U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

85–235PDF 2014

S. HRG. 112–830 

PRESIDENT’S PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2012 

BUDGET FOR THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 31, 2011 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gpo.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

MAX BAUCUS, Montana, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTRENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

BARBARA BOXER, California, (ex officio) 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 31, 2011 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana ............................ 1 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ........................... 2 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ............................ 3 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma ................... 4 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 6 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 48 

WITNESSES 

Darcy, Hon. Jo-Ellen, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) ................ 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Charts: 

FY 2012 Budget, Business Line/Account Cross-Walk ($ Millions) . 18 

FY 12 Priority Ecosystems Funding ................................................. 19 

Van Anwerp, Lieutenant General Robert, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers ............................................................................................... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

(1) 

PRESIDENT’S PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2012 

BUDGET FOR THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Hon. Max Baucus (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Baucus, Vitter, Inhofe, Cardin, Whitehouse, 

Barrasso, Boozman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF MONTANA 

Senator BAUCUS. The hearing will come to order. 

First, I deeply apologize for the delay. I like to be on time. 

Former President of Colombia Uribe stopped by. In short, I frankly 

strongly favor this proposed Colombia free trade agreement. He 

and I were talking, and there just aren’t enough minutes in the 

day. I apologize for the delay. 

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to this hearing of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on the President’s proposed Fiscal Year 2012 budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program. 

James Michener said, ‘‘Scientists dream about doing great 

things. Engineers do them.’’ Originally established in 1776 by the 

Continental Congress, and remaining in continuous existence since 

1802, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is vital to our country’s 

national defense, our economy, flood control, environmental protection and outdoor recreation. The Corps proved its value early on in 

preparation for the War of 1812, when it built fortifications to repel 

the British Navy. An 11-pointed fort in New York harbor from this 

time eventually became the home for the Statue of Liberty. 

Since then, the Corps has served this Nation admirably through 

its military ventures, counting Robert E. Lee and Douglas MacArthur, and many other great men and women among its staff. 

Over time, the Corps has also significantly expanded its civil works 

efforts. Today, the Corps of Engineers is composed of more than 

34,000 civilian and military personnel. It is the largest public engineering design and constructing management facility in the world. 

It oversees more than 12,000 miles of navigable channels. 
2 

A clear majority of all the goods that Americans use pass 

through ports that the Corps maintains. The Corps provides 24 

percent of our hydropower capacity. It inspects more than 2,000 

levies on a biannual basis, provides an estimated 4 billion gallons 

of water from its various facilities, also on a daily basis. It provides 

shore protection against storm damage, and it entertains more 

than 25 million Americans, that is 10 percent of our population, at 

thousands of outdoor recreation sites nationwide, including several 

in both Fort Peck and Libby, MT. 

The President’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget request for the Corps of Engineers Civil Works program is $4.631 billion. This marks nearly a 15 percent decline from the Fiscal Year 2010 enacted level of 

$5.45 billion. 

Today, we are fortunate to have two outstanding witnesses to 

discuss the President’s proposed budget. Lieutenant General Robert Van Antwerp is the 52d Chief of the Engineers, Commander of 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A 1972 graduate of West Point, 

with several graduate degrees, and a vast wealth of experience, 

and we are honored by his service and glad to have him today. 

Next, Assistant Secretary of Army, Civil Works, Jo-Ellen Darcy, 

obviously recognizable face and long-time friend. She is the highest 

ranking civilian in the Corps of Engineers. She is a die-hard Red 

Sox fan and a graduate of both Boston College and Michigan State 

University. She also previously worked for this committee and for 

the Finance Committee during her tenure in the U.S. Senate. 

Thank you, Secretary Darcy. The Corps of Engineers has estimated that every $1 billion in 

Federal investment in water resources projects creates approximately 26,000 jobs. I said before, we must shrink Federal spending. 

But I also believe we must be surgical about where to cut. I favor 

aggressive cuts coupled with smart investments. The agenda has to 

be jobs, jobs and jobs. We can’t treat the deficit by shrinking the 

economy. 

So I am eager to hear what our witnesses have to say about more 

than $800 million in proposed cuts, among other things. Now I 

would like to recognize other Senators for opening statements. I 

will begin with Senator Vitter. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to our two 

witnesses. Thanks for all of your work, and thanks to all the fine 

men and women of the Corps for all of their work. 

The Chairman mentioned some significant history, some going 

back to the 18th century. Of course, the history I am much more 

focused on, for obvious reasons, is very recent history, particularly 

Katrina. While there were many low points and high points in that 

episode, let me dwell on the work of the Corps since then, which 

is absolutely essential for the very survival, much less the prosperity, of most of my State. 

