by then-Governor Len Small in the State of Illinois, and it’s only set up for a 

15-foot levee. But when the holiday floods—because I guess that’s 

what we’ll call it—came and came so rapidly along the Mississippi 

and we traced it all the way down, that levee broke. And when that 

levee broke, we watched as it occurred and the concerns that we 

had. But we thought, no problem, we’ll be able to go back in and 

fix the levee. 

21 

Now it has elevated, and I want to make sure that you’re aware 

of that. It is elevated to the point that the—because the river is 

coming right straight there, and it goes into what’s known as the 

Dogtooth Bend. It’s about a 17-mile bend in the Mississippi River 

that comes back upon itself. And when it does, the area across is 

31⁄2 miles in comparison to the 17 miles around. The elevation drop 

is somewhere between 13 and 17 feet. 

In the 3 weeks that the water was up, it has already cut a gouge 

about a half a mile long and one-quarter mile wide working to 

come across that 31⁄2 miles. 

Now the concern I have besides the fact that I have a concern 

for the district, for the property that was ruined and all of the 

issues there, the concern I really have is for commerce for the 

United States because if that breaks through and we aren’t aggressively going after to stop that, barge traffic from New Orleans to 

the Great Lakes could be held by the fact that that becomes a 

rapid instead of a smooth, navigable water. Is that your concern as 

well? Or do you know? 

General BOSTICK. I don’t have the specific details on that, but 

navigation is clearly one of our three primary functions, so we’re 

very concerned in anything that would involve the situation you described. So we will take a look at it—— 

Mr. BOST. OK. I wanted to make sure that we were up on that. 

And another concern that I do have because it’s in the same area, 

the—across from the Len Small area is—on the Missouri side the 

New Madrid levee project. And that project was approved. Does 

that take both of you to sign off on that? 

General BOSTICK. Well, there would normally be a Chief’s Report 

that I sign. We send it to Secretary Darcy for approval. 

Mr. BOST. OK. Would you know where the status of that project 

is? It’s about a 1,500-foot added levee on the other side of the river. 

Ms. DARCY. I believe—it’s the St. John’s-New Madrid—— 

Mr. BOST. Mm-hmm. 

Ms. DARCY [continuing]. You’re talking about? I believe it’s currently undergoing an Environmental Impact Statement. 

Mr. BOST. OK. The fear that we have on the other side of the 

Mississippi is the pressures that we’re already feeling and the fact 

that when the 2011 flood occurred, to keep us below the 60-foot 

level at Cairo, it was to blow, and we remember how difficult that 

was to make the decision that was part of the plan to release the 

Birds Point levee. My concern and the concerns of my constituents 

are that that would change the hydraulics and put more pressure 

on our side of the river. Do you see that, or what are your concerns 

with that? 

General BOSTICK. If you’re talking—when we have floods in that 

area in the Cairo area, we would still blow the New Madrid—— 

Mr. BOST. The New Madrid would still fall under the existing 

rules so that we could make sure of—— 

General BOSTICK. Right. We would still execute the floodway. 

Mr. BOST. And let me say this to continue to give a compliment 

here. Let me tell you that working together it was a great job done 

by the Corps, all three of them working together to release water 

from both the Kentucky Lake and Barkley Lake to allow the pressure relief that actually brought the pressure off of Cairo without 

22 

having to blow that and thinking in advance that way. I want to 

commend you on the job that you’ve done there. 

I look forward to working with you. I—on the one project if you 

can get back with my staff, we’re wanting to help any way we can 

to make sure, because my big fear on that where the Dogtooth 

comes around is that spring thaw would occur, we’d get another 

secondary flood that would move in there like the one of the holiday flood, and it would, like I said, change what we know for as 

far as commerce in the United States. So thank you very much. I 

yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me express my appreciation to you and Ranking Member 

Napolitano for holding this hearing of the Corps annual report to 

Congress. And I’d like to thank also the Honorable Assistant Secretary Darcy and Lieutenant General Thomas Bostick for being 

here today. 

I do appreciate your continued commitment to working cooperatively with Congress to plan the development of our Nation’s future 

water resources. The Water Resources Reform and Development 

Act of 2014, otherwise known as WRRDA, established new mechanisms for the Corps to submit projects for possible authorization by 

Congress. Section 7001 of WRRDA 2014 is meant to guide Congress 

as it drafts a new water resources bill. 

I have in practice I believe many questions that remain of how 

both Congress and the Corps will implement the requirements 

under that section. 

Assistant Secretary Darcy, can you speak more to the challenges 

that the Corps continues to face with the interpretation and implementation of 7001, what Congress can do to improve that process 

for future resources, water resources legislation? 

Ms. DARCY. Congresswoman, I think we learned a lot from the 

2015 report to the 2016 report, and we’ve done some outreach to 

local sponsors to be able to educate them as to what the requirements are and the criteria that is in 7001. We have made the submission of the proposals easier by putting it online for Web-based 

distribution throughout the Corps. And we also have all of our districts involved now on the local level and helping local sponsors develop their proposals for 7001. We’re hoping that this year’s report 

will meet with more of the congressional intent that there was in 

7001. 

Ms. JOHNSON. OK. During consideration of that bill, I worked 

very closely with my colleague, Congressman Farenthold to draft 

language directing the Corps to conduct an assessment of the Atlantic and Gulf Intracoastal Waterways within 90 days of the bill’s 

enactment. While the language was adopted and included in the 

bill, that assessment has not yet been completed, and we don’t 

have the response. So it’s kind of frustrating when you’re trying to 

plan and look for studies that have time limits that don’t come. 

Ms. DARCY. I’m not sure what the status is of that report. I know 

that there currently hasn’t been any funding allocated to start that 

report. 

Ms. JOHNSON. No funding allocated? So the funding has to be 

specifically allocated for every individual thing? 

23 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

Ms. JOHNSON. So when we draft a bill and have instructions and 

don’t have a line item to pay for it, it will not be done? 

Ms. DARCY. All of the studies that are authorized all compete for 

funding within the President’s budget every year. 

Ms. JOHNSON. What is your process for alerting the Congress 

that they’re going to be ignored if the money is not there? 

Ms. DARCY. When we submit the President’s budget. In each of 

our accounts, our investigations account is the one that would fund 

studies; it would be at that point that Members would know whether the study is being funded or not. 

Ms. JOHNSON. But there’s no response to Congress when you get 

a mandate—congressionally mandated to do something and you 

don’t do it, and you say the reason is not money, there’s no way 

to get back to Congress and say it’s not going to be done? 

Ms. DARCY. We don’t have a notification process for that currently. Perhaps we need to be more responsive to the requests and 

let Members know what is not being funded. 

Ms. JOHNSON. What do you suggest that we do congressionally 

to get responses to what is congressionally mandated that’s not 

done in the specific time that it’s requested? And it’s not just a 

mouth-to-mouth; it is mandated in law and you can’t do it, what 

process do you use to notify the Congress that you’re not going to 

do it? 

Ms. DARCY. As I said, we currently don’t have a process in place 

for that kind of notification, but it’s probably something we need 

to look at, and maybe we can work with the committee on trying 

to be able to afford at least the notification to the Members. 

Ms. JOHNSON. So you recommend we also congressionally put 

that in, to instruct you to give us a report on what you’re not going 

to do and what you’re going to do based on what’s—what money 

is allocated? 

General BOSTICK. Ma’am, if I could offer, this kind of gets back 

to the point I was raising earlier. You know, when you look at 

BRAC or you look at what we did after Hurricane Sandy and after 

Hurricane Katrina, we had a lot of upfront funding. We knew what 

it was going to cost, and we were provided the money that was required and we worked with the other agencies and we got the work 

done in a rapid pace. Currently we have a lot more work that 

needs to be done than we have funding. So part of where we need 

help is in the priorities of what we want to get accomplished. So 

what we try to do is look at the benefits in each of these projects 

and then prioritize. 

