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

94–281 PDF 2016

A REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 

2016 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE U.S. ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND TENNESSEE VALLEY 

AUTHORITY 

(114–14) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 22, 2015 

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 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

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 

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 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

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 

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 

WITNESSES 

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

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Responses to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Bob Gibbs of Ohio ............................................................................ 58 

Hon. Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania ........................................................... 61 

Hon. Daniel Webster of Florida ............................................................... 63 

Hon. Carlos Curbelo of Florida ................................................................ 64 

Hon. Blake Farenthold of Texas .............................................................. 65 

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

of Engineers: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69 

Response to question for the record from Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania .......................... 75 

William Dean Johnson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Tennessee 

Valley Authority: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 77 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, responses to requests for information from 

the following members of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment: 

Hon Bob Gibbs of Ohio............................................................................... 11, 42, 44 

Hon. Daniel Webster of Florida ....................................................................... 14 

Hon. Jeff Denham of California ...................................................................... 16 

Hon. Rodney Davis of Illinois .......................................................................... 39 

Questions for the record for William Dean Johnson, President and Chief 

Executive Officer, Tennessee Valley Authority, issued by the majority side 

Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment ...................................... 91 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 94281.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 94281.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 94281.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 94281.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 94281.005
(1) 

A REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 

2016 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE U.S. ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND TENNESSEE 

VALLEY AUTHORITY 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

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

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GIBBS. Good morning. The hearing of the Subcommittee on 

Water Resources and Environment will come to order. Housekeeping here. I ask unanimous consent that the hearing record be 

kept open for 30 days after this hearing in order to accept other 

submissions of written testimony for the hearing record. Without 

objection, so ordered. 

Today we are having a hearing on review of the President’s fiscal 

year 2016 budget request for the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Tennessee Valley Authority. I would like to welcome everyone here to the hearing today to review the President’s 

fiscal request and the Tennessee Valley Authority. The administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2016 continues an unfortunate 

trend of underinvesting in our Nation’s water resources. Many of 

the Army Corps of Engineers’ activities that we are examining are 

investments in America. For nearly two centuries, the Corps has 

contributed to the economic vitality of the Nation and has improved 

the quality of life. This administration keeps missing the opportunity to use the Civil Works Program as an investment in the 

country’s future. This administration has time and time again not 

put the same priority in the Corps’ program as Congress has. 

Congress and the administration both need to be supportive of 

programs that have a proven record of providing economic benefits. 

The fiscal year 2016 budget request by the administration for the 

Corps of Engineers is $4.7 billion, which is almost $750 million less 

than what Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2015. This is even 

more unfortunate given the strong bipartisan message set last Congress by 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 investments in the NaVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:08 Jun 02, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2015\4-22-1~1\94281.TXT JEAN
2 

tion’s water resources infrastructure, including wrapping up the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund expenditures for their intended 

purposes. But again, the President’s budget proposes to spend only 

$915 million of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for the operation and maintenance activities in fiscal year 2016, half of what 

is estimated to be collected, that was collected in fiscal year 2015. 

These harbor maintenance taxes are paid by shippers for the purpose of maintaining America’s ports. 

While this administration is not the first to shortchange America’s water transportation systems, requesting only half of what 

was collected will not keep up with the growing demand at the 

ports. Budgets are about priorities. A priority of any administration 

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

world markets, especially since world trade patterns are expected 

to be dramatically different when the Panama Canal expansion begins operations next year. 

Additionally, when Congress enacted WRRDA 2014, there were 

several big ticket items included in the law. Provisions related to 

the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, the Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund, permit processing, project streamlining, WIFIA, public-private partnerships, and deauthorization of old and inactive projects 

were included in the law that was signed by the President in June 

of last year. 

While the WRRDA law was transformative and at times complicated, we remain disappointed at the pace and the prioritization 

in which the Corps of Engineers is carrying out the drafting and 

implementation guidance. As we are rapidly approaching the 1- 

year anniversary of the enactment of WRRDA 2014, we would hope 

and expect the Corps would put more of a priority in writing implementation guidance. After all, WRRDA is the law of the land. It is 

not a suggestion for the administration to casually disregard. 

I am very pleased that the subcommittee will also hear about the 

Tennessee Valley Authority’s budget. I want to welcome the TVA’s 

president, Bill Johnson, who will be testifying for the first time before the subcommittee. The Tennessee Valley Authority is the Nation’s largest wholesale power producer and fifth largest electric 

utility company. 

While TVA’s power and nonpower programs have been funded 

through its revenue since 2001—meaning they receive no appropriated funds—we are concerned with the agency’s overall financial 

health since the agency carries a rather large debt load. I anticipate that we will hear more about TVA’s debt reduction plan today, 

especially in light of Mr. Johnson’s impressive track record of reducing costs. I look forward to the testimony from our three witnesses today. 

At this time I recognize Mrs. Napolitano; pardon me, we are 

going to go to Mr. DeFazio first. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I defer to Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. First, the ranking member of the full T&I committee, Mr. DeFazio from Oregon. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 

Mrs. Napolitano. You know, the Corps is an essential agency, and 

I don’t envy the position you are in. You know, the fact is every 

year you come forward and you kind of have two paths with inadVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:08 Jun 02, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2015\4-22-1~1\94281.TXT JEAN
3 

equate budgets. You can either, you know, sort of spread the money 

around and not do anything very well and drive up the cost of new 

projects, or you can concentrate the assets, the inadequate funding, 

and get some things done but then not do other things like dredging small ports, which are a lifeblood of so many communities, particularly of concern in my district. Particularly this year, since we 

didn’t get winter flows, so we are going to have even more shoaling 

than normal, and if we forego that dredging, you know, people will 

probably die, but hey we are the United States of America, we can’t 

afford it. 

You know, this is a difficult spot to be in, and I am not—Ms. 

Darcy, I am not going to put you in the same spot as Mike Parker, 

but I do like to tell the Mike Parker story. Our former colleague 

had your position under President Bush, Democrat turned Republican, and Mike came to a very similar hearing and I was here and 

I just said to him straight up, ‘‘Is this an adequate budget to do 

what you need to do and the Corps needs to do and deal with your 

backlog?’’ and he said, ‘‘No.’’ Next week, for family reasons, he was 

resigning. 

So I realize there are consequences, but I have got to say that 

I am very—you know, I will recognize this administration has 

poured more money into O&M than any other administration in 

the last decade. That is good. But it is less than Congress just last 

year, by an unbelievably overwhelming vote, said, should be allocated. We were looking at, you know, a number that exceeded 

yours by about almost $2 billion. So, I am disappointed in the administration, and I know that is not up to either of you. You may 

put forward very honest budgets and then it goes to the trolls at 

OMB who don’t care about infrastructure, so, you know, that is a 

problem. 

But I think one way we could deal with that is you now will testify again this year that on your long-term planning horizon that 

you are working on for 8 years about all the assets you have, the 

state of those assets, what your projected incomes are, and what 

you can do with them, we haven’t seen that. We should see it. Congress should understand the magnitude of the deferred maintenance that is out there, the incapability of doing the annual maintenance that is out there, and maybe we can drive faster toward 

actually capturing the revenue source we have and dedicating the 

accumulated past funds in that revenue resource in the next award 

or reauthorization, taking you off budget and rebuilding America’s 

infrastructure that relates to our water more in commerce and 

recreation and flood control and other critical issues. 

So I would really hope that you can produce that final and definitive comprehensive report because Congress should know. Congress 

is part of the problem. We underfund you. The administration is 

part of the problem. They recommend that you start out underfunded, and then Congress probably will chip a little bit more off 

it, so we are not in the strongest position we could be. With that, 

I thank you for your service. And General, I thank you for your 

service. You know, I want to do more for the Corps, and just give 

me some tools that I can use for those arguments. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Next I recognize Mrs. Napolitano, the ranking member from California. 

4 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman, you 

are very gracious, and thank you for today’s hearing on the Corps 

and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Thank you for our witnesses, 

and look forward to the testimony and thoughtful dialogue during 

the questioning. 

And Assistant Secretary Darcy and Lieutenant General Bostick, 

I just want to thank you for the amazing work that your staff does 

in California in helping with the local agencies, the flood control, 

harbor maintenance, the job response, et cetera, but more specifically, for Brigadier General Toy who has been excellent in working, 

his deputy Sherry Peterson and Colonel Colloton. They are just 

amazing people with David Van Dorpe. They have been a tremendous resource for our whole area in California. 

But I do also want to thank Assistant Secretary Darcy for her 

recent letters that the Corps has initiated negotiations for a separate—excuse me—contributed funds, first time. Thank you so 

much. That will help expedite some of the projects in our areas. 

The two projects, Prado and Whittier Narrows Dam critically 

needed to permanently capture more water during storm events 

when we have storms, and am pleased that they received your approval. Given the current droughts that we are experiencing, we 

need to utilize every single tool at our disposal to capture as much 

water as possible during those infrequent rain events. 

We thank you for your approval. Both the Corps and the Tennessee Valley Authority maintains, sustain our national and regional economies in a variety of ways, providing a safe and efficient 

means of shipping and navigation in our waterways. They protect 

our homes and businesses from flooding and provide energy to 

small and large communities alike, all while creating countless jobs 

across our country, sometimes with limited funding. As such, we 

must not only congratulate but commend those agencies for the 

work you do. 

We have, Mr. Chairman, 4 years in the majority’s budget experiment of making the agencies do more with less. Sadly, this is 

shortsighted and has failed and the agencies are being forced to do 

less with less. And I agree with both my chairman and my ranking 

member that we are just shortchanging the agencies in our country. The projects are delayed. Their absolutely essential operations 

and maintenance projects are forced to compete for a piece of the 

pie. With the current budget climate, it is unsustainable, Mr. 

Chairman, I agree with you. 

I was pleased to see the increase of $142 million to the Corps in 

the energy and water appropriations bill. As you know, I am very 

keen on water. Every penny that increases necessary funds to vital 

projects, arguably, is still not enough. With only marginal increases 

in spending, we can only see that the agencies are still being forced 

to make tough choices and prioritize between tasks. There are literally hundreds of authorized Corps projects in studies and projects 

around the country, each of which was authorized on its own merits and all of which are important to our different communities. 

So when my colleagues fail to realize that greater investment in 

our Nation’s water related infrastructure is an integral element of 

maintaining and sustaining the improvement of our Nation’s economy as was seen in recent years. The math is simple. Inadequate 

5 

funding results in delays. Delays result in mounting of 

insufficiencies that will continue to grow until ultimately failing at 

some dire point in the future. And in my view, we are gambling 

with our Nation’s infrastructure investment programs, which is irresponsible and shortsighted. 

What we can be certain of, Mr. Chairman, is that nearly every 

Member of Congress has a direct need for safe and reliable energy 

for harbors, levees, or flood protection in our own backyard. The 

problem is that as the needs of our water infrastructure grow, our 

traditional budgetary mechanism meant to address the growing 

need diminishes. It is clear we must prioritize critical infrastructure spending to establish a clear path to forward the protection of 

our infrastructure. And I agree with both gentlemen, and I hope 

that we may be able to look at some future way of being able to 

sustain the infrastructure and maintenance. Thank you very much, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. I would like to welcome our panel today. We have 

three witnesses. Our first witness is the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army-Civil Works, Secretary Darcy. Then we have General Bostick. 

He is the Chief of Engineers, Army Corps of Engineers, and Mr. 

Johnson is the president and CEO of the Tennessee Valley Authority, and also I would be remiss not to thank General Bostick and 

General Peabody behind him for their service and their careers 

serving our country in the United States military. 

Secretary Darcy, welcome, and the floor is yours. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS); LIEUTENANT GENERAL THOMAS P. BOSTICK, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS; AND WILLIAM DEAN JOHNSON, 

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TENNESSEE 

VALLEY AUTHORITY 

Ms. DARCY. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to present the President’s budget for the Civil Works Program on the Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2016. This 

year’s civil works budget reflects the administration’s priorities 

through targeted investments in the Nation’s water resources infrastructure, including dams and levees, navigation, and the restoration of ecosystems. It supports a civil works program that relies on 

a foundation of strong relationships between the Corps and our 

local communities, which allows us to work together to meet their 

water resources needs. 

The budget also helps us in our efforts to promote the resilience 

of communities to respond to the impacts of climate change. We are 

investing in research, planning, vulnerability assessments, pilot 

projects, and evaluations of the value and performance of nonstructural and natural measures. The budget helps us to maintain 

and improve our efforts on sustainability. For example, we are reducing the Corps’ carbon footprint by increasing renewable electricity consumption, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and reducing nontactical vehicle petroleum consumption. We are also advancing our sustainability efforts by using innovative financing techniques such as energy savings performance contracts. 

6 

We are making important investments to promote the sustainable management of the lands around Corps facilities by providing 

funds to update the plans that govern how we manage our facilities 

and to help us to combat invasive species. The budget also focuses 

on maintaining the water resource’s infrastructure that the Corps 

owns and manages, and on finding innovative ways to rehabilitate 

it, hand it over to others, or retire it. 

Here are some of our funding highlights for 2016. The budget provides $4.7 billion in gross discretionary appropriations for the 

Army Civil Works Program, focusing on investments that will yield 

high economic and environmental returns, or address the significant risk to public safety. The budget focuses funding on our three 

major mission areas, allocating 41 percent to commercial navigation, 27 percent to flood and storm damage reduction projects, and 

9 percent to aquatic ecosystem restoration. 

Other investments include allocating 5 percent of the budget to 

hydropower, 2 percent to the cleanup of sites contaminated during 

the Nation’s early years of the nuclear weapons program, and 4 

percent for our regulatory activities. Overall, the budget funds 57 

construction projects, 9 of them to completion. It also funds 54 feasibility studies, 13 of those to completion. The budget also includes 

four new construction starts, two of which the Corps will complete 

in 1 year. The budget funds inland waterways capital investments at $974 million of which $53 million will be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. The budget provides $915 million from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to maintain coastal channels and related work matching the highest amount ever budgeted. Forty-four 

million dollars is provided for a comprehensive levee safety initiative that will help us ensure that all Federal levees are safe and 

in line with the Federal Emergency Management Agency standards. 

This initiative will provide non-Federal entities with access to 

levee data that will inform them on safety issues for their levees. 

The budget supports a Corps program that has a diverse set of 

tools and approaches to working with local communities, whether 

this means funding projects with our cost-sharing partners or providing planning assistance and technical expertise to help communities make better informed decisions. 

This year, the President’s Civil Works budget provides $31 million for the Corps to provide local communities with technical assistance and planning to help them develop and implant nonstructural approaches to improve their resilience to the impacts of 

climate change. We continue to contribute to this Nation’s environmental restoration, and the budget provides funding to restore several large ecosystems that have been a focus of interagency collaboration, including the California Bay Delta, the Chesapeake Bay, 

the Everglades, the Great Lakes, and the gulf coast. 

Other funded Corps efforts include the Columbia River, some 

portions of the Puget Sound, and priority work in the Upper Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. Finally, this budget continues to fund 

our Veterans Curation Program which was started in 2009 with 

support from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This 

program offers veterans the opportunity to learn tangible work 

7 

skills and gain experience by rehabilitating and preserving federally owned or administered archeological collections found at Corps 

projects. 