With that in mind, and as I thank you for the work of the Corps’ 

men and women, I am very concerned about some real gaps in that 

work and some real continuing needs in that work post-Katrina. As 

both of you know, I sent a letter addressed to both of you this 
3 

week, highlighting several of those very precise concerns. I am not 

going to dwell on all aspects of that letter here. I do want to followup on all of those concerns as we move forward to any nomination of your successor, General. Those concerns are very deep-seated and very important to all Louisianans, including me. 

But with that, I will look forward to your testimony, and highlight some of those top concerns in my questions. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator. 

Other opening statements? Senator Udall. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Baucus, very much. Thank 

you for holding this important hearing. 

Water infrastructure is of supreme importance in the American 

west, where water is scarce, and when it does come, it can cause 

destructive flooding. We need to manage our water resources in an 

integrated fashion for multiple uses, agricultural, municipal, commercial and conserving the environment. Human civilization was 

founded alongside healthy rivers, lakes and estuaries. To continue 

to thrive, we must conserve them, not let them go to waste. 

In the west, we hope to see the Corps of Engineers work in coordination with other western water agencies, including on the 

State and local level, to maintain the quality of life Americans deserve in the west. Today’s hearing focuses on the Corps’ 2012 budget, which is a cause for concern. We have six Army Corps projects 

in New Mexico which are in the construction phase, but only one 

of them appears in the President’s budget. While flood control cuts 

may appear to save small amounts of funding today, they simply 

increase the cost from future flooding. The National Flood Insurance Program is backstopped by the Federal Government. 

We are not the only State that is facing an uphill battle on flood 

control funding. But as a rural State, I think that sometimes we 

get penalized by the cost benefit analysis that the Corps and the 

Office of Management and Budget apply. That is one of the reasons 

why I disagree with the current policies in Congress to eliminate 

Congress’ role in setting regional funding priorities. Without congressional input, funding decisions are made by individuals who 

may have never been to the areas where they are sending or blocking funding. Until Congress reassumes its responsibilities, the Administration must take great care when crafting budgets like the 

Corps’ which involve regional issues. 

With that, let me just mention a couple of issues of concern. I 

hope I am here for the questions, but if not, I will submit these 

questions. One is that we have the Rio Grande, which I consider 

one of our high priority ecosystems, and I hope you do too. In 2007, 

Congress authorized the Rio Grande Environmental Management 

Program to provide a forum to plan for integrated water management and fund ecosystem restoration. But neither this Administration nor the previous one included it in their budgets. So there is 

a question there as to what kind of support you have for that, in 

light of that legislation. 

The Corps’ budget document includes language about nationally 

significant ecosystems. I believe the Rio Grande is a nationally sig-
4 

nificant ecosystem. But is that an official designation process or 

something more informal? 

A third issue is this issue of levees and how irrigation districts 

in New Mexico are concerned about levees and whether or not they 

will be included under the new Federal levee safety standards, 

when they may not really be used for that purpose. I have a question there. 

Then one of the most popular Corps programs in New Mexico is 

the acequias irrigation system. Acequias were first built by the 

early settlers and has been used for irrigation for centuries. I believe Assistant Secretary Darcy attended a recent event in New 

Mexico at an acequia project. We understand this unique asset 

does not quite fit in the Corps’ traditional mission areas. This historical cultural waterways are an asset and are deserving of support. I am hoping you will work with us to find ways to support 

this project. 

Finally, the Southwest Valley Project in Albuquerque area has been funded with over $7 million in past years and needs only $5 

million more to be completed and removed from the list of outstanding projects. Unfortunately, it was not included in the budget. 

Does the Corps put a priority on closing out projects in its budget 

decisionmaking and will the Corps take another look at completing 

this project? 

With that, I very much appreciate your both being here, and I 

hope to follow carefully your answers and the questioning. 

Thank you, Chairman Baucus. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much. 

I will now turn to the Ranking Member of the full committee, 

Senator Inhofe. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. First of all, I am glad to have both 

of you here. There are not two people I respect more than the two 

of you. Every time I see you, Secretary Darcy, I think of you really 

up here and not down there. Even though the purpose of this hearing is not to get into the WRDA bill, I can’t think of anyone I would 

rather have in your capacity today than someone with your background and your history of cooperation and interest in those very 

important projects. 

While we are anxious to get into a WRDA thing, we know that 

is not the reason for this hearing right here. But I would like to 

say this. People have commented sometimes about Senator Boxer 

and myself, being the Chairman and Ranking Member of the whole 

committee, and being of just totally different philosophy generally. 

But we on infrastructure are very much the same. I would say I 

am not too unlike a lot of other people. I have had the ranking of 

being the most conservative member. 

But there are some areas, like national defense and infrastructure, those are the two top things that we are supposed to be doing 

here. We need to be doing a better job. Not your fault, but our 

fault, not being able to prioritize where the funds are coming from. 

Now, we have a lot of water resource needs around the country. 