But that’s why the hurricane protection system in New Orleans 

took 40 years to build before Katrina hit, and then we finished it 

in 7 years. All of these projects are out there. We need help with 

priorities. Priorities like BRAC where the Congress said you will 

start in 2005, you will be done in 2011, and we were funded for 

it and we did it. Right now we have a lot of projects that the Members want done and limited funds to do that, and we’re not ignoring 

the Congress. We’re trying to do the best job that we can with the 

dollars that we have. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, General. 

Mr. Rouzer. 

24 

Mr. ROUZER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Madam Secretary, General Bostick, thank you so much for 

being here today. You don’t have an easy job, and I appreciate that 

and certainly appreciate you indulging all of us here. 

Two major items that are on my mind: Wrightsville Beach and 

Carolina Beach. As you all know, Wrightsville Beach is approaching its funding limit, and I was just curious if you have an idea 

of when the Post-Authorization Change Report for our Wrightsville 

Beach project will be complete. 

General BOSTICK. I do not. But we can follow up and we’ll get 

that answer to you quickly. 

Mr. ROUZER. I’d—just a question of curiosity: Are there a number 

of Post-Authorization Change Reports that you’re working on? Is it 

a significant number? Just a few? 

General BOSTICK. My sensing is it’s a smaller number. We’ve put 

processes into place where we’re able to mitigate and control the 

price increase as much as possible. When I was first Chief, it was 

a very large number. I can get you the number where it’s at today, 

but my sense is it’s much less than it was before. 

Mr. ROUZER. I was just trying to figure out why it’s taking so 

long. That’s why I was wondering the number. 

General BOSTICK. Each one of these have different issues, and 

it’s very difficult to say why this particular one is taking long, but 

I will find out, and we’ll get the details and provide it to you. 

Mr. ROUZER. I appreciate that very much. Carolina Beach, as you 

know, they concluded their 50-year cycle a couple years ago, received a 3-year extension in the last WRRDA bill, the 2014 

WRRDA bill. They were included in the appendix, but not in the 

report. And I’m still not completely certain I fully understand the 

criteria for making the full report versus being inserted in the appendix if you can help me out there a little bit. 

Ms. DARCY. Carolina Beach is the one you’re asking about? Carolina Beach is already an authorized project. In order to get into the 

report, you would need to be a project that needs authorization, 

and Carolina Beach does not. 

Mr. ROUZER. OK. Thank you for that clarification. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Darcy, General Bostick, thanks again. Great to see 

both of you again. As you both know, I worked to include an important provision in WRRDA 2014 that created a water infrastructure 

P3 [public-private partnership] program. The goal of this P3 pilot 

is to identify project delivery alternatives to save costs and reduce 

the current backlog of authorized Corps projects. 

In the Corps FY 2016 workplan that was recently released, I was 

pleased to see that the Fargo-Moorhead flood control project was 

listed as a new start. In its recent report to Congress on P3s, the 

Corps noted the Fargo-Moorhead project sponsors had developed a 

split delivery approach that will expedite project delivery with the 

local sponsors using a P3 structure to construct the diversion channel and the Corps constructing the dam. In that same report, the 

Corps listed the Illinois waterway navigation proposal second in a 

list of six projects being evaluated as a P3 demonstration project. 

25 

General Bostick, can you reaffirm that the Illinois waterway 

navigation proposal remains a viable project for the P3 pilot program? 

General BOSTICK. It is a viable project that we’re looking at. 

Mr. DAVIS. In reference to the Illinois project in its report to Congress on the state of P3s, the Corps mentioned the progress needed 

to develop revenue generation authority in the Federal ownership 

and operations. Beyond needing another new start, can you elaborate on what more the Corps needs for this project to move forward? 

General BOSTICK. When we looked at the different projects that 

were out there, Fargo-Moorhead was the furthest along in terms of 

investors and the tax base that they were going to use in order to 

fund it and the local community coming onboard and agreeing to 

it. I’m not saying that Illinois is not there and others are not there, 

but they were not as close. 

I don’t have the specifics on this project that we’re talking about 

now, but I can get those and find out what other factors are needed. I think what we had to do this first time was to almost pilot 

one for lack of a better term. We had to push one of these P3s out 

and ensure that we have the right mechanisms within OMB, within Congress and with the Corps to understand it. And then I think 

we can cycle back and see where Illinois River and the others 

stand. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. And if we’re successful in requesting another 

new start in this year’s approach process, do you think the Illinois 

project has a chance to be included in the FY 2017 workplan? 

General BOSTICK. I really couldn’t answer that today. 

Mr. DAVIS. Yeah, you can. [Laughter.] You can say yes. 

General BOSTICK. I can say that we will certainly take a look at 

it. You weren’t here for my opening I don’t think, but I did talk 

about the importance of public-private partnerships and that it’s 

part of the solution—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Just say yes. 

General BOSTICK [continuing]. In my view going forward. 

Mr. DAVIS. Just say yes. 

General BOSTICK. We will do everything we can. 

Mr. DAVIS. Just say yes. [Laughter.] 

Secretary Darcy, I wanted to ask you about some recent actions 

taken by the Chicago Corps district that have been brought to my 

attention with specific regard to the Brandon Road lock and dam. 

Chicago district recently sent out a small survey to carriers and 

shippers with questions about lock usage in order to identify the 

impacts of a new lock at Brandon Road. Are you aware of the survey that I’m talking about? 

Ms. DARCY. I am not, but—— 

Mr. DAVIS. There you go. 

Ms. DARCY [continuing]. He’s going to give it to me. 

Mr. DAVIS. We’ll take it down. [Passing witness a survey.] We’ll 

give that one to you. I say small survey because I understand that 

only a total of nine were sent out, and with unanimous consent I’d 

like to actually enter it into the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

26 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. What’s concerning to me is that the survey sample did not include those folks who would be directly impacted by any changes in operations at Brandon Road such as 

towboat companies, major shippers and businesses with indirect 

ties to the lock like port shipyards and construction companies. 

In addition, I’m told that the survey included several companies 

that do not even do business near Brandon Road and that two surveys were actually sent to the same company under two different 

names. And as you know, Secretary Darcy, Brandon Road is a vital 

commercial lake between the Mississippi River system in my district borders and the great lakes. And I’m sure you’ll well understand any changes to the structure operation at Brandon Road 

could have a significant impact on the inland maritime industry 

and my constituents. 

So first, can you explain for the committee the methodology the 

Chicago district used to determine the entities that this survey was 

sent to? 

Ms. DARCY. I cannot. I don’t know if the general—— 

Mr. DAVIS. General Bostick? 

General BOSTICK. My understanding is they contracted with the 

University of Tennessee’s Center for Transportation Research. And 

their effort and guidance was to go out and get a shipper response 

survey from shippers, those on the docks and carriers. So the interviews included shippers and vessel operators, and there were 132 

total responses that were involved in the survey. 

Mr. DAVIS. How many? 

General BOSTICK. 132. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. My records show that only nine were sent out. 

That’s not the case? 

General BOSTICK. That’s not my understanding. But since there’s 

a misunderstanding here, I will follow up and find the details and 

get back to you. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. You could do that and say yes on the Illinois waterway question, too. [Laughter.] My understanding is that only 

nine were sent out to address some OMB issues and also that it 

was necessary to expedite this process. I’m just concerned that the 

industry was not consulted prior to the Corps utilizing this contractor to conduct this survey, and I just want to make sure that 

both of you could commit to me today to work to get answers to 

these questions, clear up any miscommunications that I may be 

getting and then also work to ensure that a better sample of stakeholders that utilize the Brandon Road facility are included in any 

attempts to address a survey relating to that specific project. 