I look forward to working with the committee to advance the 

Army’s Civil Works Program, and I look forward to your questions. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Secretary. 

General Bostick, the floor is yours. Welcome. 

General BOSTICK. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, first, Mr. Chairman, thanks for recognizing the service 

of our military members. And I would like to point out that although John Peabody is not testifying today, this is the last hearing where he will prepare me and Secretary Darcy as he prepares 

for retirement. We are going to lose a great—— 

Mr. GIBBS. We may have some more before August, you never 

know. 

Ms. DARCY. You might want to call him back. 

General BOSTICK. Sorry for opening that up. I am honored to testify before your committee today, along with the Honorable JoEllen Darcy on the President’s fiscal year 2016 budget for the Civil 

Works Program of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. 

This is my third time to testify before the subcommittee. I want to 

thank you for your past support, and I look forward to continuing 

our work together in the future. 

Today I would like to provide a brief update on our four campaign plan goals. First, we support national security. The Corps 

supports the national security of the United States. We are working in more than 110 countries using our civil works, military missions, water resources, and our research and development expertise 

to support the Nation’s combatant commanders. Our Corps employees, both civilian and military from all across the Nation have volunteered and continue to volunteer to provide critical support to 

our military and humanitarian missions abroad. 

I just returned from Korea and Japan where we have multibillion-dollar programs in both locations. Our teams there are doing 

a tremendous job supporting our national security efforts in the 

Far East as we are doing in other parts of the world and throughout the United States. 

Second, Transform Civil Works focuses on four areas. First, modernizing the project planning process. Second, enhancing the budget development process. Third, developing an infrastructure strategy to evaluate the current inventory of projects, to help identify 

priorities and develop better solutions to water resources challenges. And fourth, improving our methods of delivery to produce 

and deliver sound decisions, products, and services that will improve the ways in which we manage and use our water resources. 

One example of our progress is that during each 7-year period, 

between 2000 and 2007, and then again between 2007 and 2014, 

we completed an average of 40 Chief’s Reports. Since modernizing 

our planning process, we are on track to complete 25 Chief’s Reports in just a year and a half, clear evidence that we are learning 

and becoming more efficient. 

In our third campaign plan goal, reduce disaster risk, we must 

continue to develop and improve strategies to reduce risk as well 

8 

as respond in natural disasters when they occur. I continue to be 

very impressed with the work of the Army Corps of Engineers in 

this area. One example of this proficiency is Hurricane Sandy recovery work. The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies program 

is over 95 percent complete. The Sandy Operations and Maintenance program is over 70 percent complete and on schedule to be 

100 percent complete by the end of 2016. And I am pleased to highlight that the Army submitted the North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study on schedule to Congress and the American people 

on 28 January of this year. 

And fourth, prepare for tomorrow. This is all about our people, 

ensuring that we have a pipeline of talented military and civilian 

teammates as well as a strong leader development and talent management program. 

Equally important is helping our Nation’s wounded warriors 

transition from military to civilian careers. Last year we set a goal 

to assist 125 wounded warriors, and we exceeded that goal by more 

than 50 percent. Nearly 200 wounded warriors found permanent 

positions within the Corps of Engineers or with other organizations. We are also focused on research and development efforts that 

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask that you and the other members of the committee refer to my complete written testimony for the fiscal year 

2016 budget specifics. Thank you again for this opportunity, and I 

look forward to your questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, General. 

Mr. Johnson, welcome. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Napolitano, distinguished members of the committee, for this opportunity to appear before you to discuss the Tennessee Valley 

Authority’s 2016 fiscal year budget. Before I start, I would like to 

acknowledge the chairman of the TVA board who is sitting right 

behind me, you might not can see him, Joe Ritch, who is our first 

chairman from the State of Alabama, and we are delighted to have 

him here today. 

I have been at TVA for 2 years, and in that time I have been 

humbled by the honor and privilege of serving the 9 million people 

in the 7 States we work in. Those people engage with TVA in a 

very responsible way. They pay for all the costs incurred by TVA. 

As the Chair noted, TVA’s work is self-funded solely by sale to 

customers and power system financing in the public debt markets. 

In those 2 years, I have seen how TVA employees have improved 

relations with our customers, worked to modernize our generation 

portfolio, protected our natural resources, and improved nuclear 

and financial performance. We have had some challenges, record 

weather events, significant cost reduction initiatives, a stagnant 

economy, aging infrastructure, and the list increased, but we are 

meeting those challenges and strengthening our organization by focusing on our core mission: energy, environmental stewardship, 

and economic development. 

And this mission matters as much today to the people of the region as it did in 1933, so let me begin with a brief review of TVA’s 

operations. You know, if you are in the energy sector, your first priority has to be safety, so I am pleased to report that we are in the 

9 

top decile of safety in our industry and always working to get better. 

Listening to our customers has been a top priority, and the last 

several years we have greatly strengthened our relationships with 

both our local power company and direct-serve customers. Two 

thousand fourteen was a strong year for TVA financially where we 

experienced 4 percent more sales to local power companies and our 

highest net income since 2010. We managed to reduce our debt by 

more than $1 billion and are well below our $30 billion statutory 

debt cap. We achieved this while still funding billions of dollars of 

investments in our infrastructure. 

We reduced costs by more than $300 million, which puts us well 

on our way toward a multiyear effort of $500 million in cost reductions. In 2014, TVA made its final scheduled payment to the U.S. 

Treasury on Congress’ original investment to build the power system at TVA. So we have completely repaid the $1 billion of investment in the power system, plus interest for a total of $3.6 billion. 

Our nuclear fleet is expanding and its performance is improving. 

All six of our nuclear units are in normal regulatory oversight with 

the NRC, and at our Watts Bar facility, we are 97 percent complete 

with the last reactor there. It is being finished the right way with 

safety and high quality. Once operational, this unit will supply 

1,150 megawatts of safe, affordable, and carbon-free power to our 

customers. 

In addition to nuclear capacity expansion, we are also investing 

in other key generating sources to ensure balance across our fleet. 

We are installing emission control equipment at two TVA fossil 

plants and constructing two plants that will be powered by natural 

gas. Our coal ash remediation work at Kingston where a major 

spill occurred in 2008 is nearly complete. The site has been returned to prespill conditions, and the area has been upgraded with 

many public conveniences. We are also investing roughly $2 billion 

to convert all of our coal ash storage from wet to dry systems. 

The administration’s fiscal year 2014 budget called for a strategic 

review of options for addressing TVA’s financial situation, including the possible divestiture of TVA. So we are pleased the administration has concluded that review and acknowledged TVA’s efforts 

to improve its operational and financial performance and our commitment to live within our capital financing requirements. As part 

of that review, Lazard Fre`res, an independent banking firm, did a 

strategic assessment report which concluded that allowing TVA the 

opportunity to follow its plan of operational improvement and sustainable financial path would be the best interest of people in the 

valley and of the American taxpayers. And in my view, that report 

validated the worth of what TVA employees do every day. 

Our preliminary budget for fiscal year 2016 reflects slight load 

growth for the TVA region. We project revenues of $10.9 billion 

from the sale of electricity, operating expenses of $8.9 billion, 

which is a reduction of almost $600 million compared to 2014 operational expenses, and capital expenses of $2.3 billion. 

Our capital expenditures include about $250 million for clean air 

projects and about $1 billion for new generating capacity. Our statutory debt is estimated to be slightly below $25 billion, and outVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:08 Jun 02, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2015\4-22-1~1\94281.TXT JEAN
10 

standing debt and debt-like obligations estimated to be just slightly 

below $27 billion at the end of 2016. 

We see a slight uptick in our debt level this year, but we have 

a 10-year plan to reduce that debt level down to about $21 billion. 

So in conclusion, as I traveled throughout the region, I have become a little more enlightened about the people who rely on TVA 

every day. The job we do each and every day to keep rates low, 

manage debt, maintain our assets, and be good stewards of what 

we have been given, is extremely important to the people of that 

region. So I thank you for the opportunity to be here, and I will 

be delighted to answer any questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. And I will start off the questions. Secretary Darcy, the budget is really about setting priorities, and I am 

really concerned about the President’s budget calling for a $750 

million reduction in what we actually spent in fiscal year 2015. 

Can you explain why the President isn’t putting as much importance on Civil Works projects as Congress is? 

Ms. DARCY. Mr. Chairman, the budget that has been presented 

today, the $4.7 billion for the President is what throughout our 

Government we believe we can afford within the programs for the 

Army Corps of Engineers and our water resources. 

Mr. GIBBS. Why does the administration also propose spending 

less than what is collected—now half of what is collected in the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund than the full amount? 

Ms. DARCY. The $950 million that is in the President’s budget 

this year is the same request that the President made last year, 

and that is again within the competing needs within our budget 

and that is what we believe is affordable at this time. 

Mr. GIBBS. As you are aware of what we did in WRRDA, we are 

trying to increase that at least 2 percent a year with expected 

growth of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund collections, and I 

really don’t think the administration is putting enough priority in 

that, especially when you look at what has happened in our harbors and with the Panama Canal coming into operation next year. 

Coastal Corps projects, let’s see, we have the budget request, $81 

million from construction of seven of the coastal navigation projects 

funded in this budget; how many of those projects will be completed by next year or in 2016? 

Ms. DARCY. The overall construction completions, I think, are 

nine. As far as the coastal ones individually, I will have to check, 

and I will—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Can you give us a list of those projects? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. GIBBS. Make sure we have that. 

[The information follows:] 

11 

There are two coastal navigation construction projects funded to completion 

in the FY16 Budget and there are two coastal dredged material placement 

sites completed as well: 

Port Lions Harbor (Deepening and Breakwater), AK 

Grays Harbor (38-Foot Deepening), WA 

Charleston Harbor, SC (Dredged Material Placement Site) 

GIWW, Chocolate Bayou, TX (Dredged Material Placement Site) 

Mr. GIBBS. I am very concerned about what is happening, especially our gulf and east coast ports, getting the dredge depth 

amounts so we can take those new Panama ships fully loaded and 

offload them. To the best of your knowledge, the Nation’s 10 largest 

ports, how many of those are authorized to mention today? 

Ms. DARCY. Is the question how many of those 10 are—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Of our 10 top ports. 

Ms. DARCY. Are dredged to their authorized width depth? 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. 

Ms. DARCY. Of the 10, I believe—I don’t know, General. Do 

you—— 

Mr. GIBBS. I think it is two, but I am just guessing. General? 

General BOSTICK. I was just going to say, at this point there 

should be about three on the east coast and three on the west coast 

that can handle the 50-foot depths, so New York, New Jersey; we 

are going to be at the depth in Miami here at the end of the June, 

July timeframe, and—and I believe it is Norfolk is the third one 

on the east coast and then there is L.A. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yeah, those aren’t deepwater ports out there anyway, 

so it doesn’t really matter. The ports, especially in the gulf and east 

coast, additional ports by the end of 2016, how many do you think 

will be there? You mentioned Miami will be, you mentioned Norfolk 

and New York are already there. 

General BOSTICK. Right, those are the three, and then we are focused on the we-can’t-wait ports. 

Mr. GIBBS. Pardon? Pardon? 

General BOSTICK. Then we are focused on the five we-can’t-wait 

ports. Miami is one of them, and they are all in different stages of 

development. They won’t be ready by 2016. The only one—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Or end of 2016; 2017, for that matter. Do you have 

any idea? 

General BOSTICK. I can’t tell you exactly which ones will be 

ready. I think we can walk through each one of the projects and 

tell you their status, but—— 

Mr. GIBBS. I have a followup question to that because I am really 

emphasizing what is happening at the Panama Canal. We have the 

three you mentioned on the east side of the United States, and if 

the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, if more of that was expended, 

do you know, would that push it up to close to 70 percent of the 

revenue going for that? Would that help get those other ports up 

to speed by 2017 or not? Secretary? 

Ms. DARCY. The ports that have requested or are going deeper, 

the deepening project is not a harbor maintenance operation and 

maintenance function. It is a different budgeting construction authority. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. I see the administration recommends the Secretary of the Army be authorized to impose a $1 billion fee or tax 

12 

over 10 years on commercial operators for the inland waterway system. I guess how would you plan to collect that tax, and would this 

have to establish a new bureaucracy for this collection? This is a 

new tax that has been proposed by the administration, I believe. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, sir. It is a user fee for the barges on the inland 

waterway system on the 27 reaches of the system that would be 

collected. We are still trying to work with the users and others to 

develop what exactly the fee structure would be, but it is anticipated that if this is enacted, that it would be able to collect $1 billion in over 10 years. 

Mr. GIBBS. I want to be clear on this. I think the proposal is not 

what we did last Congress that increased the diesel user fee—— 

Ms. DARCY. Correct. 

Mr. GIBBS [continuing]. Just 6 cents. I think this is an additional. 

Ms. DARCY. That is correct. This would be in addition to the tax 

that was increased in the ABLE Act from 20 cents to 29 cents. This 

user fee would be in addition to the increase in the diesel tax. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. I will probably follow up on that later. I am out 

of time right now. I will turn it over to Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Darcy, 

the section 1046 of WRRDA, very important to our Western States, 

required the investigation of how you can modify your operations 

and work with local agencies in improving the water supply opportunities at our dams. And can you give us the status of the implementation of that section, and what are the Corps doing to help the 

Western States, along with the water agencies, respond to the 

heavy drought we are now facing? 

Ms. DARCY. That implementation guidance is still underway. It 

is not completed as yet, but some of the things that the Corps is 

doing in order to help in some of the drought-stricken areas in the 

West includes responding to deviation requests. We have done that 

in three places in California: Coyote, Whittier Narrows and Prado 

Dam. What that means is we have had a request to deviate from 

our usual operating control manual in order to respond to drought 

conditions. These have drought contingency plans, these reservoirs, 

so with a deviation request, we would look to moving off of our 

usual controls to respond to the drought. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, that kind of lends into the fact that both 

Whittier and Prado are giving funds to the Corps from outside 

agencies to be able to spread that. Would that help other agencies 

if they were able to help by providing some funding? 

Ms. DARCY. I can’t say for certain, but I would assume that it 

would help. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. That is something we might want to look at. 

And Ms. Darcy, you know, I have been for years looking at the equity of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, and for the ports that 

are very heavy users, L.A. and Long Beach, we continue to pay 

$220 million and they receive approximately $1 million a year in 

return. This has been an ongoing issue, a debate on this, and of 

course, WRRDA, section 2102, provided a little more equity to 

donor ports with expanded use options. Is the administration committed to implementing the funds for distribution as spelled out in 

WRRDA? 

13 

Ms. DARCY. The administration has allocated some funds in the 

2015 workplan and the 2016 budget and in line with several of the 

provisions of 2014 WRRDA, for example, Emerging Harbors and 

Great Lakes each received 12 percent from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Emerging Harbors received 10 percent from the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund in the 2016 budget proposal. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. But in the distribution to the L.A. and 

Long Beach, they sort of kind of expected about $1.7 million and 

they received zero? 

Ms. DARCY. That is correct. In the competition within the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund for which ports are in most need of the 

resources, it didn’t compete as well as some of the other ports. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, I thought the idea was to have parity in 

the donors from the donor ports rather than competition for 

prioritization? 