But we aren’t dedicating the necessary funds. If you look at the 
5 

navigation infrastructure, which is essential to ensuring our movement of goods, more than 50 percent of the locks and dams operated by the Corps are over 50 years old. 

While I am concerned about the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund, I am also concerned about the Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund. Because that affects me. A lot of people are not aware of the 

fact that, I think we in Oklahoma are the most inland port. We 

have the port of Catoosa, right outside my home town of Tulsa. It 

is one that has some really truly great needs. 

For example, we are right now, it has been a real success story 

in moving goods and services, wheat and other things back and 

forth. Our problem is this, and we have been talking about this 12- 

foot channel now for years and years and years, as long as I have 

been up here. It does have 485 miles of channel. Of that, 90 percent is 12 feet, but only 10 percent is 9 feet. For 99 and 1 percent, 

it still is a 9-foot channel. 

So that is something that I have, and I just want to make sure 

that we register at this meeting, a real top concern for it. Another 

one that we have is on the Red River project, the irrigation district. 

The chloride control is something that has been very, very valuable 

to southwestern Oklahoma. We have some challenges there. 

Then of course, we have talked about the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan. The amount of money that has been authorized 

there is in three categories that are perfectly reasonable in terms 

of what should be funded and what should not. It is the ecosystems, flood damage, reduction and recreation components to the 

plan. So I wanted to get on record here that we have the cooperation of the city Council, our COG, our council of governments, everyone lined up, ready to meet whatever requirements are necessary to make that a reality. 

Finally, we have had, on the demonstration projects, and I think 

we could be somewhat of a model for the country, because we have 

done it successfully. We, and I think Georgia did the first two of 

the demonstration projects on lakes. Ours was a successful one, it 

was Lake Skiatook. We have another one that you and I have 

talked about, and you follow. I will have a couple of questions 

about that at question and answer time. 

Everyone at this table and everyone in the Senate has their own 

concerns. We need to do a better job of meeting those concerns. We 

know the constraints of the Corps and what you are under. Nonetheless, we want to work with you to try to make these things happen. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you, Chairman Baucus, for holding this hearing and thank you, Secretary 

Darcy and General Van Antwerp for testifying before us this afternoon. 

Chairman Boxer has indicated her intent to draft and move a Water Resources 

Development Act (WRDA) this year. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my support for doing so. The purpose of today’s hearing is not to discuss a 

WRDA bill, but to look at the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request for the 

Army Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works program, which lays out the Administration’s 

priorities for investing in water resources infrastructure. I have to say that I was 
6 

disappointed to see that this request was not only a decrease from fiscal year enacted levels, but that it was even a decrease from the fiscal year budget request. 

As a fiscal conservative, I strongly support the overall goal of cutting government 

spending, but I firmly believe that two areas worthy of spending taxpayer dollars 

are defense and infrastructure. It may not be as headline-grabbing as some other 

areas of government spending, but investments in infrastructure—including water 

resources infrastructure—not only have job creation benefits, but more importantly, 

are essential for economic growth. 

We have significant water resources needs across the country, but we aren’t dedicating the funds necessary to address them. For example, let’s look at our navigation infrastructure, which is essential to ensuring reliable and efficient movement 

of goods. More than 50 percent of the locks and dams operated by the Corps are 

over 50 years old and the Corps navigation budget has been cut by 22 percent over 

the last 5 years. In addition, only approximately half of the annual revenue in the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is spent as intended—on critical maintenance 

dredging—while the rest is counted as offsetting the deficit. 

In my home State of Oklahoma, we have a very successful port that lies at the 

head of navigation for the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, the 

Port of Catoosa. On average, 8,000 barges transport approximately 12-million tons 

of cargo on the system each year. However, the system could function much more 

efficiently and productively if it was deepened from its current 9-foot depth to the 

authorized 12 feet. Let’s look at the numbers: Approximately 90 percent of this 445- 

mile system is currently at 12 feet, according to the Arkansas River Navigation 

Study. This means only 10 percent or roughly 45 miles are at less than 12 feet. If 

the entire system was 12 feet deep, the towing industry estimates that we could increase barge capacity by 43 percent. This needs to be a priority. 

I’d like to briefly mention a few other items that are important to Oklahoma. I 

have been working with the Tulsa District Office and the local Lugert-Altus Irrigation District on chloride control at the Red River. These actions will provide new 

drinking water supplies, increased agricultural irrigation in the southwestern Oklahoma area, and improved downstream water quality. 

Another substantial priority for me is Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan. 

WRDA 2007 authorized $50 million to carry out ecosystem restoration, flood damage 

reduction, and recreation components of the Plan. Cooperative efforts among the 

Corps, Tulsa County, the city of Tulsa, and Indian Nations Council of Governments 

(INCOG) are necessary to implement it. 