General BOSTICK. We will do that. 

Mr. DAVIS. And you could still say yes. I’ve got time. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Sanford. 

Mr. SANFORD. Two quick thoughts. One, I think it’s appropriate 

to praise the administration when they get it right and condemn 

them when I think they got it wrong. And I just want to say thank 

you for what you all have done with regard to the port in Charleston. If you look at the port in Charleston, it really is a national resource given the number of container ships that go in and out of 

27 

that facility. If you look at post-Panamax and what’s going to happen with the widening of the Panama Canal, I think its impact will 

be profound. And it’s going to have a mighty impact on the Southeast as you serve the heartland of America from a different access 

point. You know, it has basically $50 billion of economic activity not 

just in our State but across the region, more than 200,000 jobs, direct jobs tied to the port. So it’s a significant facility, and if you 

look at the process that the Corps has gone through, originally it 

was estimated I think it would take 7 years and $20 million to go 

through this next leg that we’re in right now. 

In essence both of those numbers have been cut in half. Roughly 4 years and $11 million. You guys have worked in I think awfully 

cooperative ways with State and other Federal agencies in some 

ways that maybe weren’t done in the past. So I want to say thank 

you for what you’ve done on that front. I think it was well done. 

And as you look at the process going forward, I guess my question would be this: Are the lessons learned that came out of what’s 

happened in Charleston that you might apply it with other port facilities or harbor facilities around the country in terms of the expediting, the tax savings and the cooperation that we’ve seen thus far 

in Charleston? 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman, I think we’re looking to what we’ve 

done in preparing the Charleston study report to help with other 

reports that we’ll be doing. As you know, this particular project had 

a great deal of attention on it; it was on the President’s ‘‘We Can’t 

Wait’’ initiative which helped us in many ways to get a focus on 

what was required and trying to get it, again, completed earlier 

than the traditional way of doing things. I think we can take those 

lessons learned to other port deepening projects. 

General BOSTICK. One of the lessons as I’m sure you know, was 

that we had to work very closely with NOAA [National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration] and look at the priorities they had 

and the priorities we had and how could we move Charleston up. 

And this gets back to the point I made earlier, the 3x3x3 really applies to the Corps of Engineers in law, but not necessarily other organizations that have their own very important priorities. 

So one of the things we’ve set up is regular meetings. I’ve met 

with Vice Admiral Brown at NOAA, and we’re looking at these priorities in certain areas. I think Charleston was another one of 

those that was a good example of how we could work together to 

see what was the Nation’s—— 

Mr. SANFORD. Is there anything that stakeholders tied to the facility in Charleston ought to know or be aware of moving forward, 

any next steps that deserve further elaboration or color? 

Ms. DARCY. We’re on track with the Chief’s Report for Charleston 

Harbor. We also put money in the 2016 budget for Preconstruction 

Engineering and Design for this project. I think the Port of 

Charleston did a pretty good job in getting this one over the finish 

line. 

General BOSTICK. Yesterday I spoke to our planners, and these 

are young folks on who we have invested a lot of money so that 

they can help us with planning modernization. And part of what 

they’re doing is looking at our centers of expertise, and one is the 

28 

world-class deep draft planning expertise, and that was key in 

Charleston moving forward. So we’ve developed great expertise in 

the Corps and we’re looking 10, 20 years down the road at how we 

continue to train our people. 

Mr. SANFORD. Last question in the minute I’ve got. And this is 

tied to the annual Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. For a while it 

seemed the administration was underfunding. Then Congress came 

back, I guess, in WRRDA 2014, said we need basically a description 

of future costs so that we’re not caught unaware or behind and that 

there was to be a report issued I think each year as a consequence 

of WRRDA 2014. Was that in your 2017 request, report back to 

Congress on that front? Could you, again, fill me in on where we 

are on that? 

Ms. DARCY. On the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund? 

Mr. SANFORD. Yeah. 

Ms. DARCY. I’m not aware of our report to Congress, but I will 

double-check and see what the requirement is and what the status 

is of that report for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, not the 

Inland Waterways Trust Fund, right? 

Mr. SANFORD. Right. Right. I think it’s dictated by WRRDA 2014 

if I’m not mistaken. I’m just curious to see where that stands. If 

you’d come back to me, I’d appreciate it. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Babin. 

Dr. BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a couple of questions here. Last year I asked about what 

the Corps was doing to address the Bayport Flare which is a navigation issue in my district on the Houston Ship Channel. And I understand that a design efficiency report is nearing completion by 

the Corps, and I’d like to know what the timeframe is for completing the report and who currently has authority to approve this 

report. And also once it is finalized, will there be any other requirements or actions required by Congress to enable the Corps to budget for and maintain the report’s recommendations, and if there’s 

any further action required by Congress and when will we receive 

the information for our consideration? And I guess I would direct 

this to General Bostick. 

General BOSTICK. We regret that this has been delayed for a 

number of times, and we appreciate you bringing it up. I have visited the port and talked to the leaders there, and our team has 

worked very closely with them. We expect that the report will be 

in the headquarters by March of this year and that we should have 

approval of the project deficiency report by May. We will still need 

approval of the Post-Authorization Change Report, which is an increase in cost, and we will ultimately need funding in order to 

move forward. 

Dr. BABIN. Well, it’s a safety issue in our minds. Also, I would 

like to ask—it’s my understanding that there have been a number 

of delays in completing the 902 report for the Houston Ship Channel project and how the delay might impact the ability to address 

this Bayport Flare problem if modifications need to be made by 

Congress and specifically I’m concerned that until the 902 report 

is completed, the project authorization is modified, there could be 

limitations on construction of critical elements of the project, which 

29 

could affect the viability of the entire Houston Ship Channel, the 

entire navigation system. 

And I would like for your to please explain the purpose for the 

ongoing 902 report, the schedule for completion of the 902 report 

and the impacts to the project if the 902 limit is not resolved in 

the upcoming WRDA bill. And simply put, would more flexibility 

under 902 help you to address these critical safety issues that we’re 

concerned with? 

General BOSTICK. The 902 report is also on a timeline that we 

expect it to be submitted in March of 2016. I think we can do more 

work to be efficient in how we get it processed, and we’re trying 

to do that. But that report will be here in March, and by the end 

of April, if there are no comments, we believe that we can start the 

process of moving that to Congress. 

Dr. BABIN. We certainly hope so. We had a collision in our channel last year. I can’t blame it on the Bayport Flares, but it certainly could have involved something in that regard so that this 

really and truly is a possible safety issue. And we hope that this 

will be taken care of pretty quickly. So March or April is when we 

can expect it then, huh? 

General BOSTICK. March or April we should be finished with it 

at the headquarters. And assuming there aren’t any significant 

issues or comments, then we will start the process of moving it to 

Congress. 

Dr. BABIN. OK. Thank you, General. I yield back the balance of 

my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. General, I just want a little bit of clarification on 

that. The 902 on this—that’s for construction. This is operation 

maintenance. So it shouldn’t really be in that 902 issue, is that correct? 

General BOSTICK. No, it is construction. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, well, we think you already have the authority to 

do all this already, without having to do a 902. That’s an opinion 

of mine. 

General BOSTICK. OK. Then we’ll clarify it with our attorney. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

Dr. BABIN. We thought so too, Mr. Chairman, at first. And then 

this is the conflicting story that we’re getting. So we hope that this 

gets—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Yeah. On code 33, U.S. Code 562 you might want to 

look at, I guess. Mr. Rokita? 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Chairman, for holding this hearing. I 

appreciate the witnesses being back before us. My apologies for not 

hearing your testimony. Frankly I was in another, another hearing. 