Ms. DARCY. The way we budget for the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund is that we look at what needs there are for dredging 

in particular ports, and the needed dredging in L.A., Long Beach 

was not as—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So then WRRDA would not apply. The law 

does not apply. 

Ms. DARCY. Congresswoman, the law gives guidance to us as to 

how to budget through the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, and 

through the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund we do budget on a 

performance-based need, and what harbors are in most need of 

those resources. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Well, we certainly would love to be able 

to have a better equity in this because as the ports need, those two 

ports, which are some of the major ports in the U.S., some assistance to be able to use the expanded use option, then I would hope 

that we continue to look at it, and I don’t see anything in the budget. 

The other question I have, Secretary, is can you speak to the successes of the Veterans Curation Program? I understand you have 

helped at least 200. What skills do they learn? And of course, in 

the 111th Congress, the House passed by a voice vote H.R. 5282 

to provide funds to support the program. Could similar legislation 

be able to be implemented to help our veterans? 

Ms. DARCY. I am not familiar with the particulars of that legislation, Congresswoman, but this program we started in 2009, our 

Veterans Curation Program, is in response to two needs: the needs 

for our veterans to have some tangible skills when they return that 

they can market in the job market, and also a need for the Army 

Corps of Engineers to catalog our archeological finds. It is a responsibility that we have whenever we do a project. And we have had 

more than 200 veterans trained through our programs. 

We have a program in St. Louis, Missouri, one in Augusta, Georgia, and one in Arlington, Virginia. And the skills that they learn 

range from digitization, to photography skills, cataloging skills, and 

I am very proud to report that about 89 percent of those who have 

been trained have gone on to either advanced degrees in college or 

jobs either in the private sector or in the Federal Government. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Thank you. The bill, of course, was a 

straight authorization, $5 million annually. It did not pass in the 

14 

Senate. It did not get heard. So we hope maybe we can revive that 

and be able to help not only our veterans but the Corps. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Webster, you have 5 minutes. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Darcy, the C–111 south Miami-Dade project is crucial for 

providing water supply for the Everglades National Park and for 

south Miami-Dade County. One of the remaining two construction 

contracts is Contract 8, which is a detention area for south—connecting the south Miami-Dade project to the modified water deliveries to the Everglades National Park. Can you provide a status of 

Contract 8? 

Ms. DARCY. Right this moment, I don’t know the status, but I can 

find out for you, sir. I don’t know if the General knows, but I know 

that we are moving forward on C–111, but I am not sure of the 

Contract 8 status. 

General BOSTICK. I don’t have the status immediately available, 

but we can track that down and provide it to you today. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Awesome. I would like to get that. 

[The information follows:] 

This contract is currently being scheduled to be awarded later this summer 

in the July timeframe. 

Mr. WEBSTER. General Bostick, first of all, thank you for your 

service to our country. In February this year, the Corps offered 

guidance on the implementation of section 1023 of the WRRDA Act. 

There was a provision in there, that part of that section 1023 was 

something I really supported in the conference report. Can you give 

me a status on the update of section 1023 and are there sponsors 

who are taking advantage of those provisions to deliver projects? 

General BOSTICK. We have completed the implementation guidance on 1023, which is the additional contributions by non-Federal 

interests. I can’t give you a status on whether folks have taken advantage of that, but we have provided the implementation guidance 

to the field on that particular part of the law. 

Mr. WEBSTER. OK. Well, I have a—I have another question, 

would be specific to 1023. Maybe I can just get with you later and 

we can find out a little bit more about that, what has happened 

with it and maybe even a specific example that has to do with the 

Port of Tampa in Florida, and maybe you could help me with that, 

too. 

General BOSTICK. We would be happy to follow up with you. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you so much. 

Yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Frankel. There she is. 

Ms. FRANKEL. I am here. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Chair, and I know that Mr. Webster agrees with me and would join 

me in telling you how important the marine industry is to Florida, 

as I am sure you know. It is probably over $600 billion impact to 

our economy with hundreds of thousands of jobs, so I join with my 

colleagues in wanting to have more resources for your agency. 

And I wanted to say, I sat in at a Civil Works Review Board 

process a couple—I think a couple of months ago, and I would really recommend anybody on this committee to go and see how profesVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:08 Jun 02, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2015\4-22-1~1\94281.TXT JEAN
15 

sional and thorough and thoughtful the Army Corps is and you will 

understand why it takes so long to get through these feasibility 

studies. 

One of the things that we did last year on WRRDA was to allow 

a non-Federal sponsor to prefund the planning and design and construction phase of our project without congressional authorization 

but after they got their Chief’s Report and then later see credit or 

reimbursement. 

Secretary Darcy, can you—I know that you are working on some 

guidance, thoughts. Where is the Army Corps in that? 

Ms. DARCY. I think that the 1023 guidance that Congressman 

Webster referred to is the same guidance that you are referring to, 

which is additional contributions by non-Federal interests. And as 

the Chief said, we have some requests for that because it depends 

on whether you use contributed funds. And what we can do is give 

you a status report of what kinds of requests we have had since 

the passage of that law. 

Ms. FRANKEL. But are you—are you putting through—are you 

going to issue some rules or are you just doing it on a case-by-case 

basis? 

Ms. DARCY. The guidance is nationwide guidance for how you 

would implement the provision, but then we have to make a caseby-case decision once the request comes into the district about how 

the local sponsor would want to contribute funds to that project. 

Ms. FRANKEL. In regards to Port Everglades, one of my favorite 

subjects—well, we have been waiting 18 years for our Chief’s Report, but we are making progress. Thank you very much. No really, 

we have made very, very good progress, and I want to thank you 

for that. 

One of the issues that was raised at the Civil Works Review 

Board was the outstanding EPA permit for the dredge material disposal site, and I was just wondering if you have an update on that 

and whether or not, not having the EPA permit would prevent the 

county from moving forward on the preconstruction engineering 

and design phase. 

Ms. DARCY. Congresswoman, I don’t know the status of the EPA 

permit, but I will check on it for you. I’m aware you went to the 

Civil Works Review Board. I think we are on target to hopefully 

get this Chief’s Report completed in May. 

Ms. FRANKEL. OK. That is terrific. And let’s see, I have a little 

bit more time to continue. I want to talk about Broward County 

and the Segment II Shore Protection Project. Beaches and beach 

restoration is so important to Florida’s economy. Over $50 billion 

in economic impact, 450,000 jobs just—protects our shorelines, obviously, for tourism, so making sure that we have sand on the 

beaches is a major priority. We have been having a problem trying 

to—with the construction of a Shore Protection Project in an area 

called Segment II which encompasses Fort Lauderdale north of— 

to Pompano Beach, which is a federally authorized project, and I 

am just wondering if you could—if you are able to give me an update, because it is very critical that the county begin to restore its 

beach in November of 2015 because we have to—we want to get it 

done before tourism season, and we also have to coordinate with 

the turtle nesting. 

16 

Ms. DARCY. Congresswoman, I think this is the project you are 

referring to, the Shore Protection Project in Broward County. The 

sponsor has prepared what is called a limited reevaluation report, 

and we are expecting that approval by the end of May, that is the 

approval needed in order to go forward with that. 

Ms. FRANKEL. OK. This May? 

Ms. DARCY. May 15, 2015, yes. 

Ms. FRANKEL. All right well will that—OK. We will take that. 

General BOSTICK. Right. And that would be the decision document for the execution of the partnership agreement for this second 

segment that you asked about. 

Ms. FRANKEL. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Denham. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Darcy, the folks that I represent are following two Federal 

actions that could have significant impact on flood control projects 

and the flood plain in my district. Can you tell us what impact you 

perceive from the proposed Clean Water Act rule and the new Federal flood risk management standard on the Lower San Joaquin 

River Feasibility Study that is now in its final stages? 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman, I don’t believe either of those two actions would have an impact on the ongoing study. I understand 

that the study is looking at different reaches within the project 

area, and I don’t believe that either of those would have an adverse 

impact on that study. I would be happy to follow up in particular 

for that study. But right now, I don’t believe it would have an impact. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. I would look forward to that followup. 

[The information follows:] 

While we do not believe that the Federal Flood Risk Management Standards (FFRMS) will affect the study, the FFRMS is out for public comment 

and the final standards, and how they might impact RD17/French Camp 

and Lower San Joaquin River Feasibility Study must be informed by that 

process. 

Mr. DENHAM. These actions call for all waters in the flood plain 

to be jurisdictional and allow Federal agencies to have varying interpretations of where the flood plain is, possibly far greater than 

a 100-year flood plain identified by FEMA. How does this affect the 

Corps’ planning for flood projects in the additional water subject for 

404 permits? 

Ms. DARCY. Currently in our project planning process, we look at 

the entire footprint of a proposed project which would include 

where it is in the flood plain and whether or not it would go forward as—and in response to the impacts that building a project in 

the flood plain would have. As far as the 404 jurisdiction, we make 

a determination on whether waters are jurisdictional when we 

have a request for a 404 permit, so we would have to look at what 

the project request was and whether or not where that project is 

being proposed would be in the flood plain or whether it would be 

impacting jurisdictional waters. 

Mr. DENHAM. I would like to follow up with you on that because 

I have a specific concern, especially for French Camp, a new VA facility that we are looking at putting in in that very—— 

17 

Ms. DARCY. That footprint. 

Mr. DENHAM [continuing]. Footprint, yes. One other thing. Can 

you describe the role that the Corps played in the development of 

the new Executive Order 13690 regarding flood plains and the new 

flood risk management standard? 

Ms. DARCY. The Corps of Engineers is a member of what is called 

MitFLG, which is the mitigation organization within the Federal 

Government, so along with FEMA and other Federal agencies, we 

were involved in the development of that rule, of that regulation. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. I have no further questions, but I 

would like to follow up with you on this project in particular because there does seem to be some, I would say, confusion. I think 

the Corps probably would define it differently, but certainly there 

is one area that is covered under the Corps and another area that 

we are going to cease development in even though it is in the 

Corps’ jurisdiction, and French Camp, which is a project that I 

have been championing for quite some time along with Congressman McNerney, and our concern is that it is in that area, so I look 

forward to following up with you. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Darcy and General Bostick, thank you for all that you 

are doing for all of us. I particularly want to express my appreciation for the willingness of the Corps to deal with some very complex issues on the Sacramento River system. You have dealt with 

very difficult problems that have occurred on the Feather River. 

Colonel Farrell and your team have been extraordinarily flexible 

and innovative in dealing with Native American archeological sites, 

very tough, very difficult issue, but it has been resolved, and I 

thank you for that. That allows the 40-mile stretch of the Feather 

River West Levee to be—for the project to continue, and I thank 

you for that. 

Also, the Hamilton City, Natomas, American River, Delta levees, 

Yuba River, and even the channels, you are moving forward with 

all of those, and I appreciate it. Your team in California, both in 

the San Francisco and the Sacramento district are very engaged 

and doing some really good work for all of us. 

On the budgeting side, we have got work to do here. The Harbor 

Maintenance Fund has come up. As a ranking member of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, this is of 

great interest. The problem is not yours. The problem is ours. We 

are the ones who set the pace here. You simply have to follow the 

pace of funding. 

And so when we don’t provide in law that 100 percent of the 

funds will be spent and then we allocate and then you follow along 

with that, so I would say that the problem lies with us as we take 

up the Coast Guard bill in the next couple of weeks. Perhaps we 

will give you instructions to spend the money where it was meant 

to be spent. We will see what happens, whether we are willing to 

do that. Same way within the waterways. It is really our problem, 

and you are left to follow the lead that we set out. 

I think the question of consultation has come up several times. 

It is of great concern in our area. I don’t think we need to go into 

it again here unless you would like to tell us all the good work you 

18 

are trying to do on changing the way in which we consult, start 

projects early and the rest, so perhaps you would like to pick that 

up again, and I will leave that to the two of you if you want to comment further on how that program is working on consultations, and 

particularly listening sessions are good, but they have got to go 

into more depth than that, so can you explain how you are going 

to further consult indepth? 

Ms. DARCY. Are you referring to consultations on ESA? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Yes. 

Ms. DARCY. Under the law we have to consult with our resource 

agencies, whether it is Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA on any 

projects going forward that would be a Federal action that would 

impact the new species. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I am sorry. I missed—we are really not communicating here. I am talking about stakeholders, the local stakeholders and consultation with the local stakeholders. 

General BOSTICK. As we came out of Katrina, one of the things 

we spent a lot of time on is deeper risk analysis and also stakeholder involvement, and in coming out of Sandy, the whole idea of 

resilience and resilient communities, resilient watershed, resilient 

coast lines, resilient communities. And resilience, you have to ask 

the question, resilient for what? And the people that best answer 

that are your stakeholders. There are limited funds that are available. There are different scenarios that you can plan for. None of 

them are completely predictable, so it is really up to the stakeholders to be part of that dialogue in terms of how we go forward, 

and we are really working that piece very, very hard now. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. OK. The other piece of it is the cost-sharing 

partners, the local cost-sharing partners that were discussed by my 

colleagues here, to start projects early and the like. I would really 

urge you to engage deeply with those partners early in the project 

and on the consultation and really the guidelines that you need to 

put out. 

You don’t need to comment on that, but I do want to thank you. 

Your team has done a terrific job in the Sacramento Valley region, 

and it is much appropriated. All of the issues, complex as they are, 

more to come, we look forward to working with you, and it is our 

burden to make sure you have the money that you can fully employ 

to protect from floods, other hazards, and the like. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my remaining 26 seconds. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Davis. 

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

Darcy, General Bostick, Mr. Johnson. I am a little bit dismayed to 

hear that I won’t be able to question General Peabody anymore. 

Well, congratulations on your retirement. I feel bad you are not at 

the table today. You maybe want to pull up a chair? 

Mr. PEABODY. No, thank you, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. Well, congratulations. Thank you for your service. We wish you well in your retirement and hope you are not a 

stranger to many of us who have gotten to work with you and respect the job that you have done greatly, so thank you. 

Secretary Darcy, I thought I was going to be somebody who 

brought up an issue that, you know, would be new to the comVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:08 Jun 02, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2015\4-22-1~1\94281.TXT JEAN
19 

mittee discussion, and both you and General Bostick and some of 

my colleagues already beat me to the punch. I want to talk about 

the Veterans Curation Program. I actually went to the St. Louis 

district office and met with those who were actually implementing 

that program. It is a phenomenal success. It is one that I am proud 

to represent many of those employees who work at the St. Louis 

district right across the river in my district in Illinois, and I wanted to tout the successes of the program and many already have. 

But what I saw on the ground in St. Louis was veterans who were 

learning valuable skills because of what the Corps of Engineers is 

tasked to do with archeological findings and recordkeeping. It is a 

match that just works, and I want to commend you and General 

Bostick and the entire Corps of Engineers for making that program 

such a success, and whatever we can do to be helpful to continue 

to tout its successes, I will continue to do here. 

Do you have any other comments on that program, either of you, 

that you might want to make? 

Ms. DARCY. I would just like to say that, yes, it has been successful and hopefully we are going to be able to expand it maybe to 

some other centers as well as the numbers of veterans that we are 

able to reach. I just can’t talk about it without talking about Sonny 

Trimble. It was his brain child, and, after coming back from Afghanistan, he realized that there was a match here to be made 

with our veterans needing skilled training as well as what he was 

tasked with to do, because he is our curation director for the Corps. 