Finally, I authored the Oklahoma Lakes Demonstration Program because we cannot rely on Federal funding for improvements at Corps lakes in Oklahoma. I believe 

the Corps could do a better job working with local governments, the State of Oklahoma, and private investors to make this program a success. I appreciate your receptivity to using the flexibility this program envisions and would like your commitment in conveying that flexibility throughout the Corps. 

I look forward to hearing the witnesses’ testimony. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you. 

I see we are joined by Senator Barrasso, from the great State of 

Wyoming. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, during the last Congress, both the House and the 

Senate failed to enact the Clean Water Restoration Act introduced 

by former Senator Russ Feingold and former Congressman James 

Oberstar. This was the bill that would grant the Environmental 

Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers virtually 

unlimited regulatory control over all wet areas within a State. This 

included everything from groundwater to ditches to prairie potholes 

to gutters. 

This bill trumped States’ rights by preempting State and local 

governments from making local land and water use decisions. As 

you may recall, the measure was highly controversial. It is still 

strongly opposed by farmers, ranchers, small business owners, cer-
7 

tainly in my home State and in the home States of many members 

of this committee. The bill never passed either the House of Representatives or the Senate. 

You would think that that would be the end of it. But apparently 

the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps 

think differently. These agencies appear to be unilaterally asserting authority to enact the Clean Water Restoration Act without a 

vote from Congress. At the same time, they would be reversing a 

direct decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that limited the Federal 

Government’s authority to regulate these waters. 

A recently leaked EPA document marked ‘‘deliberative process: 

confidential draft’’ from December 2010 states that the EPA and 

the Army Corps will identify the waters they believe should be 

under Federal jurisdiction. The document also spells out how their 

unilateral decision to do this ‘‘supercedes previously issued guidance on the scope of waters of the United States subject to Clean 

Water Act programs.’’ 

The leaked document goes further to say that the EPA and Army 

Corps expect that the number of waters found to be subject to the 

Clean Water Act jurisdiction will increase significantly. This draft 

guidance would grant the Environmental Protection Agency and 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers virtually unlimited regulatory 

control over all wet areas within a State. This guidance also 

trumps States’ rights by preempting State and local governments 

from making local land and water use decisions. Enormous resources will be needed to expand the Clean Water Act Federal regulatory program, which could lead to longer permitting delays. Increased delays in securing permits will impede a host of economic 

activities across all 50 States. Commercial and residential real estate development, agriculture, electric transmission, transportation 

and mining will be affected and thousands of jobs will be lost. 

Not surprisingly, I see the Army Corps increased funding in its 

budget for its regulatory program this past year. The justification 

of the funding request is to ‘‘implement new field-level initiatives 

for Clean Water Act jurisdictional determination and rulemaking 

and inflation.’’ The American people rejected the Clean Water Restoration Act in the last Congress. It was a bad idea then, it is still 

a bad idea now. It must be stopped. Congress’ authority must be 

restored. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the testimony. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator. 

Let’s begin with you, Madam Secretary. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS) 

Ms. DARCY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I begin my statement, I would just like to say, I have been 

in this room many times over the years, and this is the first time 

in this job that I’ve sat at this table. Usually I’m sitting at this 

table answering questions from you all about legislation, but today 

I’m going to be able to answer questions about the President’s 

budget. I just wanted to thank the committee for the 16 years I 

was part of this committee, and the experience that it gave me. 

Thank you. 
8 

Senator BAUCUS. You are very welcome. You worked very well 

over here, you are going to do the same over there. 

Ms. DARCY. Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the President’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget for the Civil Works program of the 

Army Corps of Engineers. I will summarize my statement and ask 

that my complete statement be included in the hearing record. The budget requests new appropriations of $4.631 billion. In 

keeping with the Administration’s priority to put the Nation on a 

sustainable fiscal path, this is $836 million, or about 15 percent, 

below the 2010 enacted amount of $5.445 billion. It is about a 6 

percent decrease from the 2011 budget for the Civil Works program. 

The budget concentrates funding primarily on the three main 

Civil Works program areas: commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The 

2012 budget continues the Army’s commitment to a performancebased approach to budgeting in order to provide the best overall return from available funds and achieving economic, environmental 

and public safety objectives. The budget provides $50 million for a 

comprehensive levee safety initiative to help ensure that Federal 

levees are safe and to assist our non-Federal entities as they address safety issues with their own levees. 

The Operation and Maintenance program also includes a new environmental and energy sustainability program to reduce energy 

consumption at Corps projects and at Corps buildings. The 2012 

budget places priority on collaboration with other Federal agencies 

and the development of funding allocations for aquatic ecosystem 

restoration. 

For 2012, this collaboration is reflected in five major ecosystems: 

the California Bay Delta, the Chesapeake Bay, the Everglades, the 

Great Lakes and the Gulf Coast. The budget provides for use of 

$758 million from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to maintain 

coastal commercial navigation channels and harbors. 