Not as bad as being a Senator I guess, but we still get conflicted 

a lot of times. So apologies if you have to restate some of this, General. But let me start here. Representing the—and of course, the 

inland waterways are very important to us and very important to 

the Nation, as you know. We feed the world through the inland waterways in my opinion. And if any of these locks or dams go down, 

not only people’s livelihoods, but really their safety and well-being 

is affected. So I’m looking at, you know, through the appropriations 

process and through my other committee budget looking through 

fiscal year 2016 appropriations, I see that we approved $405 milVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:13 May 25, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2-24-2~1\98873.TXT JEAN
30 

lion for construction of projects on the system. With this appropriation, the Corps announced the funds would go to construct four lock 

projects, Olmsted, Lower Mon [Monongahela] 2, 3, and 4, Kentucky 

lock and Chickamauga lock. However, in the fiscal year 2017 budget request, $206 million in funds are requested only for the 

Olmsted project, if I’m reading that right. 

So my question is this: Are you planning on doing work on those 

locks with the fiscal year 2016 money? And then you’re not going 

to lay off the workers when you get to fiscal year 2017. So what— 

or are you? Or if so, what happens to the projects? I’m not understanding how the projects continue with the differential of funding. 

Ms. DARCY. The 2016 workplan, you’re correct, had the four 

projects funded in that. And then in 2017 we are only funding 

Olmsted. 

Mr. ROKITA. Yeah. 

Ms. DARCY. Because of the trust fund balances. But the work will 

not completely halt on the other projects. They just will not be 

funded in 2017 because they are, they don’t compete for the funding that we have available for the inland waterways. 

Mr. ROKITA. They don’t compete why? Because it’s not needed in 

your opinion? It’s not—— 

Ms. DARCY. No, sir. The benefit to cost ratio of those projects 

does not compete within the budgeting process. We usually look to 

a benefit to cost ratio of 2.5 to 1 in order to budget projects. And 

those projects do not meet that criteria. 

Mr. ROKITA. The 2.5 to 1 what? I’m sorry? 

Ms. DARCY. Benefit to cost ratio. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. 

Ms. DARCY. That’s how we prioritize projects in the budget. The 

benefit to cost ratio is 2.5 to 1 at a 7-percent discount rate. 

Mr. ROKITA. What happens to the condition of the locks? I mean, 

the benefit to cost ratio doesn’t—those, these locks don’t pass that 

except for one. Is the work done at that point? Does it just get put 

on hold? Does it languish? How hard is it to start up a project after 

it’s put on hold? I’m, I just need some clarification. 

Ms. DARCY. You want to take that one? 

General BOSTICK. We wouldn’t just walk away from the project, 

but we would do minimal work. And at some point if funding was 

not available, we obviously would have to demobilize the contractors. And then, we would not be managing the project. We would 

have a project that is unfinished. And this gets back to an earlier 

conversation I had before you came in here. There are projects that 

we have completed very rapidly in short periods of time with upfront funding. And we have great examples of how we can do that. 

In these examples money is stretched over a long period of time. 

And therefore their benefits drop. And therefore they are no longer 

competitive. And that’s where we are in some of these projects. Because of our model on how we are able to calculate, and the lack 

of efficient funding, many of these projects either take a long time 

to complete or are not completed at all. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. So I’m again, I’m illustrating a longstanding 

problem, funding over multiple fiscal years. And in your opinion 

has Congress been helpful or hurtful on the way in trying to solve 

that problem? 

31 

General BOSTICK. I gave examples of where we’re successful. 

BRAC, baseline realignment and closure. I mean the Congress, it 

was an up or down vote. I’m from California. We didn’t want to see 

Fort Ord close, but it closed. There was a decision that ‘‘Here are 

the priorities. Here’s the basis. Here’s the money. You have 7 years 

to accomplish the mission.’’ And the Corps was able to do it. No 

other organization in the world could have done that. So, and the 

hurricane storm damage risk reduction project after Katrina. No 

other country in the world could have done what the Corps did and 

what the Nation did, because we came together within the interagencies. I do think we need upfront funding. We need priorities. 

And then we need the interagencies to work together as if we have 

a crisis and say we’re going to accomplish these missions. 

When I came back from China, the Minister of China Water Resources said, ‘‘We’re learning from the United States. We’re about 

100 years behind you but we want to catch up.’’ So our plan is, 

we’re going to do 172 projects with $600 billion and we’re going to 

finish it in 7 years. And he looked at me and said, ‘‘What’s your 

strategic plan?’’ And I could not repeat our strategic plan, because 

we don’t have one in that context. We have a collection of projects 

that are supporting many, many districts in many, many States. 

And we’re trying to do the best that we can to manage those 

projects in a strategic manner. But in this form of decisionmaking, 

these projects take a long time. Their BCR [benefit to cost ratio] 

drops and then they get very difficult to fund. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I know I’m over, but one quick followup. It could be answered in 5 or 10 seconds. The formula you speak of, Ms. Darcy, 

was that congressionally driven, or was that, is that something 

that the agency or others wholly came up with? The cost-benefit 

formula process that these locks have flunked now, who derived 

that? 

Ms. DARCY. The administration does that in the evaluation of the 

funding. 

Mr. ROKITA. At our insistence, or just the way this administration decided to prioritize things? 

Ms. DARCY. Well, it’s been since the 1980s that—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Yeah, that’s what I’m asking. I’m new to this subcommittee so I’m again, trying to learn as best I can. Thank you, 

Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Oh, she left. I guess it goes to me. I was going back 

to your side, but Ms. Frankel left. OK. General Bostick—and Secretary, this might be kind of both of you. But in General Bostick’s 

testimony you talk about national security being a top priority. 

Which, I’m glad to hear that. But to follow up on that kind of a 

question, I want to first thank both of you for fixing the flawed economic analysis on the Soo lock project, because I had some 

thoughts on that. So where are we? Because I believe that I would 

say the Soo lock project, there is a national security issue. And so 

describe your plan in the budget to maintain the 48-year-old Poe 

lock and the 73-year-old MacArthur lock. What’s the status of the 

work on the Soo locks? 

Ms. DARCY. I think that we’re currently re-looking at the economics for this, for the new Soo lock. 

32 

Mr. GIBBS. What was that? 

Ms. DARCY. I think we’re, updating an economic analysis for the 

new Soo lock. 

Mr. GIBBS. You know, this should take 5 minutes, to do an economic analysis on the Soo locks, I would think. So what’s your 

timetable for that? 

Ms. DARCY. I don’t know, but I’ll get back to you soon. 

Mr. GIBBS. I mean, how much figuring does it take to figure out 

that the Soo locks, if they go down, that’s a huge economic impact? 

Because you can’t get into Lake Superior and the other Great 

Lakes. I mean, I think during World War II, we had a garrison 

guarding that up there, because it was so important. So you know, 

I guess I just don’t really want to hear too much of ‘‘The economic 

analysis is going to take this long and this long.’’ It just doesn’t 

make sense to me. I mean, I think we could sit down here in 5 minutes and get that done. But it’s just my opinion. I’m probably getting in trouble here, but that’s my opinion. And General Bostick, 

you mentioned the national security. I think that’s one area. And 

I’ve said this to your leadership. You know, it’d be nice if the Corps 

would identify these issues. And you’re just talking about a strategic plan. And I think I said this to General Jackson when he was 

in my office. You know, the Soo locks I would think ought to be a 

national priority. The flood wall down in Houston-Galveston ought 

to be a national priority because we’ve had hurricanes hit there. 

The whole Eastern United States runs out of gasoline. And so if 

you want to develop a strategic plan, that would be my suggestion. 