Mr. DAVIS. Yeah. 

General BOSTICK. In a previous life, I was the G1 of the Army, 

head of personnel, and I was really surprised to learn that in 2001, 

unemployment compensation for the Army was $90 million. And 

then in 2012 it was a half a billion dollars. So many of our soldiers 

that have served their country are going out and don’t have the opportunity for work, and as we try to solve that at a national level, 

it is really individual small businesses and organizations and big 

businesses that have to take on some of that responsibility. 

So, the Corps is not going to solve this alone, obviously, but 

thanks to Secretary Darcy’s leadership and the rest of the team 

working on trying to help veterans, in our small way, we are putting a dent in that challenge that our veterans and their families 

face. Thank you. Thank you for visiting. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you both. I was with Sonny. He is an inspiration, somebody who recognized a need, and it is often many 

of us on both sides of the aisle sit in these committee rooms and 

we talk about what the bureaucracy doesn’t do well. We talk about 

a lack of innovation and a lack of doing what is best to create opportunities, especially for our heroes who are returning from the 

battlefield. But what this program has shown me is that the Corps 

of Engineers has shown an innovative approach, and it is truly 

helping veterans in a temporary basis to learn those skills and 

then move on to true careers. And I want to thank you again for 

making that such a success. I am here to talk to anybody who may 

criticize that program. I stand ready to be helpful in that. 

And because I don’t have much time left to ask my second question, I will wait for the second round; and I will yield back the balance of my time. 

20 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Huffman. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my thanks to the 

witnesses as well. Secretary Darcy, I would like to ask you and 

General Bostick, if he feels the need to join in, to talk with me 

about water in the arid West. I don’t need to tell you how bad the 

drought is in California, but obviously you are a key agency when 

it comes to managing our scarce water resources. You have got lots 

of multipurpose projects that provide both flood control and water 

supply benefits. 

And one of the things that I have been working on with you and 

with some of my local stakeholders is modernizing the Corps of Engineers’ operating manual and rule curves, which are based on historic hydrology and do not yet incorporate modern weather science, 

satellite data, things that have come into play long after those 

manuals were put together back in the 1950s. So I am really heartened that you are participating in a pilot project with the National 

Weather Service and the Sonoma County Water Agency to see if 

there are opportunities where the weather data is reliable enough 

that you can begin considering it when you decide when to release 

water from these reservoirs. 

We may not yet be at a point where we can tell you exactly how 

much water is going to come from a storm, but I think you are 

going to find that we are at a point that when there is no storm 

at all and we know no rain is coming, we know that with a lot of 

certainty because we have satellites and weather data that we 

want you to consider and we think should absolutely be part of 

your decisionmaking process. And toward that end, last year in 

WRRDA, the Corps was instructed to submit a report within a year 

on how they could make changes to reservoir operations in arid regions to improve water supply during droughts. I think that this 

kind of modern forecast-based reservoir operations would be a perfect fit, but I want to just ask you if you are on track to complete 

that report? 

Ms. DARCY. I believe so, but I am going to check in the next 10 

minutes to make sure I am right. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. OK. Terrific. Well again, it is critically important. 

It is also important that we seize opportunities to do water reuse 

and recycling wherever we can. I think that is what Congress had 

in mind in the last WRRDA when the Corps was instructed to develop new guidelines under section 1014, on how non-Federal interests can do water resource development projects and then later 

seek reimbursement from the Corps. We want these projects to 

move forward. 

And I know that a couple months ago in an Appropriations subcommittee, Representative Roybal-Allard asked you specifically 

whether environmental infrastructure projects like water recycling 

would be eligible. And she got a favorable response at that time. 

Unfortunately, I sent a letter seeking clarity on that and on April 

20, got a letter from you saying, no, environmental infrastructure 

projects would not be eligible. And so I am just hoping that you 

continue as you develop the new guidelines for section 1014 that 

we asked you to do, that you continue to have an open mind about 

the critical role that water reuse and recycling is going to have to 

play to get us through this critical drought in the West and the opVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:08 Jun 02, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2015\4-22-1~1\94281.TXT JEAN
21 

portunity that we have for the Corps of Engineers to help us 

stretch our water supplies. I hope you will reconsider the position 

that you outlined in that letter of April the 20th. Do you want to 

comment on that? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, Congressman. Environmental infrastructure is 

not within the core missions, but I understand that recycling and 

reuse are and continue to be a growing need, especially in the 

West, and I can tell you that I will take another look at it. However, as I said, environmental infrastructure, which wastewater 

and these kinds of projects are considered, are not within the Corps 

main missions. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. In the limited time I have left I want to ask you 

about section 1135, Continuing Authorities Program projects. We 

have a very important one in Sonoma County. These are projects 

that look to modernize, modify and improve existing Corps projects 

to improve their environmental performance. But, that environmental performance can also be critical to water supply reliability 

as it is in the case of Sonoma County Water Agency Project on the 

Russian River. Compliance with the biological opinion for salmon 

through that project is going to be key to long-term water supply 

reliability. The Corps continues to request much less funding for 

this program than is needed to address the critical backlog and to 

keep these projects moving. Can you speak to why the administration is underfunding this program year after year? 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman, in this year’s budget I believe we re- quested $3.5 million for all of our Continuing Authorities Programs. One of the reasons is because we had a great deal of carryover in that account. We had over $100 million carryover from the 

year before, which is why we didn’t request as much as maybe we 

had in years past. Also some of the challenges we have in some of 

the CAP programs is that our local sponsors oftentimes are unable 

to meet the cost share match, and so we are trying to figure out 

a way forward within our CAP program. The CAP authority is one 

that is used a lot because of the low dollar, not only the low dollar 

amount but the fact that it does not require the extensive authorization process. So we are trying to get a handle on how we can 

spend down the carryover as well as how we can improve how we 

communicate with our stakeholders to be able to help them come 

up with their portion of a cost-shared responsibility. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Rouzer. 

Mr. ROUZER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our witnesses for being here today and availing themselves to us. My 

questions are going to be directed to the Corps. But before I get 

into my questions, I want to give a little shout out to a good man 

that you have in your ranks, our new commander of the Wilmington district, Colonel Kevin Landers. I had the opportunity to 

meet and visit with him. And he is new on the block. I am new 

on the block, and so I look forward to forging a very good working 

relationship not only with him but with you all for a long time to 

come. 

I have some specific questions as it relates to some beaches near 

and dear to my district and near and dear to my heart. You may 

not have the specific answer right at hand, but I want to get these 

22 

in for the record. The first pertains to Wrightsville Beach which is 

in New Hanover County, right there on the coast obviously. And 

the question, a couple questions, one is how many additional periodic nourishment cycles could be completed without exceeding the 

section 902 maximum project cost limit for the Wrightsville Beach 

Project? And then the second question is what is the status of the 

Corps developing a Post-Authorization Change Report to seek an 

increase in the project’s authorized total cost in section 902 cost 

limit? 

Ms. DARCY. I can give you those answers. On how many additional periodic renourishment cycles, this is for Wrightsville Beach, 

right, not Carolina? 

Mr. ROUZER. That is correct. 

Ms. DARCY. For Wrightsville Beach we project that at least two 

periodic nourishment cycles scheduled for 2018 and 2022 could be 

completed without exceeding the section 902 cost limit. And then 

regarding what is the status of our developing a 902 cost limit, the 

Corps is analyzing all cost-reduction measures to reduce the total 

cost of implementing this project, and subject to the overall viability of implementing these cost controls, a Post-Authorization 

Change Report may still be required, and this possibly could be accomplished in fiscal year 2016, subject to availability and appropriations. 

Mr. ROUZER. Well thank you for those answers. I look forward 

to working with you on that specific issue. 

The next set of questions relates to Carolina Beach and what is 

known as the Carolina Beach and Vicinity Project. Do you know 

when the Federal participation and periodic nourishment of the 

Carolina Beach portion of the Carolina Beach and Vicinity Project 

currently will expire? 

General BOSTICK. It expires fiscal year 2017, for the Carolina 

Beach portion, and for the area south, Kure Beach portion, it expires in 2047. 

Mr. ROUZER. Do you know what is needed to determine the feasibility of extending Federal participation in periodic nourishment of 

the Carolina Beach portion? 

General BOSTICK. Yes. We would have to conduct a study in accordance with WRRDA 2014. We would also need economic justification, and it would have to be environmentally acceptable. We 

are still working on the implementation guidance for this section 

of WRRDA, but if it were to be extended, it could be up to 15 years. 

Mr. ROUZER. Just so I am clear, what actions by the administration would be needed to initiate this? Or what encouragement does 

the administration need to initiate this? 

General BOSTICK. Assuming all of the previous items I talked 

about: economically justified, technically feasible, and environmentally acceptable, and the review of the implementation guidance to ensure we are straight with WRRDA 2014, then we would 

need funding based on the study. 

Mr. ROUZER. How much funding do you anticipate that would be? 

General BOSTICK. That would be difficult to say at this point. We 

would really have to go through and execute this study, and the 

study would reveal the cost. 

23 

Mr. ROUZER. OK. Thank you very much. One last followup to all 

of that is, what can we do to be helpful in your mission? I know 

you have got a tough job. Obviously money is a scarce commodity, 

a scarce resource that everybody needs, but is there anything in 

particular that we as a committee can do to help make your job 

easier? 

General BOSTICK. No. I would say we are getting great support 

from the committee and, I think, the administration, given the 

challenges that we face nationally; but as you look at our aging infrastructure around the country, we are maintaining about $190 

billion worth of infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers rates our infrastructure at a D-plus and says we need about 

$3.6 trillion by 2020, and we are probably going to be short about 

$11⁄2 trillion. 

So the Federal Government can’t do this alone. And I think as 

you work with your local stakeholders, and we work with the local 

stakeholders, it is going to take a team effort. Relying on the Federal Government on many of these projects alone will not suffice, 

and whether it is public-private partnerships and getting the private sector involved, getting local and State governments involved, 

to work in partnership with the Federal Government is going to 

have to be the way ahead. 

Mr. ROUZER. Thank very much, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate your 

answers. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Johnson. 

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

and Ranking Member, for having this very important meeting on 

the budget and the priorities of the Army Corps fiscal year 2016 

budget. I want to thank the witnesses also for being here. I am 

grateful for the hard work and service to the country that the 

Army Corps of Engineers does. I know that they are at work day 

and night, building and maintaining our national infrastructure, 

completing projects that keep the safety and well-being of Americans all over the U.S. Having said that, I did want to bring to light 

a concern that I am sure the members of this committee have, and 

I apologize for being in another markup, another committee, so I 

have been in and out. 

But as of January 15, the Army Corps of Engineers had an 

unallocated sum of approximately $100 million specifically apportioned for flood risk management programs as part of the fiscal 

year 2015 workplan. As of January the 15th, the Corps was directed by the Congress to allocate such funds within a 45-day period, to expedite the transfer of management and operation of flood 

risk management projects such as the Dallas Floodway Project in 

my district. 

Just yesterday my staff informed me that the city is poised to 

take in serious consideration, matching a Federal investment of $8 

million with $7 million in municipal bonds to complete the Dallas 

Floodway Project that will add recreational features, community 

amenities, and flood control between the levees—amenities between the levees and flood control, as well as provide money to repair severe erosion in the floodway. Now Secretary Darcy, I understand that you were just completing an international trip, so I 

24 

want to especially thank you for taking time to join us today, and 

I want to inquire about two separate items. 

Can you explain why the Army Corps has not yet complied with 

the congressional directive to allocate the existing $100 million 

from fiscal year 2015 workplans, specifically a portion for expediting flood risk management, and projects and their eventual 

transfer of operation to non-Federal entities? And I want to thank 

you for the feasibility study and the environmental impact statement on the modified Dallas Floodway Project signed yesterday. 

But having said all that, I would like also to ask if you intend to 

move forward with approving the record of decisionmaking related 

to the Dallas Floodway Project as well as moving forward with the 

recommendation to allocate the $8 million for said project. 

And I would like for you to speak to these two things that are 

very central to my area and certainly urge some movement in the 

affirmative in some way. So let me allow you to comment. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, Congresswoman, I believe that yesterday when 

I signed the memorandum, the record of decision has now been 

completed, and then the project can move forward. As far as the 

allocation of the unallocated balances in the 2015 workplan for 

flood risk management, we will have a decision on those in shortly; 

and I understand that the project, the $8 million that you are referring to in Dallas, that there is a requirement by the local sponsors that a decision needs to be made before the 28th of April, and 

I will commit to you that I will make that decision by then. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you, Secretary. And for those others with the Corps of Engineers, I look forward to continuing to 

work with you, and I look forward to having us have an opportunity to move forward with the projects. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Katko. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you folks for 

being here this morning. I have a son who is a sophomore at Geneseo University in upstate New York who is in the Army ROTC 

program, and he just may be smart enough to get in the Army 

Corps of Engineers some day. I don’t know. We will see. But I 

thank you for the work you have done. In my short time as a congressman I have had some experience already with the Army 

Corps, coming to my office, meeting with me. I found them to be 

incredibly professional and incredibly responsive, and I appreciate 

that. It came from the Buffalo sector, I believe, and so thank you 

very much for that. 

In my district there is a vastly underutilized port called the Port 

of Oswego. It is the first deepwater port, and I say deepwater with 

caution, deepwater port in the Great Lakes, and it is really just not 

utilized as well as it could be. And, in discussing with officials up 

there on a regular basis, one of the things they bemoan is how long 

it takes to get dredging approved through the Corps. So, I am not 

here to cast stones, but I just kind of want to understand the process if you can explain it to me. When a port needs dredging to get 

it back to the depths where it once was, for example, can you just 

explain how that process works and what is the average time it 

takes? 

25 

Ms. DARCY. I can tell you that the port would need to have a national navigation port which would be how we would determine the 

dredging capabilities. And then, as some earlier comments stated 

about the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, it would have to compete within that trust fund balance as to what the funding could 

actually be for the eventual dredging of that project. 

Mr. KATKO. OK. Do you have any idea from stem to stern, to borrow a ship phrase, how long it takes once someone applies generally before they get a response as to whether or not their request 

for dredging is going to be granted? 

Ms. DARCY. I don’t know. Do you, General? 

General BOSTICK. My guess is part of this challenge, is it goes 

back to what Secretary Darcy was saying, in whether the project 

competes. There are many projects that folks request dredging, and 

year after year they are not competing for those small dollars that 

are available, so it really depends. I don’t know the specifics on this 

port, but if it is a small port that is not competitive, then it could 

go for many years where it would get a response each year that it 

did not compete for funding that year. 

Mr. KATKO. When you say a small port, assuming it is not competitive, what do you mean? There is not the commercial traffic to 

justify it, or is it something else? 

General BOSTICK. That is true. What we base it on is the amount 

of tonnage that it carries each year, that particular port. We have 

just under 1,000 ports, and 59 of the top ports carry about 90 percent of the tonnage, and they receive about 60 to 65 percent, maybe 

sometimes 70 percent, of the funding. About 10 percent of the funding goes to those low-use ports, low-tonnage ports, so there is still 

funding that goes there. 