The Administration plans to develop legislation to expand the authorized uses of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, so that its 

receipts are available to finance the Federal share of other efforts 

in support of commercial navigation through the Nation’s ports. No 

decisions have been made yet on what additional costs would be 

proposed to be paid from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

Inland waters capital investments are funded in the budget at 

$166 million, of which $77 million is financed from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. This is the total amount that is affordable in 

2012, with the current level of revenue coming into the trust fund. 

The Administration will work with Congress and stakeholders to 

authorize a new mechanism to increase the revenue paid by commercial navigation users on the inland waterways. 

The Administration also plans to work with Congress and stakeholders to explore ways to support broader recapitalization of the 

Corps’ aging infrastructure, modification of its operations, or deauthorization as appropriate, consistent with modern day water resources principles and priorities. 

Last year, President Obama established the America’s Great 

Outdoors initiative to promote innovative, community-level efforts 
9 

to conserve outdoor spaces and to reconnect Americans to the outdoors. The Civil Works Recreation Program is closely aligned with 

the goals of America’s Great Outdoors initiative, and includes a variety of activities to reconnect Americans, especially our youth, 

with the Nation’s outdoor resources. 

We continue to strengthen the Corps’ planning expertise, including through greater support for planning centers of expertise and 

continued support for the development of revised water resources 

planning Principles and Guidelines. A number of lower priority 

programs and activities receive reduced or no funding in our 2012 

budget request. For example, funding for maintenance of navigation harbors and waterway segments that support little or no commercial use is reduced by about half. 

Also, no funding is provided for small projects in several of the 

Continuing Authorities programs. The budget proposes to reprogram $23 million of prior year funds from these lower priority programs to finance ongoing phases of projects in higher priority Continuing Authorities programs. 

In summary, the President’s 2012 budget for the Army Civil 

Works program is a performance-based budget. It supports water 

resources investments that will yield long-term returns for the Nation. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, I look forward 

to working with you in support of the President’s budget. If I could 

ask your indulgence for just one more minute, I would just like to 

say, before the Chief speaks, that I had the good fortune of not only 

getting this job, but walking into this job having this man sitting 

next to me as the Chief of Engineers. General Van Antwerp is 

going to be leaving the Corps in May. He is retiring from the Army. 

He has been a great partner, a great public servant, and a great 

tribute to the Army and the Army Corps of Engineers. I just want 

to thank him for his service. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Darcy follows:] 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

General, that is quite an introduction. 

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT VAN ANTWERP, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

General VAN ANTWERP. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of 

the subcommittee, it is quite an introduction. It has been a great 

partnership, just to have someone of her stature and who has been 

over on this side; it has just been enormously helpful and really 

great for the Corps. We are a wonderful team, although my baseball team is different than hers. 

Senator BAUCUS. So which one is yours? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Well, actually I come from the great 

State of Michigan originally, so it has to be Detroit. 

Senator BAUCUS. Those Sox fans can be pretty fierce. Yours too? 

General VAN ANTWERP. A little bit of history. These castles that 

I am wearing are the MacArthur castles. They were passed down 

from his mother and father to him, and then he passed them to the 

Chief of Engineers. It goes with your wonderful rendition of history 

there. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you. 

General VAN ANTWERP. I am honored to testify before your subcommittee with Ms. Darcy today. Thank you for having us. 

This budget funds 92 construction projects, including 55 flood 

and storm damage reduction projects, three of which are budgeted 

for completion, which we are proud to do this year. Sixteen are 

commercial navigation projects; nineteen aquatic ecosystem restoration projects; and two of these construction projects are new 

starts. 

The budget includes $104 million for activities in the Investigations account. It funds 58 continuing studies and 4 new studies. 

Funding is also included for the Water Resources Priority Study, 

which is an evaluation of the Nation’s vulnerability to inland and 

coastal flooding. 

The budget supports our continued stewardship of water-related 

infrastructure. The Operation and Maintenance program for the 

Fiscal Year 2012 budget includes $2.314 billion and an additional 

$131 million under the Mississippi River and Tributaries program. 

The focus, of course, is on the maintenance of key commercial navigation, flood and storm damage reduction and hydropower facilities. As was already mentioned, we have 241 locks of which the average age is 58.3 years old. They take a lot of maintenance to keep 

them operating. 

Corps teammates continue to respond whenever and wherever 

needed to help during major floods and other national emergencies. 

The budget provides $27 million for preparation for floods, hurricanes and other natural disasters, including $4 million in support 

of the levee safety initiative in States known as Silver Jackets. 

I would like to just provide a quick update on the Corps’ preparation as we look at the potential spring flood events. We are working 

with FEMA and the National Weather Service to monitor the high 

probability of flooding in the north central United States, specifically the Red River of the north, the upper Mississippi River and 
21 

the Minnesota River. Based on these projections, our Commanders 

have already requested advanced planning and advanced measures 

funding, and verified the ability of key flood-fighting equipment 

and elements. They are also engaging State, local and Federal authorities to discuss and review preparations for flood response. In 

a couple of words, we are ready, as ready as we can be. 