I want to talk a little bit about the annual report, Secretary 

Darcy, didn’t contain some, some project modifications that have 

been routinely included in WRDA in the past. So these would include proposals for modification to the Houston-Galveston Channel 

project. To include a nonfederally constructed channel of segments, 

or Federal maintenance modification of the Texas City Channel 

deepening project. To remove impediments under navigation to enable use of certain property adjacent to the project for development 

of a container terminal, and the modification of the Cleveland Harbor project to provide for Federal participation of the upland placement of maintenance, such material or such material as deemed 

not suitable for Oakland Lake placement by the State of Ohio. The 

report indicates the proposals were excluded from the report’s main 

table on this basis: they do not meet the purpose of the annual report to identify projects for authorization, or modification to existing projects. 

This is puzzling to me since the proposals clearly meet that criteria of project modifications related to the Corps of Engineers 

navigation mission, requiring congressional authorization as capable of being carried out by the Corps of Engineers. First, why exactly were they not included in the annual report for congressional 

consideration for WRDA? And second, your own report states that 

the act directs the Secretary to include, among other things, proposed modifications to authorized projects that meet the criteria. So 

I would like your explanation to the subcommittee. Where in the 

law is the Corps of Engineers asked to judge submitted proposals 

beyond determining if such project modifications meet the standard 

criteria? 

33 

Ms. DARCY. As you’ve outlined, the project you’ve listed, we don’t 

believe met those criteria. In particular, I know of your interest in 

Cleveland Harbor. And in the instance of Cleveland Harbor, the 

modification that was asked for is one that is, that in order to be 

in the report it would need congressional authorization. The modification that was asked for would be a modification to the Federal 

Standard. And the modification to a Federal Standard would have 

to be a rulemaking, not a legislative action. 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, OK. So which one of the five criteria didn’t it 

meet? 

Ms. DARCY. It doesn’t need to be authorized. 

Mr. GIBBS. It doesn’t need the authorization? 

Ms. DARCY. Right. Because as you know, Cleveland Harbor is already an authorized project for the Army Corps of Engineers. What 

was asked for was that there be a change to the Federal Standard 

for the Port of Cleveland. And a change to the Federal Standard 

for the Port of Cleveland does not require authorization or legislation. That’s, so that’s why it wasn’t in the report. 

Mr. GIBBS. Are you willing to work with the Port of Cleveland 

to come up with a proposal for the next report to, you know, to resolve this issue? 

Ms. DARCY. Well, I think that the criteria in 7001 would need to 

be changed in order for this kind of project to be included in the 

report. 

Mr. GIBBS. So that means you’re not going to work with the Port? 

Ms. DARCY. No, we—with the port or the committee? We work 

with both. But you know, at this junction, the requirement for 

7001, the modification is not a modification that meets the criteria. 

Because the criteria said it needs an authorization. What was 

asked for was a change in the Federal Standard. A change in the 

Federal Standard doesn’t need authorization. In order to change 

the Federal Standard, we would need to do a rulemaking—— 

Mr. GIBBS. I might want to really ask in a different way. 

Ms. DARCY. Sorry? 

Mr. GIBBS. I might want to ask in a different way. 

Ms. DARCY. You mean ask for the—the question to change? 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, the report. Because if it’s asked in a different 

way, it might not be a modification that would require that. 

Ms. DARCY. That’s possible. 

Mr. GIBBS. So, OK. Let’s see here. Ms. Frankel I’ll go back to 

you. 

Ms. FRANKEL. OK. 

Mr. GIBBS. Then we’ll come back. 

Ms. FRANKEL. OK. 

Mr. GIBBS. Go ahead. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Ready, OK. Thank you so much. I want to again 

thank you all for your service. I want to just go back to Everglades 

restoration, which you know is so important to Florida. And I want 

to thank you for your commitment to its restoration. And thank 

you for the Chief’s Report for the Central Everglades planning 

project. And I appreciate it’s in the report today. Question about 

the budget. The FY 2016 workplan added $7 million to Everglades 

program operation and maintenance. And then the, but the FY 

34 

2017 budget drastically reduces the Everglades operation and 

maintenance funds, to almost $300,000. Could you explain that? 

Ms. DARCY. What’s included in the workplan, the additional $7 

million for operation and maintenance is money that we believe is 

our Federal share. As you know, O&M for the Everglades is unique 

in that it’s a 50–50 cost share for operation and maintenance between the Federal Government, through the Corps of Engineers, 

and the South Florida Water Management District. And the additional $7 million will go to our share of that operation and maintenance. That is, that the local sponsor had paid in the past, which 

some have viewed as a sort of a reimbursement. I want to stress 

the fact that we recognize that in both 1996 and in 2000 we made 

a commitment to fund the operation and maintenance at a 50–50 

cost share, regardless of whether it is considered a reimbursement. 

And that’s what we will continue to do. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Because is $300,000 sufficient? 

Ms. DARCY. For 2017, yes. 

Ms. FRANKEL. It is? OK. Next question. As you know, getting a— 

did you want to add something to that? 

Ms. DARCY. A clarification. You look at the additional $7 million 

and then you look at $300,000. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Yeah, right. 

Ms. DARCY. Because we were able to fund it at an additional $7 

million in the FY 2016 workplan, which states that it includes 

funds for some costs that may not be incurred until FY 2017, all 

we would need beyond that in 2017 is $300,000. 

Ms. FRANKEL. OK. That’s what you’re saying. As you know, getting the Chief’s support has been arduous in some instances, but 

who’s counting the years, right? And we’re grateful when we get 

one. Included in the Chief’s Report, the Corps does an economic 

benefit-cost analysis. And it has to be successful in order to get 

your Chief’s Report. Question. Why—it seems though that the Office of Management and Budget does a complete different analysis 

which could actually prevent a project that is authorized by the 

Congress from making it into the President’s budget. Why is that? 

Ms. DARCY. When projects are authorized, when there is a 

Chief’s Report and the Congress authorizes a project, the economic 

analysis that is done on that calculates a benefit to cost ratio. And 

that benefit to cost ratio is based on a 3.125 discount rate. When 

the Office of Management and Budget evaluates projects for funding, including in the President’s budget, that benefit to cost ratio 

is evaluated at a 7-percent discount rate. So the budgeting discount 

rate is different from the authorization discount rate that’s used. 

Ms. FRANKEL. But why is that? I mean, why, why go through 

all—I mean, you go through so much work to evaluate these 

projects, and then it seems like it was for naught. I don’t understand, why don’t they use the same analysis? 

Ms. DARCY. Well, the analysis that we use is based in statute. 

We are required to, when we do our evaluations for authorization, 

use the current discount rate, which right now is 3.125. 

Ms. FRANKEL. OK. Well, that may be something that we need to 

take a look at. And I think I have—I’m going to just get back to 

one of the questions I asked before that I had to cut short, which 

had to do with the questions from the American Shore and Beach 

35 

Preservation Association in terms of Coastal Protection and Beach 

Restoration. Is it possible for you to produce a list of 10-year priorities or 10-year capabilities for all the authorized coastal projects 

across the country? Is that something that would, could be done? 

Ms. DARCY. Do you mean prioritized in terms of the need for 

funding to meet the—— 

Ms. FRANKEL. Do you have a huge list, what the priorities are? 

Ms. DARCY. We do when we look for budgeting from year to year, 

so I’m assuming that we probably do. 

Ms. FRANKEL. OK. Maybe if we could get that. 

Ms. DARCY. OK. 

Ms. FRANKEL. And I want to also just reemphasize the request 

for a greater stakeholder involvement in deciding which projects to 

fund. And I thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Ms. DARCY. An aside. I spoke to that organization yesterday and 

that’s one of the concerns they raised. 

Ms. FRANKEL. OK. Thank you very much. 