Mr. KATKO. Is there consideration given to the fact that if these 

ports were dredged, that it could increase the tonnage coming into 

those ports? 

General BOSTICK. One of the things that we are trying to look 

at is watersheds as a system. So looking at the Great Lakes for example, as a system instead of individual ports—and this is one of 

the things the Corps has been pushing—that there may be a port 

that doesn’t compete well alone, but if it were funded, the entire 

system may produce more. We are trying to talk about that strategy as well. 

Mr. KATKO. Yeah. I would urge you to do so because I know 

Oswego is one such port, and they have been having a lot of discussions, for example, with the New York-New Jersey Port Authority, 

and they are pretty much, as you probably know, at their maximum operating capacity, so there is overflow potential for these 

smaller ports that, you know, if they are dredged and they are able 

to take on some of the bigger ships. For example, Oswego we are 

hoping if they get a little more depth to the Port of Oswego, it 

might be able to take on more cargo container ships and then kind 

of married up with a major transfer point, CSX rail line in Syracuse, New York, which is about 45 minutes to its south. 

So, I would urge you going forward, to try and consider as part 

of the component of, you know, these requests that what is the economic potential if it is done. As I understand it, shipping is going 

to increase. Rail transportation is going to increase, and those two 

26 

are intertwined, and the more we can take into consideration on 

the front end, we might be able to develop the economy more. But 

again, it is not a criticism. It is just a suggestion. 

And I want to thank you all. I think the Army Corps of Engineers does a great job, and the only thing I would ask is that, to 

the extent you can, find ways to expedite the decisionmaking process, I would very much appreciate that. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I very much 

appreciate this hearing, and I appreciate the testimony I have 

heard so far from our witnesses. 

My first question is addressed to Secretary Darcy. Secretary 

Darcy, a particularly controversial issue in this committee and the 

Congress has been the Clean Water Act rulemaking. No matter 

what administration, what EPA, it would always be controversial 

when you consider how many rivers and streams of the United 

States are involved. 

The President has included $5 million to implement your Clean 

Water Act activities. Of course this committee last week passed a 

bill that would essentially require you to toss the whole thing and 

start all over again. If that bill were to ever pass, and I wonder 

if anyone ever thought it would pass, but assuming that bill were 

passed, and that is to say the House, and the Senate, and signed 

by the President, would the Army Corps need additional funds to 

carry out all of the requirements provided in that bill? 

Ms. DARCY. My understanding of the legislation you are referring 

to would require us to stop doing the current rulemaking and start 

over again, meaning I think additional consultation within the administration as well as with outside stakeholders. So, I would anticipate that if we were required to stop and start over again, we 

would probably need additional resources. The $5 million that was 

in the President’s request for 2016 for the regulatory program is in 

anticipation of the rule that we had proposed going final, and that 

money would be used to train additional staff that would be needed 

in the initial startup to get up to speed on what the implementation of the new rule would—— 

Ms. NORTON. Do you have any idea how much in funds it has 

taken to get this far, with all the interruptions and all the consultations with all of the States that you have done? 

Ms. DARCY. I don’t have a good number for you, Congresswoman, 

about how much we have expended in proposing the rule. 

Ms. NORTON. But essentially we would be putting essentially the 

same resources. You would have to go to all the States and all the 

subjurisdictions all over again and essentially begin what has been 

very expensive rulemaking all over again. I just want that for the 

record. I don’t assume this bill would be passed because I don’t 

think there is any such thing as a controversial Clean Water Act 

bill on the waters of the United States. 

I would like, General Bostick, to ask you about perhaps one of 

your oldest projects and one that I must say I am grateful for the 

Army Corps for the way in which it has proceeded. During World 

War I there were chemical weapons that were manufactured in one 

of our neighborhoods. It was not then a neighborhood. But because 

all the information wasn’t known, one of our most illustrious comVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:08 Jun 02, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2015\4-22-1~1\94281.TXT JEAN
27 

munities was built over that; and the Corps has pledged to make 

sure that that community is cleaned up and has proceeded forthwith. 

I have been briefed by your Baltimore district office about this 

so-called FUDS site, formally a defense site, at the American University, Spring Valley neighborhood, I think it was the end of February, to bring me up to date. And you have released an investigative report, that has been available for public comment. So we see 

that work is proceeding, and progress has been made; but, General 

Bostick, I don’t know if you have ever had an older project than 

this, but we are talking we are going to come on 25 years if we 

keep this up. And the timeline I have been provided for one of the 

last projects, Glenwood Road, has a high probability of excavation 

to be completed 2016, 2017, low probability excavation, winter 

2017, spring 2017; and site restoration, not until spring or summer 

2017. 

I have to ask you, General Bostick, is there any way to speed up 

this timeline considering we are talking about a neighborhood 

where real people live and go to work every day and have had to 

abide this work for almost 25 years? Is there any way to speed up 

that deadline that would take us into 2017? 

General BOSTICK. Representative, I am glad our team was able 

to brief you. The numbers that you are tracking is exactly the way 

that I am tracking the progress. I know they are working as hard 

and as diligently and as safely as they can. I can work with our 

division and district to determine if there is any way to move this 

faster, but honestly I suspect that they are going as quickly as they 

can. But I will go back—— 

Ms. NORTON. I was sure that you would say that, and I am sure 

that they are. But I wish you would get back to me after a month’s 

time to see whether there is any way to speed up that timeline. 

General BOSTICK. I will. 

Ms. NORTON. And I would like to ask you about—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Babin. 

Dr. BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask a question 

of Secretary Darcy. It is my understanding that the Port of Houston, which I represent, and the Corps of Engineers have identified 

a significant safety concern along the Houston Ship Channel at 

what we call Bayport Flare; and there is a challenge in finding the 

appropriate authority to effectively address this situation. It is also 

my understanding that this is primarily because of a project 902 

limit which is restricting the Corps’ ability to fix the Bayport Flare. 

While 902 is an important provision that helps control costs, it 

should not be an impediment to addressing an immediate navigation safety concern. If a local entity like the Port of Houston wants 

to work with the Corps to address these sorts of critical safety concerns, is the Corps permitted to grant a waiver to the 902 limit and 

allow this critical safety issue to be addressed? Do you have that 

waiver authority, or will it take congressional authorization? Do 

you know? 

Ms. DARCY. I don’t know for certain, but what I do know is I 

don’t believe that we can waive 902. However, we may be able to 

find other authorities that could be used in order to address this 

as either an emergency or a safety issue, that we might be able to 

28 

proceed without having to do a 902, but I would need to check for 

you, Congressman. 

Dr. BABIN. OK. Would you support legislation that would give 

the Corps the ability to grant 902 waivers under these circumstances if it is a safety concern? 

Ms. DARCY. Again, I think that we may be able to address the 

concern because it is a safety concern or risk to public health or 

life and safety, without having to get a waiver from 902, but, again, 

I would have to check on that for you. 

Dr. BABIN. Well, we had a collision down at the Port of Houston 

just a few weeks ago, and I am not blaming the Bayport Flares for 

this because it was not in that area, but with shipping soon to be 

coming from Panama, the Bayport Flares need to be widened and 

deepened as well. So what are you suggesting? Can you give me 

some specifics on what other entities might be able to help us with 

this situation? 

Ms. DARCY. I think that if it is truly a safety issue, we may be 

able to consult with the Coast Guard as to how we might be able 

to, in the short term, resolve this safety issue and also looking also 

internally about what other authorities we might have to have to 

be able to address the problem. 

Dr. BABIN. It is a problem. Very much one. Thank you. I yield 

back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Graves. 

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

all, thank you for being here. And, General Peabody, I want to join 

Congressman Davis in giving accolades to you. I have enjoyed a 

working relationship with you and look forward to your future and 

wish you luck. 

I would like to associate my comments with Congresswoman Johnson who expressed concern over the $130 million holdback. 

Madam Secretary General, that is a strong concern. One thing that 

you do, and I really appreciate the jurisdiction of this full committee in that it has jurisdiction over Stafford Act, FEMA disaster 

response, and Corps of Engineer mission, which is largely the 

proactive efforts. Study after study indicates that proactive efforts 

pay off multiple times over as compared to reactive efforts, and obviously Hurricane Katrina is a perfect example of that where we 

probably expended 10 or 12 times as much money doing disaster 

response as we would have if we had just actually done the proper 

protection on the front end. 

First question for you. Back in 2013, the White House announced 

that they were going to shut down White House doors and save the 

Government approximately $70,000 in doing so. During the same 

period of time, the Corps of Engineers has spent $72 million in the 

Morganza, the gulf project studying it since approximately 1992. 

You spent $20-something million studying the West Bank project 

for over 40 years in south Louisiana. You have spent over $100 

million and studied the Louisiana coastal area restoration efforts, 

ecosystem restoration efforts, and spent over 20 years doing that. 

Can you help me reconcile the cost savings that the White House 

was trying to achieve while the Corps of Engineers is spending 

hundreds of millions of dollars and decades studying projects that 

we should be moving forward on today? 

29 

Ms. DARCY. The reconciliation of those expenditures are ones 

that I can only say that the Army Corps of Engineers has spent 

a great deal of time and efforts on those studies. One thing that 

we are doing as a result of not only some initiatives we have taken 

but also initiatives that the Congress has directed us to take, is to 

reduce the time and expense of our studies. We have a 3x3x3 requirement now that will require that all studies will take place in 

3 years with $3 million or less and be integrated in the vertical 

team within the Corps headquarters as well as the district and division. Those are ways that I think we have taken initiatives to be 

able to reduce our expenditures on studies as well as the time. I 

know there has been a long history of longtime studies in the State 

of Louisiana. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Another question, in a previous life I had the chance to carry out 

water resource projects in Louisiana and partner with the Corps of 

Engineers. In numerous instances we were able to build the entire 

project for the 35-percent cost share that the Corps estimated was 

our cost share. So say, again, for 35 percent of the cost we built 

the entire 100 percent project, and we were able to do that oftentimes in half of the time that the Corps of Engineers estimated. 

Can you just very briefly explain any project delivery mechanism 

efficiencies that you are pursuing today? 

Ms. DARCY. We have established a Corps cost control board, and 

that is looking at not only the escalations of costs, but also how we 

can reduce existing costs. What we have discovered over the last 

couple of years is we were coming up against our 902 limit too 

many times, finding out not only was the contingency built in, but 

then a project came up to the 902 and without enough time in advance to either make cost adjustments or be prepared to ask for 

what we call a 902 fix, a legislative fix. So that is one of the things 

we have done, and the General may want to add—— 

General BOSTICK. The only other thing I can add is that we have 

seen great projects. And Representative Graves, you have seen 

what we have done in the HSDRRS Project. We did the same thing 

in BRAC, about $12 billion worth of work in 6 years, and one of 

the keys was upfront funding, so contractors know what they are 

going to receive and when they are going to receive it and they can 

execute the project on a reasonable timeline. The other thing we 

have done is brought the contractors in early along with the stakeholders so we don’t have the changes which usually cause projects 

to be extended. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. General, thank you, and I appreciate 

you recognizing that. There are fundamental flaws in the current 

project delivery mechanism and, look, and I will agree with you or 

perhaps where you were leading, Secretary Darcy, in that I think 

the Congress has some culpability in this flawed process. 

But this year, for example, the budget request comes in at $750 

million below last year’s actually enacted dollars in terms of construction funds. When you look at the backlog of projects totaling 

tens of billions of dollars, when you look at the vulnerabilities that 

are out there, General and Secretary Darcy, I want to remind you, 

we lost 1,200 Louisianians in Hurricane Katrina, 1,200. There is 

not a single one of those people that should have been lost. HurriVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:08 Jun 02, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2015\4-22-1~1\94281.TXT JEAN
30 

cane Isaac in 2012, we lost another two or three, if I recall, particularly on the West Bank at Plaquemines Parish which the Corps initially indicated in 2006 they would be protecting. These lives, this 

loss of lives, first of all, they matter. And second of all, every single 

one of them was preventable. Call me dramatic, whatever you 

want, you need to be thinking about what you are going to tell 

these families in the future whenever these projects that have been 

here in the study process now for decades, what you are going to 

tell them whenever they lose family members, because it is going 

to happen. And when we have a hurricane come up and takes a 

trajectory just to the west of Hurricane Katrina hit, I am telling 

you right now, and you all know it too, we are going to have probably hundreds of lives lost, entirely preventible. Meanwhile FEMA 

is coming in and spending billions of dollars, billions of dollars, responding. 

Last question in this round. I want to ask about waters of the 

U.S. You look at the fact that we have lost 1,900 square miles of 

coastal wetlands in the State of Louisiana, 1,900. Virtually all the 

studies that are out there indicate that that land loss is attributable to Corps of Engineers actions in terms of modifying the hydrology on the Mississippi River system. Can you explain to me or 

reconcile the waters of the U.S. rule and out there touting the importance of wetlands, while the Corps of Engineers, being the largest cause of wetlands lost historical in perspective in the United 

States? 

Ms. DARCY. The waters of the U.S., not only existing waters of 

the U.S. under the Clean Water Act, but the proposed rule, will 

continue to protect wetlands. And as you probably know, many of 

the projects that the Corps of Engineers has built and will build 

in the future will all consider the mitigation of wetlands loss under 

law. So the fact that the hydrology of the gulf coast is being impacted by these projects is something in the future we need to consider as far as the wetland loss, because it is a huge loss to the 

State of Louisiana, as well as to the country. 

General BOSTICK. I would just offer that the Corps of Engineers 

builds what the American people, the Congress, authorizes and appropriates. We don’t come up with our own ideas on projects. The 

first Chief’s Report I signed as the Chief of Engineers was the Ecosystem Restoration Project at the Barataria Basin down in New 

Orleans to try to help balance some of the structural and nonstructural type of work that we do. But America has changed and 

is looking more at environmental-type work, at ecosystem restoration work, which we agree is very important. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Graves, since you have to leave, did 

you have another question you wanted to ask? 

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

Thank you, Congresswoman Napolitano. I did have another question. Chief, you just pointed to the fact that Congress writes laws, 

and that is why we are here. I had the chance to work with some 

of the people sitting behind you on WRDA 2007 conference, in fact, 

some of the people sitting next to you on WRDA 2007 conference. 

If you take Hurricane Katrina to the current, I believe there are 

16 different statutory deadlines that were placed in various bills, 

WRDA 2007, various appropriations bills since Hurricane Katrina. 

31 

The Corps of Engineers has missed every single deadline that was 

in the law. 

Rolling forward to WRDA 2007 authorizing provisions, numerous 

places, ‘‘the Secretary shall,’’ crystal clear; there is no discretion, 

black and white. I can go through there and find over and over and 

over again where the Corps of Engineers flat out ignored, ignored 

the provision; and my 10-year-old could tell us exactly what it 

means. This whole organization is here, the Congress is here to 

write laws. And it is the Corps’ job to actually enforce, to implement those laws. When we sit here and do these things, and you 

just decide what you are going to follow and what you are not going 

to follow, what does that say to us? Why are we even here if you 

guys are going to just do whatever you want? 