On the international front, I am proud to talk about the work on 

missions in Afghanistan and Iraq just for a second. Although it is 

not Civil Works, it is really important to the Corps and the Nation. 

A lot of our Civil Works employees work overseas in Afghanistan 

and Iraq and then come back to the Civil Works program. 

Men and women from across the Corps, all volunteers, and many 

of whom have served multiple deployments, continue to provide 

this critical support. We currently have 1,168 civilian employees of 

the Corps deployed overseas. They have completed over 6,000 infrastructure and water resources projects. 

Last month, Ms. Darcy and I traveled to Afghanistan. We took 

our other service counterparts over there, and we witnessed the 

amazing work of these deployed districts. We have one in Iraq and 

two in Afghanistan, and they are doing incredible work. 

On March 21 and March 22, we traveled down to New Orleans 

to visit the major projects of the Hurricane Storm Damage Risk Reduction System. We wanted to make sure that they are ready to 

defend against a 100-year event June 1. Again I will say, we are 

ready. 

So the Corps is committed to staying at the leading edge of service to our Nation. We are committed to change that ensures an 

open, transparent and performance-based Civil Works program. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Van Antwerp follows:] 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you both. 

Obvious question is, how do you propose to do more with less? 

We have fewer dollars. You have a very ambitious schedule. To be 

candid, so far it is pretty vague. The Administration really hasn’t 

told us how it proposes to finance the funds, the Inland and Harbor. It is going to be hard to see, for me anyway, to see how we 

are going to get much accomplished with that State of affairs. 

What is your reaction? It sounds like it is kind of brave, we are 

going to do all this with fewer dollars. Are you just being stoic? Are 

you scared? Are you being candid with us? Everybody likes to do 

more. But you have fewer dollars. So how are you going to do it? 

Ms. DARCY. Mr. Chairman, we are going to have to do the best 

we can with the budget that we have been presented. We have, as 

the General said, a number of ongoing projects. We will be able to 

complete some projects with this funding level. But a lot of our infrastructure is old. We need to come up with a way to recapitalize 

that infrastructure, not only our locks and dams, but the rest of 

our infrastructure, within our mission. 

We are looking forward to working with the Congress on both the 

Inland Waterways Trust Fund in an overall recapitalization strategy for infrastructure that is more than 50 years old. 

Senator BAUCUS. Let’s just look at Harbor Maintenance, for example. It is my understanding, frankly, that you estimate that full 

channel dimensions at the Nation’s busiest 59 ports are available 

at less than 35 percent of the time. As you know, you proposed to 

spend $758 million when the fund carries a $6 billion surplus. I 

sure am interested in doing something to make better use of the 

asset balance. What can you tell me? What do you intend to do? 

What would those expenditures be? You say you have proposed 

changes. But you haven’t indicated what they are. 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, within the Administration, both the Office 

of Management and Budget and Department of Transportation and 

other Federal agencies are developing exactly what those proposals 

would be. The goal is to use the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 

for the Nation’s ports, in addition to the navigation needs. So whatever the other needs within the agencies, whether it is homeland 

security for example, we are trying to develop a proposal for what 

it is those additional needs and those additional dollars would be 

spent on. 

Senator BAUCUS. Also the same question, somewhat applied to 

the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. You propose to spend about 

$166 million for 12,000 miles of rivers and channels. Of that $166 

million, only $77 million would come from the Trust Fund. You 

talk about other fees, maybe you are changing the 20 cent per gallon diesel fuel. I will be totally candid. This reminds me of the Administration’s proposal on the Highway Trust Fund. Basically proposing $556 billion in highways, roads, bridges and so forth, but no 

proposal how to pay for it. It was a vague, vague promise. 

If the President doesn’t lead, if the President and Administration 

don’t make specific proposals, I suggest that not much is going to 

happen. Not much is going to happen. The President must lead. 

The Administration is not leading. 

I am very concerned. Because if you wait for Congress, we are 

unfortunately deadlocked, we are going to cut budgets. I just sug-
30 

gest if you have some ideas that you want to pursue, that you, the 

Administration had better come up with something pretty fast. 

Pretty fast. I just see this trend, this trend line. You make vague 

proposals, but nothing to back it up. So where is the beef? 

I see words, not deeds. I just urge you, quickly, because if you 

wait for us, I am concerned. I am concerned because I haven’t 

heard from you, that is, the Administration. So when are we going 

to hear from you? 

Ms. DARCY. I couldn’t give you a date right now, Mr. Chairman, 

but we are in conversations within the Administration to come up 

with a proposal, and soon. Because as you have noted, the revenues 

are dwindling within the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. That is a 

major concern, because that part of our navigation system is aging 

and is in dire need of repair. 