Ms. GIBBS. Mr. Graves? 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, 

could you give us an update on the status of dredging and draft restrictions on the Lower Mississippi River? 

General BOSTICK. Yes, I can. This has been a significant issue for 

the people in the Lower Mississippi Valley. And our leadership has 

been focused on it on a daily basis. The current situation is, we 

have exhausted or used all of the dredges that we have available 

internally and all of the dredges that are available in the industry. 

So currently we have the McFarland, the Newport, the Lindholm, 

the Terrapin and the Morgan. These, these are all ongoing dredges 

that are doing work in that particular area. And we’ve had to make 

tough decisions to bring dredges from other parts of the country. 

But currently we’re doing the best that we can to manage it. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. General, I first want to commend you 

for all the mobilization that’s happening right now. I know that in 

Southwest Pass, you do have four or five dredges that are all working down there trying to restore channel depth. I don’t have statistics to verify this. But it just seems to me based on recollection that 

over the last several years we’ve seen more draft restrictions put 

on the Mississippi River than at other periods of time. And again, 

I don’t know if that’s accurate or not, but it seems to be an uptick. 

In the President’s 2010 State of the Union Address, he talked 

about his objective to double exports by 2015, last year. And that 

goal wasn’t anywhere close to being hit. There was not a comparable investment in dredging of the Mississippi River to maintain channel depths. And if my recollection is correct that we’ve 

seen more draft restrictions on the Mississippi, what we refer to as 

America’s Commerce Superhighway, one of the most important 

navigation channels in the country—isn’t there a connection there 

between increased investment in maintaining stability and predictability on that navigation channel and our ability to double exports? 

General BOSTICK. Absolutely. And we talk about this all the 

time. I think we’re very fortunate to live in the country where we 

do, with two coasts and the Mississippi River and all that it brings. 

It’s connected to the richest farmland. We’ve got 12,000 miles of inVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:13 May 25, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2-24-2~1\98873.TXT JEAN
36 

land waterways, more than the rest of the world combined. So our 

ability to stay economically viable depends on the dredging. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. And the Corps is, obviously, as I see 

your burn rates, you are going to run out of your FY 16 money well 

before the end of the year. Could you talk just briefly about efforts 

to ensure the future of the channel, as we hit the traditional highwater period for and low-water period for the remainder of the 

year? 

General BOSTICK. It’s a daily management effort. We’ve got folks 

at the national, the regional and local level. We work as teams and 

we share our resources. And we prioritize the effort. And Southwest Pass is the main effort right now. And that’s why we had to 

take resources from other locations. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. General, I know you’re aware of the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and the, and the situation there 

where in effect users are charged a tax under the auspices of using 

it to dredge. Do you have any concerns about the—I guess I’ll use 

the term ‘‘truth in budgeting’’ perhaps and the fact that that tax 

is charged to users, yet is actually diverted for other areas of Government while we struggle to maintain the authorized depth of 

navigation channels? And of course in Louisiana, something you 

and I have discussed extensively is, is this diminishing Federal 

Standard and beneficial use issue, whereby we have the greatest 

rate of wetlands loss, coastal wetland loss, in the continental 

United States, yet this material is often being dumped into the disposal areas in the deep water of the gulf rather than being used 

for ecological benefits and restoring the coast. So again, you dedicate the harbor maintenance tax, you do something, you lockbox it 

effectively. You have more money for dredging. You’re able to expand the Federal Standards. You’re able to truly do restoration 

work, as opposed to wasting this important racehorse. There’s a 

question in there somewhere. 

General BOSTICK. This year we have more money from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund than we’ve ever had. And we’ve 

talked about could we use more? I mean, that’s really the Government’s decision as it balances priorities. I can’t really talk to where 

that money is going and who it’s being used for, and whether that’s 

more important than the work that we’re doing on inland waterways. I can just say the inland waterways are important. We’re 

dredging the best that we can with the dollars that we have. And 

those are precious dollars that get used very quickly. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Last question. Secretary Darcy, you 

were in all the meetings for the 2007 Water Resources Development Act Conference Committee. In that act, there was a provision 

that authorized a restoration and closure of the MRGO [Mississippi 

River Gulf Outlet], at 100 percent Federal cost. The State of Louisiana had to sue the court. And again, I’m going to follow the law. 

The district court did rule in the State’s favor, and indicated that 

as the law says, it’s 100 percent Federal cost. Yet the Corps has 

chosen to appeal the decision. I’m struggling with how you were in 

the room and clearly understood the intent of Congress, yet the 

Corps is continuing to pursue an appeal on that accurate decision, 

ruling by the district court. 

37 

Ms. DARCY. I think the provision is up to interpretation, and 

that’s why it’s in the courts. Because of whether it was 100 percent 

Federal for entire project or whether it was 100 percent Federal for 

the study. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. I’ll just say again that you were in 

the room. And—— 

Ms. DARCY. And so were you. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. I was. Which is why, which is why 

the lawsuit was filed. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Norton? 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Darcy, 

I think the administration deserves a lot of credit for how you handled something of a hostile takeover by gunfire in, I think it was 

Princeton, Oregon, the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. I’d like 

to know more, particularly since firearms cannot be carried on 

lands owned or operated and maintained by the Corps of Engineers. Although there are always attempts to reverse that policy. 

I would like to know what you can tell the committee about the 

background of that issue. Was the Corps consulted? What role does 

the Corps have when it comes to law enforcement? How are we 

going to keep this from happening again? 

Ms. DARCY. Congresswoman, on Army Corps of Engineers lands, 

our property, the only allowable firearms are for hunting. And the 

firearms are not allowed on Corps property to be loaded. What happened in Oregon at the National Wildlife Refuge was incredibly unfortunate for everyone, especially when there’s a loss of life. But at 

our facilities our Park Rangers aren’t armed. We don’t have law enforcement on site. And we believe that in order to have the best 

recreation experience for our visitors to our facilities is to not allow 

loaded firearms on our facilities. We want people to have a safe 

and enjoyable experience. It’s outdoor recreation. People are supposed to be having fun, not be worried about their safety. 

General BOSTICK. I’d only add that we do not carry firearms because we’re not congressionally authorized to be full Federal law 

enforcement officers. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, if someone came and you could see that they 

were carrying a firearm that is not allowed, and your, your unarmed agents were there, what could they do? What would they do 

in that event, if you are to prevent another such incident? Yes, 

you’re right—— 

General BOSTICK. They would—— 

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. With the loss of life, for example, that 

occurred there, despite what was otherwise, it seems to me, handled very well. 

General BOSTICK. This has happened before. And we call the 

Federal law enforcement. And they’re quick to respond. 

Ms. NORTON. And who is that? 

General BOSTICK. Our Park Rangers would call the local police. 

Ms. NORTON. So what are you doing to prevent another such incident since you’ve seen it? The local community was very disturbed. 

Did not want this, this controversy in its community. Apparently 

got on very well with the hunting that goes on here. But you’ve 

seen what you had to do. You waited them out. You handled it very 

intelligently. But of course, you have whole States in the United 

38 

States that were carved out of Federal land. And so there will be 

a few people who decide that they want all that land back. That 

may be impossible. I submit it is impossible. But you have had, forgive me, a shot across your bow. So I’d like to know what precautions you are taking to keep the Corps and the Federal agents 

from having to be involved in this matter again. A matter like this 

again. 

Ms. DARCY. Well, because we are one of the only Federal agencies that do not allow firearms on our facilities, we are going to 

continue to protect our facilities from firearms being allowed. 

Ms. NORTON. Did your rangers quickly notify—— 

Ms. DARCY. They call local authorities when there’s an incident. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, but could they, did they know that these people—they come on to, to—they come onto the wildlife preserve. 