General BOSTICK. In all due respect, Congressman, we do follow 

the law, and we respect the Congress, we respect the law; and to 

the degree possible with the resources and the time and the expertise that we have, we work as diligently as our teammates can to 

follow that law and to execute it to the letter as best we can. There 

are some times where lawyers disagree on how to interpret different parts; and in those cases we come back to the Congress and 

try to get the clear interpretation, but in no way would we just flagrantly decide that we are going to disobey the laws of the country. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. General, I think you and I need to 

sit down and look at some laws, and I think that you would come 

to a very different conclusion. Unfortunately the State of Louisiana 

has had to sue the Corps of Engineers because of fatally flawed interpretations of laws that are delaying projects. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say when you work on 

WRRDA 2014 implementation, I have already seen some implementation guidance come out that I think deviates from congressional intent, and I just want to warn you that we are going to be 

paying very close attention. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, Secretary 

Darcy, there is a question in regard to a dam in California, 

Matilija, the Ecosystem Restoration Project, which was authorized 

in WRDA 2007, but there is yet to receive any construction. I understand you don’t have the budget. I understand priorities. But 

the project apparently is quite critical for the restoration of the 

creek. There is a restoration of critical steelhead runs in the Ventura River. It has not yet risen to the level of being included in the 

President’s budget. As a result, no construction appropriations are 

likely for the project due to the current moratorium on earmarks, 

which we all love but we wouldn’t want back. 

However, that does not diminish the importance of the project to 

the community, to the economy, or to the restoration of the 

steelhead population. And apparently there has been a discussion 

with Congresswoman Brownley who represents that area. The local 

sponsors understand that there are individual components to the 

project that may be good candidates for construction using one of 

the Corps continuing authorities. Can you commit to working with 

us to explore whether this is a possibility so that this important 

portion of the project can get underway as we continue to try and 

move forward with the larger projects? Is it a way the locals are 

32 

willing to sit and see if they can’t break off the pieces into smaller 

elements? And certainly we need to be able to at least assist them 

in moving, since 2007, that is quite a few years ago. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, Congresswoman, we can look into whether there 

can be a CAP authority for a separable element because Matilija 

is I think the dam I think you are referring to, and I think that 

is a pretty big project. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I really appreciate it, ma’am. 

Ms. DARCY. Sure. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes. To Mr. Johnson, in your testimony, you 

refer to the construction of the ward’s Watts Bar Nuclear Plant No. 

2. Now, in California we have got a couple of nuclear plants, and 

unfortunately one of them as you know has been shuttered because 

of problems. My concern has been through my years in the State 

assembly, of moving the nuclear waste to repositories because there 

is no way to get rid of it, the millions of years that they say it takes 

to, what did I say—diminish the impact. What are the plans to be 

able to move the nuclear waste generated because this is a very, 

very serious issue throughout the United States from nuclear 

plants? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Congresswoman. We operate six nuclear reactors today. With the addition of Watts Bar 2, that will be 

seven, and we currently store all of our own used fuel. So at each 

of our plants we have pool storage for long-term storage. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How long? 

Mr. JOHNSON. You can put it in the pool indefinitely but typically 

at least 5 years. And then you move it out into another form of 

storage. And currently we are using dry cask storage, large, secure, 

very heavily secured casks, to store the fuel on site, which can also 

be done indefinitely and safely. You know, there is probably a more 

efficient way to do this in a centralized repository of some kind, but 

we have the capability to do this for the life of the plant and the 

safe life of storing the fuel. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And what is the life of the plant? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Typically today you would think about 60 years at 

least of the useful life of the plant. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Somewhere along the line I had heard that 

there was an effort being made to recycle some of the spent fuel? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. Recycling spent fuel is done around the 

world, done in France, Japan, Russia. We have not done it here. 

Some of the things that President Carter did in nonproliferation 

kept us from recycling, and also historically it hasn’t been economical as compared to making new fuel, but we never took into account the storage question. So I hope we do get to recycling here 

because there is a lot of energy left in the fuel that we could reuse. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well that is something we may want to look 

at in the future because that can pose danger to the communities, 

as we have found out in San Clemente, and it is something that 

we all are critically aware of. 

Back to Ms. Darcy; I want to be sure that we are going to be 

sending you a little note, a little love note, in regard to the harbor 

maintenance because I am reading the WRRDA, the two sections 

that deal with the expanded uses, and I certainly would want a 

clarification. If not then, we will maybe put stricter language to be 

33 

able to determine where that, the total amount collected in the immediate 3 years of the harbor maintenance taxes, where that 

amount can be forwarded to. 

Ms. DARCY. OK. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK? Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. GIBBS. I will start with Mr. Johnson. You finally get a question, so thank you for your patience. I want to talk a little bit about 

the TVA’s debt limit. The limit is $30 billion, and you have kind 

of been pushing that. In your strategic plan you say that TVA 

would reduce its debt by $3 billion to $5 billion over 10 to 12 years. 

Is that still the plan? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is the plan, yes, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. And how would you avoid reaching that $30 billion? 

Can you go into details a little bit about the plan? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. There are basically two elements of our financing, which is debt and rates. We can raise rates. And our general plan over the next 10 years is to reduce our operating costs, 

be much more effective, incrementally raise rates, get through a big 

capital spending, and reduce our capital spending, and then bend 

that debt curve down, which I think by about 2023 should be $20 

billion or $21 billion. 

Mr. GIBBS. On an annual basis how much is TVA for interest expense? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Our average expense is about 10 percent of our total, so $1 billion in interest expense. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. TVA recently purchased a natural gas plant in 

Virginia. Can you please explain TVA’s rationale to expand its fleet 

of facilities given TVA’s large number of older facilities that need 

maintenance? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, it was actually in Mississippi. We bought a 

gas plant recently in Mississippi. 

Mr. GIBBS. Oh, it is not in Virginia? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. It is in Mississippi. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, so it was an error from my staff. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am pro everything, but mostly I am pro consumer. And so the reason we would buy a gas plant instead of retrofitting an older plant is because it is the cheapest way to serve 

the consumer. So, we got a very good price on this gas plant, and 

natural gas is fairly reasonably priced and projected to be so for a 

long time; so this is the best move for our consumers. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Well I want to commend you for your short tenure there and the work you are trying to do to address the issue. 

As we said in my opening statement, your operations are self-contained, funded; but there is always that liability aspect if something were to go wrong that could come back on to Congress and 

taxpayers. So thank you for that. 

Ms. Darcy, there is no provision in section 7001 for adding criteria or for projecting studies and projects from the annual report 

that meet all five criteria that are in law. Can you describe to us 

the list of projects submitted that met all five criteria pursuant to 

section 7001 in WRRDA? 

Ms. DARCY. I believe that in the report that we have submitted 

for 7001, there were 19 projects that met those 5 criteria and appeared in the report. 

34 

Mr. GIBBS. Nineteen. OK. I want to talk a little bit about the annual report. I think you would probably agree that the first one you 

did was a little incomplete or inconclusive. The question that really 

comes up, it was clear, I think, in the intent of Congress implementing this, that as long as the five criteria were met, everything 

comes to Congress, to this committee; but the Corps has put in an 

administrative review process. I will give you two examples of that. 

The Brazos Island Chief’s Report. Two Chief’s Reports were in the 

appendix because of administrative review. Then we have in the 

city of South El Monte, California, a land conveyance which has 

been held up to my understanding, which seems to me that should 

be a pretty simple procedure to move forward, and I guess my 

question is where did this administrative review come in that is 

holding up inclusion of all the things out there that should be in 

the annual report? 

Ms. DARCY. The administrative review is required under Executive Order 12322, which we have to do whenever we submit a report to Congress. The 7001 report is one of those. And in the administrative review, the two projects that you referred to were the 

two Chief’s Reports that were not in the report but appeared in the 

appendix. Every submission we got from the public appears in either the report or the appendix. And the two Chief’s Reports that 

did not appear are because they had not yet gone through administration review. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. I just want to make it clear to the administration 

what I think Congress’ intent was, that as long as the criteria is 

met that it is under Federal purview, jurisdiction, the Corps, that 

these things should be coming to us to make a determination. And 

so we have got a little heartburn, I guess to say, about the administrative review process. We wanted to make that clear. 

The other concern I have on the annual report is I am not convinced on the implementation out to the country, out to the districts, that the word has been put out how this process is supposed 

to work now since we don’t have earmarks. As you know the process is supposed to work where the local districts be the lead entity 

working with port authorities, local governments, and develop or 

identify the challenges out there and put that in the report. I had 

some officials in from the Galveston-Houston area last week, and 

I explained that to them. I said go back to the Galveston district 

and talk to them and see what is going on. 

I will just hold this out as an example because there’s a couple 

projects one that needs a reauthorization or addendum, but there 

is one that will be a new authorization for a study on the flood 

gate, flood wall there in Galveston, the bay into Houston. It seems 

to me that ought to be a top priority, national priority. Because I 

know when, I think it was Hurricane Ike or Rita, whichever one, 

hit that, up in Ohio, northeast, we felt the results of that because 

of all the refineries down there. And so, I want to make it clear 

that hopefully the Corps is doing the job of getting this word out 

and how this process is supposed to work now and work with the 

local entities. But I was kind of surprised that they came to me 

first and wanted to know, well, can you get this authorized. And 

I said, well, you have been working, so it was kind of unclear. So 

I just wanted to—— 

35 

Ms. DARCY. We are, Congressman. We are going to do more outreach with our districts so that everyone is aware of just what exactly the process is. As you know, this is the first time we did this. 

We did it pretty quick, by February 1. And also when we put out 

our public notice in the Federal Register in May, we are going to 

be more clear about what exactly needs to be involved in this—— 

Mr. GIBBS. I could be wrong on this, but the February 1 I think 

was for future years. I don’t think it was for this year as much. 

They are shaking their heads I am right on that. So that might 

have been a miscommunication, and so it maybe caused some of 

the problem. But I just want to make sure going forward, that everybody understands what we are trying to do in this report. And 

so since we don’t have earmarks, this should be a very transparent 

process that would lead to accountability but then also identifying 

those needs and challenges out there in the countryside, I think 

that is the best way to get it from the grassroots up. And we got 

to make that work, and I am sure that General Peabody and General Bostick and everybody wants to do it that way, but we have 

got to make sure we get it done. 

Mr. Rokita, I think is next on the list. We will be back. 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chairman. I thank the witnesses for 

their testimony. I couldn’t be here for most of it because I happened to be chairing another subcommittee, but I had some staff 

in the room, and they have listened and reported. And so forgive 

me if these questions might seem repetitive. I am told they are not. 

As a member of the subcommittee, I have been trying to study 

as best I can the different issues and relaying and applying them 

to the situation in our State of Indiana, and I come up with these. 

If the States were to take over the internal waterway dredging, 

would that free up the Corps to pursue its locks and dams projects 

faster? 

Ms. DARCY. Talking about the locks and dams on the inland waterways system—— 

Mr. ROKITA. But the question is generic. I mean, just conceptually if States were to take over the dredging responsibilities, 

would you be able to move faster on your dams and locks projects? 

Ms. DARCY. The dams and locks projects are funded out of the 

Inland Waterway Trust Fund, and that is for improvements. It is 

not for dredging of that system. So if the States took over the 

dredging, it would not really impact the funding for the modernization or the upgrades of the locks and dams. 

Mr. ROKITA. Because right now the dredging is your responsibility, and where does that funding come from? 

Ms. DARCY. That comes from General Treasury. I mean that 

comes from our budget. 

Mr. ROKITA. So if we were to take it over, the dredging is behind 

schedule is my point. Right, or not? 

Ms. DARCY. The dredging, it is essential. Because it is a—— 

Mr. ROKITA. If we were to take it over, fight about who is paying 

for it later, would that free you up? 

General BOSTICK. In terms of—— 

Mr. ROKITA. General? 

36 

General BOSTICK. They are not as related. It seems that way. 

But one, it is different pots of money for the infrastructure improvement of the locks and dams and then the dredging. 

But the other challenges, these inland waterways are all connected, and it is really a national system, and the Corps has responsibility to ensure that that national inland waterway system 

is operating, and there are puts and takes, and there are key decisions all up and down the inland waterways. If a State chose because of lack of funding or some other reason that they could not 

prioritize it, then the Nation would have an issue. 

Mr. ROKITA. Any worse than now? You are behind. 

General BOSTICK. I think so. I think we—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Worse than you? 

General BOSTICK. Right now, the responsibility is on the Corps 

of Engineers to ensure the dredging occurs to manage flooding, so 

navigation and flood risk management all come together. So it is 

complicated. 

Mr. ROKITA. I take your point. I take your point. 

What was the last new project undertaken by the Army Corps 

of Engineers, and what year was it? The last new project. 

General BOSTICK. We have projects ongoing. Olmsted is a good 

example that we are in. 

Mr. ROKITA. How about new development project? 

Ms. DARCY. This year’s budget included funds to begin construction of the deepening of the Savannah River Channel. That began 

this year. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. Anything else to point to? 

Ms. DARCY. Beginning of construction in this calendar year. 

Mr. ROKITA. For example, this committee, some members of this 

committee went down to Panama. We saw their new locks being 

built. 

Ms. DARCY. Right. Well, that is one of the reasons Savannah 

wants to go deeper. We are deepening Savannah. 

Mr. ROKITA. But anything new like that, that the Army’s—— 

Ms. DARCY. We are currently looking—— 

Mr. ROKITA [continuing]. The Corps is undertaking? 

Ms. DARCY. Not undertaking. We have studies for deepening 

projects, including Charleston Harbor, but as far as a construction 

new project this year, SHEP is the one that comes to mind. 

Mr. ROKITA. Let me ask this one. I have got about 1 minute left. 

The Harbor Maintenance Fund generates a surplus every year 

under my study. That is correct, right? What can be done to protect 

these funds to be used for water projects only, and does the administration support using the fund for water projects only? 

Ms. DARCY. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, as you noted, 

takes in more than it expends. This budget requests $915 million 

to come out of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for this fiscal 

year. That is what we believe is affordable at this time, and that 

is the intended use of those funding for the operation and maintenance of those coastal harbors. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. So none of the harbor maintenance funds are 

used for anything but water projects? 

Ms. DARCY. In our appropriations bill the $915 million is used 

just for water projects. 

37 

Mr. ROKITA. So there is no fund money going to anything else? 

Ms. DARCY. The outstanding balances are used for other purposes within the Treasury. 

Mr. ROKITA. Not water projects? 

Ms. DARCY. Or other uses within the Treasury, so perhaps not. 

Mr. ROKITA. Right. But my question was, your opinion, and 

where is the administration. Does the administration support 

water projects only? Or by virtue of what you just said, obviously 

not. 

Ms. DARCY. The administration supports its budget request of $915 million from the existing balance. 

Mr. ROKITA. I think my time has expired. I appreciate the witnesses. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Frankel. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you, Mr. Gibbs. 

Thank you again for testifying. And I need to go back to my 

original questions because I think there was a little confusion in 

the communication. My first question was in regards to a provision 

we put in the last WRRDA bill that allows a non-Federal sponsor 

to prefund the planning, and design, and construction phases at a 

project without congressional authorization and then later seek 

credit or reimbursement once it is authorized. That is section 1014. 

You know, when you responded, you commented on Mr. Webster’s 

question, which is a little different, which had to do with another 

section, so—and I know you have a lot to talk about here, so my 

question was what—when do you expect there will be some guidance from the Corps on that provision? 