Senator BAUCUS. It is infrastructure generally in this country. It 

is highways, it is transportation, it is harbor Maintenance, it is inland. This country is in a world of hurt. That is why Presidents run 

for these jobs. The proposals go along with the territory. If you are 

going to make grand statements, you have an obligation to back 

them up. I am just urging you in your deliberations to fight hard 

to get proposals. Tell them, I don’t know if I can speak for the 

members of this committee, but speaking for one member of this 

committee, you can say, they are not happy. You had better come 

up with something quickly, it is going to get worse. Time is running out. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, sir. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you. 

Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly echo your 

words. 

As I said, I want to turn to some very important Louisiana-specific issues that were in my recent letter. The first is Morganza to 

the Gulf. That is an absolutely vital project that has been lingering 

and delayed for decades now. 

Most recently, this came up between us during the General 

Walsh confirmation process. At the end of those discussions, both 

of you gave me a specific, in fact a written commitment, to finish 

the Morganza PAC report by its scheduled date of December 2012, 

and if there was any way to accelerate that. I accepted that specific 

commitment. 

Instead, what has happened since General Walsh’s confirmation 

is that the Corps included zero funding in the budget proposal to 

do that study while it initiated four new start studies. More recently, the Corps announced that all of that work would stop at the 

end of the fiscal year. So that commitment, finishing the PAC report by December 2012, apparently is not going to be met. 

How is that keeping the specific commitment that was made to 

me during those discussions? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator Vitter, we are going to make every effort to 

complete that post-authorization change report by December 2012. 

We will be looking for other funds. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Just to be clear, you all did announce that 

that work would stop dead in its tracks at the end of the fiscal 
31 

year, that it would not be completed. Are you telling me that is no 

longer true? 

Ms. DARCY. That is not correct, sir. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Well, that was announced. So if this is the 

announcement of a reversal of that, I applaud it. 

Second issue is the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration 

report. Coming out of Katrina, the Federal taxpayer, through the 

Corps, committed to build a true 100-year level of protection, what 

we thought was there before but wasn’t. That is what we are trying 

to complete by June 1. 

But then the taxpayer, through the Corps, also committed to 

move forward to higher levels of protection. Specifically, that was 

going to be through the LACPR report. Through congressional language, you were mandated in this report, which is now this document, to produce specific project recommendations. Specific project 

recommendations. Then it also said the Secretary shall expedite 

completion of the reports on those recommendations and proceed to 

pre-construction engineering and design. 

Instead, we got this thick, beautifully bound, nice cover report for $20 million. It doesn’t contain a single specific project recommendation. Twenty million dollars, multiple years, not a single project 

recommendation. That was wording in the act of Congress. Why 

not? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator Vitter, I believe that the legislation asked 

for specific recommendations to the maximum extent practicable. 

We have a number of alternatives within that report. We have not 

made specific recommendations for those. One of the recommendations in the report, however, was to work with the State of Louisiana to come up with what those alternatives and priorities 

should be. 

Senator VITTER. So when is there going to be a single, a first specific project recommendation? 

Ms. DARCY. I can’t give you that answer, sir. I don’t know. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Let me suggest, for $20 million, we got a 

doorstop. This is not moving a higher level of protection forward 

one inch. Not one inch. 

It is clear to me that we are never going to get a specific project 

recommendation out of it. That was the language that we used in 

the act of Congress. We even said then, you take that and you 

move on to engineering and design. 

OK, 100-year level of protection. June 1, we are all working toward that deadline. I am very, very glad that we are going to meet 

that deadline in some sense, and I thank you again for the Corps’ 

work. However, as you know, there are multiple aspects of the system that are being built in a temporary way to meet the June 1 

deadline. There are multiple structures that you have termed temporary, not permanent. 

So my question is, when will all that temporary stuff be made 

permanent? No. 2, do you have the funds already to make all the 

temporary stuff permanent? Because we are spending on the order 

of $150 million on temporary stuff that we are going to have to tear 

up to make permanent. 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, we do have sufficient funds to meet the 100- 

year, protection both the permanent as well as the temporary 
32 

measures within the existing funding that we have ($14 billion). I 

think the date is August, when the permanent measures will be 

complete. We will be in a position by the end of this calendar year 

to be able to meet the accreditation for the system. 

Senator VITTER. Are you saying the permanent will be complete 

by the end of this calendar year? Because I don’t think that is the 

case. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Senator, there are some features, like the 

permanent pumps for example where the schedule goes out after 

that. A lot of these temporary facilities, there are Hesco Barriers 

across the road, there are skid-mounted pumps. In one case, we 

have the permanent pumps, but to get the June 1 date, we are 

leasing some pumps and then we will turn those back in when we 

put the permanent pumps in. We actually have them on site. 