They’re bearing arms. Were they bearing arms so that the rangers 

could see them? And did they call the authorities right away? 

Ms. DARCY. You are allowed to bring firearms onto those facilities. You are not allowed to—— 

Ms. NORTON. I’m talking about the firearms they had that you 

said were not allowed. 

Ms. DARCY. No, they’re not allowed on Corps of Engineers facilities. They are allowed on other public lands. 

General BOSTICK. And the example you’re talking about was not 

a Corps facility. 

Ms. NORTON. It was the National Park Service? 

Ms. DARCY. It was a wildlife refuge, the one in Oregon, yes. 

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

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Rokita. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you again, Chairman. I want to focus a little 

bit on the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund myself. Can you provide the committee a detailed list of what the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund account spends its money on? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, we can provide it. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. What’s a reasonable deadline to get that? I’m 

not trying to be—— 

Ms. DARCY. No, I’m trying to think when. 

Mr. ROKITA. Sometimes when we ask questions like this and they 

yes it’s all very nice, and then you don’t hear from anybody for 6 

months. 

Ms. DARCY. OK. Well—— 

Mr. ROKITA. I just want to be reasonable. 

General BOSTICK. Just to clarify, you’re talking about the money 

that we review from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and what 

it’s spent on? Not the collective money, the $8 billion or so? 

Mr. ROKITA. Yeah, what you are spending the money on. 

Ms. DARCY. What we’re spending it on. 

Mr. ROKITA. What you—thank you. Yeah, for that clarification, 

which leads into the problem Mr. Graves was talking about. And 

then, and I’ll lead into it as well. 

Ms. DARCY. Just a clarification. Part of the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund is used on the Saint Lawrence Seaway. We can provide 

you all that information. 

39 

Mr. ROKITA. Yeah. I’m trying to understand what you’re spending, what you’re spending the money on. Do you feel you—and 

what’s a reasonable date? A month from now? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK, thank you. Do you feel you need any clarification in the authorizing law to help direct the spending better to 

meet your inland waterway needs? Can we write the next water 

bill with more specificity in any way that would help you complete 

your mandate? 

Ms. DARCY. I believe in the last WRRDA bill, the Congress added 

some more additional ways that they felt the trust fund should be 

used. And, and I know that in the past there have been many who 

have felt that the use of the trust fund should be expanded beyond 

operation and maintenance. 

General BOSTICK. Right. One area I thought was helpful. Often 

we couldn’t fund some of the Great Lakes and some of the small 

harbors. And some of the provisions were a certain percentage that 

would go to those. And we’re now able to do that. So—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Is that the 71 percent you’re—— 

General BOSTICK. That’s the 10 percent. 

Mr. ROKITA. The 10 percent. And then there’s also the 71 percent 

that we did put in the last water bill. 

General BOSTICK. Right. 

Mr. ROKITA. That 71 percent of the trust fund had to be spent 

on—— 

General BOSTICK. Right, right. 

Mr. ROKITA [continuing]. Inland water. 

General BOSTICK. I was talking about the allocation of the funds 

that we have. And we’ll get that list to you. We’re required to put 

10 percent in Great Lakes and the small harbors. And we did not 

have that guidance before that. But that’s again, the Congress and 

the American people helping to set the priorities. 

Mr. ROKITA. So with regard to that, the 10 percent and the 71 

percent, it—and I’ll put my Budget Committee hat on here for a 

minute. I don’t see the President’s budget proposal asking for that 

71-percent expenditure in those areas that we required in the last 

water bill. I see a percentage that appears less than that, significantly less than that. How do you explain that? 

Ms. DARCY. The $951 million that’s in the President’s budget request for 2017 is what we have determined is affordable from the 

overall trust fund for fiscal year 2017. And it’s not 71 percent. I’m 

trying to recall what the exact percentage is. But it’s not 71 percent. 

Mr. ROKITA. Oh, yeah. But the law says that 71 percent of last 

fiscal’s collections are supposed to be spent specifically in these, 

you know, in the areas we detailed. And you’ve just said, ‘‘Well, 

we’ve allocated a percentage amount that we think is responsible.’’ 

What’s—there is a huge difference there obviously. The law says 

something. And if—I don’t want to put words in your mouth. You 

can correct me if I’m wrong. You’re saying you did something else? 

Or is the law not clear? 

Ms. DARCY. No, the President has discretion in his budget to determine the amount that’s affordable from the trust fund. 

40 

Mr. ROKITA. Even though the law says, ‘‘You shall spend 71 percent.’’ Is there like a comma or a clause afterwards that says ‘‘Unless, at the discretion of the President, he can not do that’’? And 

to be sure, on record, I will say that I bet the appropriators, Republicans and Democrats are complicit in this, OK? But if you believe 

that the President’s budget is a tool for, a tool of leadership and 

sets tones and all that, why not just set it at 71 percent? It’s what 

Congress intended, unless I’m misreading the law. 

Ms. DARCY. No, I believe the 71 percent was in the statute. 

Mr. ROKITA. Right. So it’s not a matter of taking more money 

than the trust fund has, because it’s a percentage, it’s 71 percent 

of whatever was collected. So it’s not that. So what—I mean, why 

don’t we just do what the law says? We’re a country of laws, right? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

Mr. ROKITA. It’s what I do for a living these days. All right. It 

also seems to me—here’s another question—that the money that is 

at Treasury for this trust fund is actually being spent in other 

places? Or is it, is there still a stack of money there the tax has 

collected? And if you’re not going to follow the law, I would say embezzled, from taxpayers to use on other things? That’s embezzlement. But the money is in the Treasury, right? Or no? Or has it 

been spent on other things? 

Ms. DARCY. It’s in the Treasury, yes. 

Mr. ROKITA. So there’s a—the money is there. It’s accounted for. 

It’s just it seems to me being used to offset spending elsewhere. 

And no one wants to give up that egg, because now it’s harder to 

balance. I mean, I do this every day. I get that, how hard that is. 

But you think the money is there. It’s not been spent on other 

things? 

Ms. DARCY. No. I think the way you described it is accurate, that 

it has been used to balance other things. 

Mr. ROKITA. No, no, no. But it’s there. It’s physically there. It’s 

not so you can balance on paper. Or has it been actually spent on 

other things? 

Ms. DARCY. I believe it’s there. But if I need to clarify for you—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Yeah. 

Ms. DARCY [continuing]. I will do that. 

Mr. ROKITA. And again, I’m not asking you a trick question, but 

I would like a direct answer to that. I just don’t know. And if I 

have to ask Treasury, you can—— 

Ms. DARCY. OK. 

Mr. ROKITA [continuing]. Pretty quickly tell me to ask Treasury. 

You don’t have to analyze that for 6 months. 

Ms. DARCY. Well, maybe I need to ask Treasury. 

Mr. ROKITA. Yeah. Thank you. 

Ms. DARCY. OK. 

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I yield. I appreciate the witnesses 

today. 

Mr. GIBBS. All right. I’ve got a couple more questions. General 

Bostick, in your testimony, you talked about the P3s and your support for that. Even though nothing’s really happening. And this ties 

into what I said in my opening statement about 40 percent of the 

implementation guidance hasn’t been developed by the Corps. And 

41 

I believe P3 should be in that category. Can you extrapolate on 

where we are with the implementation guidance? 

General BOSTICK. The implementation guidance on the P3? 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, P3s, and then it ties specifically I think overall, 

you’ve got about 60 percent of it done. So you’ve got 40 percent 

more to go. That’s my understanding. And I think P3s would be in 

that category. I know you, I know you put out a guidance on P3s 

that was kind of not guidance in my opinion. You just said, ‘‘We’ll 

develop a guidance when funds are appropriated.’’ I don’t really 

think that’s guidance. 