Ms. DARCY. Thank you for clarifying that. That was my mistake. 

Section 1014, you are correct, the guidance has not been finalized. 

It is in the queue. I will defer to staff to come up with a date when 

we will have it done for you, and I will get back to you. 

Ms. FRANKEL. OK. Thank you. And then I have another. My second question, which again, there’s so many acronyms. I want to— 

the concern on that on the Broward Segment No. 2 is the—not on 

the LRR, which I think you said we would have in May. The problem is that Broward County is waiving a project participation 

agreement. That is the issue. And they have been pushed back to 

January 2016, which would really almost take them out of the next 

tourist season. 

So I was—originally, it was set to be a November 1 date, 2015, 

not January 2016, so I just have a request, and this, I guess, General Bostick, is whether or not you could take a look at expediting 

that PPA because it really—to try and coordinate between the turtles nesting and the tourists, there is a very short window to get 

this restoration done. 

General BOSTICK. Yes. Secretary Darcy had talked about the 

LRR being done in May of 2015, and then I followed up and said 

we need that to be completed in order to move to the PPA, so I 

wasn’t tracking the timeline of 2016, but I will take a look at it 

and see if there is anything we can do to expedite it. 

Ms. FRANKEL. OK. Thank you very much. This has been sort of 

an interesting issue that came up. Again, I mention how important 

our marine industry is to Florida, especially in south Florida. We 

have an agency there called the Florida Inland Navigation District 

38 

which sponsors a lot of marine projects, and they brought this issue 

to me. What happens, and I am going to try to put it in a practical 

way. Somebody, let’s say a business wants to open, and they open 

a marine—a harbor in the inland coast land—coast of Florida. They 

do what they have to do, they get their permit, and you know 5, 

10, 7 years later they have to do dredging, maintenance dredging. 

What is happening now is that they are being required to actually, if their seagrass has grown, to actually mitigate that. So they 

may have created the environment. In their original project, they 

create the environment that allows the seagrass to grow, and then 

what happens is, because the seagrass grows and they have to go 

through mitigation, and a lot of these folks are now avoiding the 

maintenance dredging, which we really need to have. So I don’t 

know whether that issue has ever come to your attention before, 

but we have requested the—our local folks to take a look at that. 

Ms. DARCY. To my knowledge you are raising it for the first time, 

but if the locals have been in contact with the local Corps district 

as to what the possibilities are for maintenance dredging, I think 

that is the first step. 

Ms. FRANKEL. OK. Thank you very much, and I yield back, Mr. 

Chair. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I said I would be back. So. 

Thank you for your patience today. I am sorry, Mr. Johnson, I don’t 

have a question for you. If anybody wants to give me one on a TVA. 

It really doesn’t impact Illinois where I am at that much. I would 

be happy to get you one, but thank you. Consider yourself lucky because I am probably going to be more little—a little more inquisitive this time than the last time. 

Ms. DARCY. I think he likes testifying with us. 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. We will bring him back. We will bring Peabody 

back, too. 

Secretary Darcy, obviously you have known from my testimony 

before and my questions of you, I am very interested in the P3 language that was inserted in WRRDA. It was a bipartisan approach 

that we took here. My colleague, Cheri Bustos, who serves on this 

committee, we were successful in inserting this language into the 

WRRDA bill, and I have some concerns that the Corps might lack 

some urgency in implementing this program. 

What specific steps are you taking to make sure that the publicprivate partnership program in WRRDA is a priority, and why has 

it taken so long to implement? 

Ms. DARCY. It is a priority both from response to the WRRDA 

language but also within the administration. We are looking at 

public-private partnerships, and as the Chief mentioned earlier, we 

are going to have to be looking for other sources of revenue to be 

able to address them, the infrastructure needs of this country overall. 

We are looking at individual projects to see if there are publicprivate opportunities there, underway, as to what kind of financing 

mechanisms we can use within our existing authorities and whether or not there are barriers in our existing authorities that we may 

need to alter in order to take other sources of funding. We are looking at a project, Fargo-Moorhead, that has an opportunity for a priVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:08 Jun 02, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\WR\2015\4-22-1~1\94281.TXT JEAN
39 

vate partnership, possibly public-private—public public-private 

partnership with a local community and then a private investor. 

Mr. DAVIS. And you are already working on a P3 with the Port 

of Tampa, right? 

Ms. DARCY. I believe so, yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. What is the status of that? 

Ms. DARCY. I don’t know. Do you know, Chief? 

Mr. DAVIS. Can you get back to my office on that one? 

Ms. DARCY. Absolutely. 

[The information follows:] 

Recently, the Port of Tampa determined that they wished to move forward 

with a reimbursement agreement as opposed to contributing funds for the 

project. Corps of Engineers headquarters is currently reviewing the letter 

report that will be the basis for executing a reimbursement agreement for 

the Tampa project. Section 120 of the Energy and Water Development and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010 directed the Secretary to reimburse the non-Federal sponsor for the Federal share of dredging work that 

the Tampa Port Authority accomplished during the period from 2005 to 

2010 to deepen the Big Bend Channel from 36 feet to 37 feet. The authorized project depth is 41 feet. 

Mr. DAVIS. Obviously, as the author of the language, we want to 

see action. I want to see more investment in infrastructure, and I 

know you just mentioned where you are looking at different 

projects. I want to—I want the Corps to actually look at bigger 

projects as possibilities for P3s, too. I represent northern Olmsted, 

and we have seen what that project has done over the last few 

years, and unfortunately, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of 

many policymakers who want to see projects like that move on. I 

stood in Quincy, Illinois, years ago watching the Corps of Engineers pick which plan of action they were going to use to upgrade 

the locks and dams along the Mississippi River, and I believe Jen 

Greer was with me in those meetings. 

We want to see some action, and I think this is a tool that should 

be utilized, and frankly, you know, we have got—we have had—we 

feel like we have to put report language in the energy and water 

appropriations bill that is going to require the Corps to come up 

with some—with answers and also a schedule for issuing implementation guidance. We got to move faster. 

General BOSTICK. We absolutely think this is important. We have 

been pushing on this very hard. We think it is essential to our future. In fact, it falls under John Peabody’s responsibility, and he 

hired somebody that wakes up every day thinking about alternative financing in P3. We have been working very closely with—— 

Mr. DAVIS. And now he is leaving? 

General BOSTICK. Right, but he is going to leave it in good hands. 

And we have been working very closely with OMB on this as well. 

We are working within our authorities now, and we have limited 

authorities in that regard, but we are thinking about other authorities that we might need in order to make this a better opportunity 

for business and for the Federal Government. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, we all have the same goal. We want to see 

projects get started and projects get completed. You have got a willing bipartisan committee here that is willing to help you if you 

need changes to authorities, but these are issues I wish we would 

40 

have addressed before we passed WRRDA so that we can continue 

to make sure that this is a priority for the Corps and also a priority 

for this committee and this Nation. So my time is about to expire. 

I really appreciate you all being here, and General Peabody, good 

luck. Don’t let that guy sleep. Thanks. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Rokita. 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chairman again. Following up on my 

questions from before. I was asking about new projects, and my followup question would be what is more important, funding new 

projects or funding existing projects and getting them done, how do 

you balance it, and would it be helpful if there was a different kind 

of funding stream or source created by Congress to manage those 

two kinds of projects better? 

Ms. DARCY. Well, sir, in this year’s budget submission, we had 

54 projects for construction, and 9 of those are are funded to completion. So we are trying to focus not only on completions but we 

always focus on what are the highest performing projects for the 

overall value to the Nation. But we are focusing on completions. In 

this budget, there are 13 feasibility studies funded to completion, 

so that is what we are looking toward. 

One of the provisions in WRRDA also directed us to come up 

with $18 billion worth of projects for deauthorization. So we are 

looking at our whole portfolio of what has been authorized and 

what has been constructed, not constructed, and what the universe 

is, number one, and number two, what of those projects within that 

$18 billion are probably not projects that warrant going forward. 

So that is going to help us get our arms around just how big our 

asset management needs to be. 

General BOSTICK. I think it is difficult, Congressman, to answer 

the question of what is more important. But we do get concerned 

when we lack the ability to build new construction. I think if you 

look at some of the studies that have been done, there is a lot that 

can be done with the infrastructure we have. We have infrastructure that is up to 100 years old, and if we maintain it, a lot can 

be done with that infrastructure by reinvesting, doing regular 

O&M and major rehabilitation when necessary, and that is where 

most of our funds are going. We have gone from a balance of construction and O&M to more on the O&M side as where we are 

spending most of our dollars. 

But we do need to look at our assets, and as part of what we are 

doing now, in deciding what do we retain, what do we divest of. As 

Secretary Darcy said, what do we repurpose. But the new construction like the Folsom Dam that we are doing and the Olmsted lock 

and dam, and those systems, the country will still need that kind 

of work, and we have got to think about how we do that. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. Speaking of the Olmsted Dam, do you 

think in that particular—or Olmsted locks, do you think in that 

particular situation there the funding is adequate for completion, 

or what would be needed to expedite it? Are you familiar with the 

particular project? 

General BOSTICK. It is a $3 billion project at this point, and we 

have the funds that we need, and we are on a good timeline to finish, so I think that is at a point where we are pretty confident of 

the budget in the timeline. 

41 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. How about the Soo locks? I mean, 20 years ago, 

if I get it right, Congress authorized funding. What could we do to 

expedite that project? 

Ms. DARCY. The replacement of the Soo locks, the new lock at 

Soo? 

Mr. ROKITA. Yeah. 

Ms. DARCY. We did what is called a sensitivity analysis to look 

at whether the economics for that replacement lock are still viable, 

and we determined through that sensitivity analysis that yes, indeed, it was probably necessary to look at the economics, because 

as you said, it was authorized 20 years ago. And so in order to do 

that, the Corps would need to do what is called an economic reevaluation report. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. Are you doing it? 

Ms. DARCY. We have not undertaken that at this time. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. Are you? 

Ms. DARCY. We have not budgeted for that at this time. 

Mr. ROKITA. Is that an internal decision you can make or is that 

something Congress has to bless or what? 

Ms. DARCY. It is a decision that we can make internally. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. 

Ms. DARCY. But we would need to find funding in order to do it. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. So this goes back to my last question, and it 

went to your value determination. Being new to the committee, forgive this if it is widely known, but when you all determine what 

the biggest bang for the buck, is, is value determination, complete 

a project, start a new one, value to the country, I think, was you 

term, is that decision guided by guidelines from Congress regulations or is it completely up to agency discretion? 

Ms. DARCY. Well, we base our budget recommendations on, as I 

said, the larger high-performing delivery for value to the Nation. 

Mr. ROKITA. Yeah, but do you make what that—do you decide 

what that is? 

Ms. DARCY. We do, and that is reflected in the President’s budget. 

Mr. ROKITA. So your discretion. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

Mr. ROKITA. I would ask that your discretion include the Soo 

locks economic development phase. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Johnson, in looking at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s coal 

ash ponds, you have 24 existing and you are intending to convert 

all to dry, within 8 to 10 years. Where are you with that, and do 

you have any plans to recycle any of that ash? Or are you going 

to find permanent storage for it? Because that is contaminated. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah. So after Kingston, we surveyed all of our 

coal storage facilities to make sure they were stable and sound, and 

we developed a plan about that timeframe, spent $2 billion. This 

is mostly bottom ash that is not reusable, so our plan is to dry out 

the ponds and to cap them and rehabilitate the area. They will be 

brownfield sites, but they will be drained, capped, and suitable for 

repurposing. So we don’t plan to use much of that. If we can find 

42 

a use for it, as a beneficial reuse, we will, but we will cap and drain 

them. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, there is, you know, with all sorts of new 

technology coming to the forefront in recycling, I know even in my 

backyard we have recycling of contaminated material. Somehow we 

need to be able to see if there is anything that is being done to 

maybe recycle some of that ash or being able to—if you are going 

to have permanent storage for it, where is it going to be, and is 

there any chance of it ever getting into the aquifer, if you are going 

to put it in an area where it might permeate the site? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, we are going to make sure it doesn’t affect 

anybody’s drinking water or get in the aquifer. The way to do this 

is pretty well known. You dry out the ponds, you don’t put anymore 

wet material in them, you cap them with a liner, a nonpermeable 

liner, you put clay over it, and you put grass over it. You know, 

a lot of people are looking at recycling opportunities, the Electric 

Power Research Institute and others, and if we can find a way to 

use it beneficially, that would be the first preference. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. That would be great, and whatever I can do. 

If you are looking at doing a brownfield restoration, is it going to 

go in the Superfund? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, no, we don’t have any Superfund sites. So we 

do brownfield restoration. I am hoping we can attract industry, 

that kind of reuse on the sites, so put jobs back on those sites. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right. Thank you so much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, thank you. 

Ms. Darcy, I want to follow up a little bit. We were talking about 

the annual report, and a couple of questions come to mind. In the 

appendix, if it didn’t have the administrative review process, I will 

get to that in a minute, but if that wasn’t a consideration, of the 

projects listed in the appendix, how many would have been in the 

actual report if it wasn’t for the administrative review process; do 

you know? 

Ms. DARCY. I don’t. I don’t, but I can provide that for you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Pardon? 

Ms. DARCY. I can provide that information for you. 

[The information follows:] 

If only the statutory criteria was used in the analysis (not the administration policy review overlay), the total in the report would have been 49, 

which is an additional 30 over the 19 that were included in the submission. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. This is why I want to drill on this. It is my understanding that the Executive order the Corps used to do, the implementing guidance language for the annual report, is not a recent 

Executive order. I guess it goes back probably to before any of us 

were born. It is just an old Executive order. Is that correct? 

Ms. DARCY. The Executive order is a longstanding administrative 

review order that we—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Because it seems to me there is a conflict here because the concern I have, the law, in the order was clear that if 

it made the five criteria, it goes in the report, not the appendix. 

The reason I think this is important, because the law is pretty 

clear, Members of Congress on this committee can only authorize 

43 

what is in the report. The question is, would we be able to authorize or not, or address what is in the appendix? And there is a question that we probably can’t, that is in the appendix, so there is a 

clear problem here. 

If something is in the appendix, we might not be able to address 

it, when we hopefully do WRRDA next year, and I would argue the 

law is clear, that everything should be in the report. That is what 

the law says. So the law should supersede the Executive order in 

the implementation of guidance. 

So that is a thought to think about, because I think we all want 

to get to the same place here, and if we, as a congressional committee, can’t authorize projects, if it is not in the report because it 

is in the appendix which might be a technical thing, that might 

work against what we are trying to do. So I just want to raise that 

question and you can address it, but you can see what I am trying 

to say. 

Ms. DARCY. I understand your intent. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. General Bostick, earlier this year you were recorded as saying that the construction backlog was $23.5 billion. Is 

this reflected in WRRDA 2014 deauthorization of a number? We 

deauthorized $18 billion of projects. Can you kind of expound on 

how the Corps calculated the $23 billion in backlog? Was $18 billion included in that; where did that come from? 

General BOSTICK. No, the actual backlog is probably in excess of 

$60 billion. The number $23 billion was based on what it would 

take for us to complete the projects we are currently working on. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

General BOSTICK. Currently funded and working on. It would 

cost about $23 billion to finish that and at a rate of about $1.5 billion annually in construction. 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, that gives clarity. That helps. I think we should 

be clear on that. 

Also, in WRRDA, the Corps is supposed to give us a list of 

projects that includes the deauthorization part. We haven’t received that list yet. Do you have any idea when that list will be 

coming forward? Maybe that is Secretary Darcy, I don’t know, either one, what is the answer? 

Ms. DARCY. I think it is due in September. 

Mr. GIBBS. Pardon? 

Ms. DARCY. September. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. This year? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. Just want to make that clear. 

Ms. DARCY. September 2015. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Thank you. 

General Bostick, the President’s budget proposes $379 million for 

the Corps of Engineers to construct ecosystem restoration projects. 

Of that amount, how much is devoted to projects to comply with 

the Endangered Species Act or other biological opinions? You might 

not be able to answer it, but you can try. 

General BOSTICK. I don’t know the answer, but I will get it for 

you and follow up, sir. 

[The information follows:] 

44 

The FY16 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration program contained approximately 

$144 million to fund actions in response to Biological Opinions. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Because we have a concern—when I am out in 

the countryside talking to all different entities, working in the field 

and stuff, and Endangered Species Act, there are some things out 

there that need to be addressed, I think, some commonsense rationale. 

Can you give us, General Bostick, an update on the Olmsted lock 

and dam project? I know you hit on it a little bit with one of the 

previous questions from Mr. Rokita, but when do you expect the 

operational and completion date? 

General BOSTICK. I would to have follow up for you. To my recollection, it is in—well, I would have to follow up on the date. I 

would be or—pardon me? In the fall of 2018 is—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Could you repeat that quick for us? 

General BOSTICK. The current projection is the fall of 2018. 

Mr. GIBBS. Fall of 2018. I do want to commend—from the reports 

we are getting, things are going there well now, progressing well, 

and new project managers. Things actually could be ahead of 

schedule, so that is good because that project has been going on for 

a long time, and it is holding up a lot of other projects, so it is good 

to get that off the books and get done. And of course, the economic 

benefit for the entire country is immense. 

Ms. Darcy, developing an implementation of WRRDA, can you 

give us an update process where the Corps is in regard to WIFIA? 

Ms. DARCY. We are currently working with EPA to try to develop 

the guidance for the implementation of the WIFIA provision. It is 

one of those that is ongoing. I can check as to when we think that 

will be completed, but we want to be able to participate in that program in a way that it is going to be beneficial for using the intended provisions for Corps projects. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. I do want to talk a little bit about waters of the 

United States. I know you don’t call it that anymore, but I still do. 

First of all, what is the status of the final rule package? I know 

it went to OMB. Do you have any idea what—— 

Ms. DARCY. The draft final rule went to OMB on the 3rd of April. 

Now it is in the interagency review process, and that can take anywhere from 1 month to—there is a 90-day clock, but we are hoping 

that we are able to complete that review before then. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Can you characterize the comments the court 

provided to the EPA and the waters of the U.S. rule package? How 

did the EPA address those comments in the rule package that went 

to OMB? You had about 1 million comments. 

Ms. DARCY. Right. We, the Corps of Engineers, worked hand in 

hand with the EPA in order to address those comments because 

this is a joint rule within the administration. So we responded to 

the comments. We posted them on the Federal docket, and many 

of the comments gave us some good information and some revelations and insights as to what appeared to be not clear by the language that we had provided. So in the final rule we are hoping to 

make some changes that will help to make things more clear than 

they were in the proposed rule. 

Mr. GIBBS. Can you verify or not? I heard from a fairly reliable 

source within the Corps, by the way, that I won’t mention, that the 

45 

U.S. EPA put out kind of a draft guidance to their regional offices 

regarding orders about 3 or 4 weeks ago. 

Ms. DARCY. You mean a draft proposed rule for them to respond 

to? 

Mr. GIBBS. For the implementation. 

Ms. DARCY. I believe that the regions, including our regions, all 

had a chance to look at what we were going to eventually propose 

to OMB for their input and—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, wait, can you help me here a little bit. I am 

struggling here a little bit. We have a proposed rule, and we had 

a comment period and 1 million comments or so. Of course the EPA 

and the Corps haven’t been forthright telling me the changes they 

are going to make or to the American public. Moving forward, OMB 

but then—and I think you just said it. U.S. EPA sent a guidance 

out to their regional offices about the implementation even though 

the final rule hasn’t been approved by OMB. 

Ms. DARCY. No, Congressman, I believe—and I will also 

doublecheck with my colleagues at EPA, but I think what you are 

referring to is the draft final rule for the review of the regions in 

response to both the comments and the review period. It wasn’t 

guidance. It was just what was anticipated to probably be the final 

rule that they could have input on. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. So they shared it with the regional offices, but 

they haven’t shared it with Congress or the public, what they expect the final—— 

Ms. DARCY. That is right. 

Mr. GIBBS [continuing]. Proposed rule to be. Is that correct? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. That is interesting. I will get to you in a second. 

I think Mrs. Napolitano has another question, and I will get back. 

I do have one comment. 

When Ms. Norton was asking the questions about the cost. I 

know in the President’s budget he puts $5 million in there for, as 

you said, for additional training, staff, for the additional permitting 

process, and then it will cost more if you go back. The bill we 

passed out of this committee last week says not to lose sight that 

there is other analysis out there that this proposed rule could cost 

stakeholders or the economy over $228 billion. So the cost well exceeds the cost of taking a timeout, saying let’s get this right, so 

that is my editorial comment on that, but I will also say on that 

part of it with the expansion of WOTUS, it will require more permitting. I think that is a lot of what this is all about, and the 

President’s budget really concedes that because they ask for additional money for more staffing, for more—requires some more 404 

permits, whatever, and so I think that kind of substantiates my 

concerns that just because there is more permitting out there, 

doesn’t mean we are going to actually improve or protect water 

quality. 

I will turn it over to Mrs. Napolitano for another question she 

may have. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. And Madam Secretary, I understand you have to go back to the White House shortly. 

Ms. DARCY. I am supposed to be there at 1 o’clock, I think. 

46 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, I will just have—these are questions, 

but they can be answered in writing, and I noticed that there is 

a request—there is a statement on combatting the spread of 

invasive species, the carp, the fish. My concern has been the cost 

of the removal of the quagga and the zebra mussels. That cost a 

lot of money to be able to have in your dam operation, so would 

you report to us or would you let this committee know how much 

that is costing you to be able to address in your operations? 

Ms. DARCY. Of zebra mussels or—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Zebra and quagga, yes. 

Ms. DARCY. OK. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. In your waterways. And the dam safety, it is 

so critical because in some areas, as we know, especially as Mother 

Nature continues to surprise us in many other States, we don’t get 

the water in California but some of the States are having abundant 

water and storms. Dam and levee safety are critical for life safety, 

so any information that would be critical to us to be able to determine how can we help assess the status of the levees in some areas 

that have been hit by storms and have been inundated, so to speak, 

so with that, I would like just to have you maybe make a comment 

on that. 

Ms. DARCY. This budget gives more funding to the Corps to do 

more on our levee safety program, and we will be sharing that 

levee safety information with local communities, but any additional 

information you want on the dam safety program, we will be happy 

to provide that for the record. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Ms. Darcy, I have one followup or another question. But I would be remiss if I didn’t bring up Cleveland and—— 

Ms. DARCY. I thought we were going to get out of here. 

Mr. GIBBS. Everyone is chuckling because this has been a very 

hot topic and now there is a lawsuit involved. The Federal standard. My understanding is the Federal standard was put in place by 

the Corps back in 1988, and it was really to, you know, make sure 

who is paying for what, but the Federal standard, my understanding, says that dredge material will be disposed of in the most 

cost-effective environmentally safe way, OK. And so basically now 

what has happened in Cleveland, the State of Ohio, the Ohio EPA 

has a disagreement with the Corps of disposing of some of the 

dredge material out of the Cuyahoga River, and up previously, it 

has all been put in the confined landfill because of PCB issues, and 

now the Corps says part of that river, the contaminants aren’t as 

great, that the PCB issue is not as much risk, even though they 

did concede to dispose of the dredge material 9 miles out in the 

lake to get away from the Cleveland water intake, so that is a little 

worrisome or interesting. 

The issue here with the PCBs I think is rather unique. I think 

when you look at disposing of dredge material around the country, 

around the Great Lakes, we know it is a phosphorous issue, a nutrients issue. According to the Ohio EPA, they have a fish advisory, 

I think in the law no more than once per week consumption, and 

they said they are real close to the threshold that could go to 1- 

month consumption. 

47 

And so I guess I would look at the Federal standard, the big 

question here is that environmental safe aspect. Can you please 

comment on how you see the Federal standard working here, playing, and what discretion you as the Assistant Secretary of Civil 

Works would have in determining if the Federal standard, how it 

applies? 

Ms. DARCY. The Federal standard applies, and you are right, it 

has to be economically as well as environmentally sound. Our scientists, including our head scientist at ERDC, have concurred and 

determined that the levels for open lake disposal, or open water 

disposal, of the dredge material in the last mile stretch of the river 

would be suitable for open lake disposal. Therefore, the Federal 

standard would be to have that portion be disposed of in open lake. 

The Ohio EPA does not agree and believes that the remaining 

dredge material should be in a confined disposal facility. As you are 

aware, under the Federal standard, any additional cost above the 

Federal standard, which in this case would be open lake disposal 

for that portion, would need to be cost shared by the local sponsor. 

Mr. GIBBS. Now with the lawsuit the State of Ohio has filed in 

Federal court in Cleveland against the Army Corps on this issue, 

determining the Federal standard, basically, and who is going to 

pay the delta cost. I think everybody’s in agreement for the Ohio 

EPA and I believe you are, too, you can concur that it is very imperative that the dredging get completed. 

I think in my previous conversations that you are committed to 

that, too, because the economic consequence to northeastern, northern Ohio is quite significant, and that is why I have been so involved to make sure this gets done. Now we just have the issue, 

who really is responsible, and the courts are going to work through 

that, I guess. 

I do believe that the Army Corps did send a letter to the Ohio 

EPA to say that last mile that is being challenged, that the Corps 

is willing to dredge as long as they pay it, so you made the offer 

and now I know there will be a counteroffer going to the court 

probably. But I hope that you are committed, and I know General 

Peabody and Bostick are committed to get this done even while it 

is going through litigation. I don’t want to—hopefully, nobody is 

going to hide behind the wall, well, we are litigating now, we can’t 

do it. I hope that is not going to be the attitude because I think 

it is a way to work through this during the litigation. 

Ms. DARCY. I hope that is the case as well. 

Mr. GIBBS. I thank you for your commitment that we can work 

through this, and I guess I won’t get all too excited about—I know 

that from the Corps’ perspective, there could be an issue about if 

this court decision, how this ever worked, goes against Corps, the 

Federal standard, that opens up the door all around the country. 

I might be totally off base here, but I think with the PCB issue, 

it is a little unique. This is kind of an interesting thought just come 

to mind. Do we have a PCB issue in dredge material anywhere else 

in the country like this? Is this rather unique? I see General Peabody kind of shaking his head. 

General BOSTICK. We have similar levels in other places. 

Mr. GIBBS. Pardon? 

48 

General BOSTICK. We have similar levels in other places where 

we have open lake placement. So we are not treating this area differently than we are—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, I guess this is where the court will have to 

make that determination. That is the court’s, but I just want to 

make it clear. I hope that the parties involved here want to work 

through this so we can get done what needs to be get done even 

during the litigation process. That is what I am asking, and I think 

we are committed. 

Ms. DARCY. I hope that my lawyers say I can do that, but you 

know, I think we have had this conversation, too, Congressman. 

We need a long-term solution. 

Mr. GIBBS. Oh, I totally agree. And I think we are close. Was it 

the 217 agreement, or 26, I forget the number. 

Ms. DARCY. Yeah. 

Mr. GIBBS. Twenty-year plan. I think that we are close. I think 

the only issue is who is going to pay the dollar cost on the last mile 

of the 6 miles, that is where we are at. And alternative uses for 

dredging material, I think, as you look at the general public, we 

have to find alternative uses. And of course, in Cleveland, there is 

an alternative use. I think we can make it work, and I think the 

port authority and the State of Ohio wants to get there. Toledo is 

a bigger challenge because of the number of cubic yards out there 

of dredge material, but you know, there ought to be some value to 

that, it is high nutrients, and we just got to start thinking outside 

the box and figure out how we can make it cost benefit, make it 

work because I don’t think the general public is going to be—especially in Lake Erie because it is so sensitive because of the shallowness of Lake Erie, especially in the Western Basin. 

I appreciate the time and the commitment to do what we need 

to do here in America’s maritime infrastructure. And Mr. Johnson, 

I appreciate your patience to sit through all this and not have as 

many questions towards you, but that doesn’t mean that we are not 

concerned and we want to make sure that the Tennessee Valley 

Authority can move ahead and be profitable and work well, so I 

commend your work in doing it and your goals to get there. So 

thank you, and this adjourns our hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 12:44 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

49 


Insert offset folio 6 here 94281.006
50 


Insert offset folio 7 here 94281.007
51 


Insert offset folio 8 here 94281.008
52 


Insert offset folio 9 here 94281.009
53 


Insert offset folio 10 here 94281.010
54 


Insert offset folio 11 here 94281.011
55 


Insert offset folio 12 here 94281.012
56 


Insert offset folio 13 here 94281.013
57 


Insert offset folio 14 here 94281.014
58 


Insert offset folio 15 here 94281.015
59 


Insert offset folio 16 here 94281.016
60 


Insert offset folio 17 here 94281.017
61 


Insert offset folio 18 here 94281.018
62 


Insert offset folio 19 here 94281.019
63 


Insert offset folio 20 here 94281.020
64 


Insert offset folio 21 here 94281.021
65 


Insert offset folio 22 here 94281.022
66 


Insert offset folio 23 here 94281.023
67 


Insert offset folio 24 here 94281.024
68 


Insert offset folio 25 here 94281.025
69 


Insert offset folio 26 here 94281.026
70 


Insert offset folio 27 here 94281.027
71 


Insert offset folio 28 here 94281.028
72 


Insert offset folio 29 here 94281.029
73 


Insert offset folio 30 here 94281.030
74 


Insert offset folio 31 here 94281.031
75 


Insert offset folio 32 here 94281.032
76 


Insert offset folio 33 here 94281.033
77 


Insert offset folio 34 here 94281.034
78 


Insert offset folio 35 here 94281.035
79 


Insert offset folio 36 here 94281.036
80 


Insert offset folio 37 here 94281.037
81 


Insert offset folio 38 here 94281.038
82 


Insert offset folio 39 here 94281.039
83 


Insert offset folio 40 here 94281.040
84 


Insert offset folio 41 here 94281.041
85 


Insert offset folio 42 here 94281.042
86 


Insert offset folio 43 here 94281.043
87 


Insert offset folio 44 here 94281.044
88 


Insert offset folio 45 here 94281.045
89 


Insert offset folio 46 here 94281.046
90 


Insert offset folio 47 here 94281.047
91 


Insert offset folio 48 here 94281.048
92 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 49 here 94281.049