General BOSTICK. We put the implementation guidance out on 

P3s. And it has about as much detail as we can, moving forward. 

I think that the work that we’re doing with Fargo-Moorhead will 

help us to refine that guidance a bit more. Because there are just 

a lot of unknowns out there. In terms of where we’re at now, we 

expect to have by this summer, about 90 percent of the requirements done for implementation guidance. We’re moving a lot faster 

than I thought we were as of last year. We picked up the pace. 

We’ve spent most of our time focused on the really hard guidance 

that needed to go out. I think the remainder of it should go much 

faster. I think when we briefed you last year we were at around 

38 percent. This year we’re around 60 percent and we’ll be at 90 

percent by June. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Can you give us a quick update on the Olmsted 

project? If you could, talk about what the status is on that, on the 

timeline? 

General BOSTICK. I’d have to get back on you. I think we’re still 

tracking Olmsted around the completion, around 2020, that we’re 

moving at a faster rate than we thought. Even though we’re well 

behind the original timeline. But I’ll follow up if 2020 is not the 

date. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. I know we’re making progress. I just wanted to 

get kind of a followup and an update so we can see. Because that 

project has been enormous, as you know. I want to go back to my 

previous question, in talking about the Soo locks. You know, that 

was authorized I believe in WRDA 1986. So you do have authorization to move forward. And the cofferdams were built—do you know 

about when the cofferdams were put in? Is that for both locks, or 

what’s the status on the cofferdam? 

General BOSTICK. I—I don’t—— 

Mr. GIBBS. I think it’s around 2009 I think. 

General BOSTICK. Yes, I don’t have that. I’d have to get back to 

you. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. On this, when I mentioned the question about 

the Poe lock and the old MacArthur lock, what’s the budget to 

maintain them, and as we work towards building the new lock? 

General BOSTICK. I’d have to follow up on that. We came in really prepared to talk about 7001. But we have those details. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

General BOSTICK. And we can get them back to you. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Well, that’s good. I mean, I, you know, I’m harping on this a little bit, because I just think that you have an authorization to move forward. I would even question the need to 

spend a lot of time in an economic study, you’ve heard my comVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:13 May 25, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2-24-2~1\98873.TXT JEAN
42 

ments about that earlier. I mean, I don’t think we need to study 

this for a long time to figure out that it has benefit cost analysis. 

You know, because of the importance of that. So I just wanted to 

hammer on that again. And you know, we started the cofferdam. 

It was put in. And you know, it’s sitting there. And I know that 

the Michigan delegation did a little CODEL up there a few months 

ago. I wasn’t able to participate. But there’s a lot of interest up 

there and a lot of concern. We know that the Great Lakes as a unit 

is 25 percent of the economic activity of all the ports in the United 

States. And obviously we can’t have a big snag up there. And that 

would obstruct not only the region, but probably the economy nationally, in some negative way. So I want to thank you both for 

coming today. You know, just in closing, I think it’s important to 

recognize moving forward the implementation guidance we talked 

about. So I’m glad to hear about that. I think another big area that 

we talked about is communications between the different levels in 

your shop. But in terms of collaboration with the non-Federal sponsors, I think sometimes there seems to be some tension. I challenge 

the Corps to try to develop a better partnership, develop a relationship and collaborate. I think that’s important. Because I think everybody out there wants to do what they can do and do the right 

thing. But sometimes there’s a feeling I get there when I talk to 

the non-Federal sponsors that it’s not the relationship that it really 

should be. So I think that’s just something we need to work on. 

And so I just wanted to bring that up. And I want to thank you 

for both being here today. Do you want—go ahead, Secretary. 

Ms. DARCY. Mr. Chairman, before we leave today I would just 

like to acknowledge the person to my left. This is probably the last 

time he’ll be in front of this committee. The Army and the Nation 

are going to retire General Bostick in the spring. And I just want 

to publicly thank him for all that he has done for this organization 

through his leadership, not only as the Chief of Engineers but as 

a General in the United States Army. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you for mentioning that, because I wasn’t 

aware of that. At least, I had heard of it, but I didn’t want to say 

anything, because I didn’t know how official it was. But I do want 

to thank you, General Bostick, for your service. And thank you for 

coming up to my district. We had a good day out there, visiting 

some of the facilities there in my district such as the Zoar levee 

and the Dover Dam, which is, by the way, completed. And they’re 

doing the Belvedere Dam. And that whole watershed. That basically takes care of mostly all of eastern Ohio, and the flood projects 

that were initiated back in the 1930s are working well. 

And the Corps is doing I think a really good job working with 

the stakeholders. So I really appreciate the time you spent out 

there, and your busy schedule, and your service to our country. So 

thank you again, and I wish you very well in your retirement. 

General BOSTICK. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Take care. This will adjourn our committee. 

[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

43 


Insert offset folio 5 here 98873.005
44 


Insert offset folio 6 here 98873.006
45 


Insert offset folio 7 here 98873.007
46 


Insert offset folio 8 here 98873.008
47 


Insert offset folio 9 here 98873.009
48 


Insert offset folio 10 here 98873.010
49 


Insert offset folio 11 here 98873.011
50 


Insert offset folio 12 here 98873.012
51 


Insert offset folio 13 here 98873.013
52 


Insert offset folio 14 here 98873.014
53 


Insert offset folio 15 here 98873.015
54 


Insert offset folio 16 here 98873.016
55 


Insert offset folio 17 here 98873.017
56 


Insert offset folio 18 here 98873.018
57 


Insert offset folio 19 here 98873.019
58 


Insert offset folio 20 here 98873.020
59 


Insert offset folio 21 here 98873.021
60 


Insert offset folio 22 here 98873.022
61 


Insert offset folio 23 here 98873.023
62 


Insert offset folio 24 here 98873.024
63 


Insert offset folio 25 here 98873.025
64 


Insert offset folio 26 here 98873.026
65 


Insert offset folio 27 here 98873.027
66 


Insert offset folio 28 here 98873.028
67 


Insert offset folio 29 here 98873.029
68 


Insert offset folio 30 here 98873.030
69 


Insert offset folio 31 here 98873.031
70 


Insert offset folio 32 here 98873.032
71 


Insert offset folio 33 here 98873.033
72 


Insert offset folio 34 here 98873.034
73 


Insert offset folio 35 here 98873.035
74 


Insert offset folio 36 here 98873.036
75 


Insert offset folio 37 here 98873.037
76 


Insert offset folio 38 here 98873.038
77 


Insert offset folio 39 here 98873.039
78 


Insert offset folio 40 here 98873.040
79 


Insert offset folio 41 here 98873.041
80 


Insert offset folio 42 here 98873.042
81 


Insert offset folio 43 here 98873.043
82 


Insert offset folio 44 here 98873.044
83 


Insert offset folio 45 here 98873.045
84 


Insert offset folio 46 here 98873.046
85 


Insert offset folio 47 here 98873.047
86 


Insert offset folio 48 here 98873.048
87 


Insert offset folio 49 here 98873.049
88 


Insert offset folio 50 here 98873.050
89 


Insert offset folio 51 here 98873.051
90 


Insert offset folio 52 here 98873.052
91 


Insert offset folio 53 here 98873.053
92 


Insert offset folio 54 here 98873.054
93 


Insert offset folio 55 here 98873.055
94 


Insert offset folio 56 here 98873.056
95 


Insert offset folio 57 here 98873.057
96 


Insert offset folio 58 here 98873.058
97 


Insert offset folio 59 here 98873.059
98 


Insert offset folio 60 here 98873.060
99 


Insert offset folio 61 here 98873.061
100 


Insert offset folio 62 here 98873.062
101 


Insert offset folio 63 here 98873.063
102 


Insert offset folio 64 here 98873.064
103 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 65 here 98873.065