All this is scheduled, and we would be glad to come and lay out 

the schedule for each one of those. We know every one of those 

temporary measures and when it is going to go permanent. 

Senator VITTER. I don’t want to take up more time here, but 

could you give me a written schedule, where any item that is temporary will be made permanent? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Yes. 

Senator VITTER. Next to that time line, the funding source, which 

you say you have in hand already, to get that done. 

Ms. DARCY. We can do that. 

General VAN ANTWERP. We have sufficient funds to do it, and we 

can give you that schedule, with each one of those temporary 

places outlined. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. I have one more item, but why don’t 

we go on to other members and I will come back. 

Senator BAUCUS. Yes, we probably should. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Let me mention a couple of issues that we 

talked about before, but I think it is significant. What I am concerned with here also applies in a lot of other areas. We authorized, actually, this Red River chloride project way back in the 

1960s. Then in the 2007 bill, which you were here and familiar 

with at that time, it was authorized to continue the work. It would 

have actually been all at Federal expense. 

The problem we are having right now, and this is always a frustration, we are sitting around waiting until, the planning can’t be 

completed until 2016. Yet, just less than 30 miles away, down in 

Texas, right across the Red River, we already have a project very 

similar to this. The planning would be about the same, the environmental impact studies and all of that. I am going to be asking if 

we could have that as part of the consideration so we get this thing 

moving. It is something we have been working on since the 1960s. 

Maybe, General, do you have a memory of this particular project? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Senator, I don’t have a good memory on 

this one. But I could get back with you on that. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, yes, because here is the problem. If the 

planning won’t even be done until 2016, there is no reason for that, 

because it is the same, essentially the same planning. In fact, I 

have another on the next issue, a very similar thing. It seems to 

me, as we look at things like this, and I look at it as a citizen 
33 

would look at it, that we have something that is going to be done 

some day, it has been authorized, it is all agreed upon. Yet there 

is always some obstacle that holds it up. In this case, it is the planning, but I contend it would be the same planning as has already 

taken place down in Texas. 

So the only request I have is, I would like to have you look at 

it carefully and see if, if because the planning has taken place, if 

this could shorten that timeframe so that we could get started on 

the project. 

Then the other thing that I know you are familiar with, because 

we talked about this in my office, is we have been pretty successful, 

I think I mentioned this in the opening statement, I think Georgia 

and Oklahoma were the most successful in putting these demonstration projects, lake projects to work. 

The interesting thing about this is, everyone up here is concerned, all they talk about is money and the cost and the fact that 

we don’t have the money. These don’t cost any money. These are 

demonstration projects that were there because they don’t cost 

money, and it induces the private sector to venture the capital and 

to get involved in these. The one in northern Oklahoma has been 

very, very successful. 

Now, the project that is in Lake Eufala is one that if we could 

do it the same way we did it in the project up at Skiatook, as you 

and I had talked about in my office, then it would be something 

where you could go ahead with this one project and not have to do 

a lake plan on the entire lake. If you did it that way, I can assure 

you if we had done it that way up in Skiatook, it still wouldn’t be 

done today. Now it is already done, it is prosperous, employing people, and it is developing in the economy, it is a good program. 

So what I would like to get is an idea as to whether or not you 

would use some of the flexibility that we have and apply some of 

the same techniques to that project in Eufala that we discussed as 

we did successfully up in Skiatook, recognizing that people paint 

themselves into a corner sometimes and say, well, this can’t be 

done, then you have to cover for somebody else. But that seems 

reasonable to me. Does that sound reasonable to you, Madam Secretary? 

Ms. DARCY. It sounds reasonable, Senator. 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate that. Just one short question. Do 

you think it would be necessary for anyone who is waiting to go 

through with a project to have to hire a lobbyist or an attorney in 

order to get that done? 

Ms. DARCY. No, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. I knew that would be your answer, and I agree. 

Last, on the Arkansas River Corridor master plan, we have executed the feasibility cost share agreement, which we talked about 

in my opening statement. There are a lot of things that I want to 

ask for the record, but I will just ask this one question now. In 

light of the scarce resources and the Continuing Resolution, we 

don’t know how these things are going to turn out. But assuming 

that those resources are unusually scarce, how will the Corps determine which projects with executed cost share agreements will be 

supported with those resources? Do you have a plan that you can 

share with us? 
34 

Ms. DARCY. You are talking about the rest of this fiscal year, sir? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

Ms. DARCY. Well, depending upon the final appropriation, whether it is a Continuing Resolution through the year, based on 2010 

levels—— 

Senator INHOFE. I suspect strongly, Madam Secretary, it is not 

going to be adequate. So you still have to prioritize. 

Ms. DARCY. We are going to have to prioritize. If we get a Continuing Resolution through the rest of this fiscal year, we will develop a work plan based on what was in 2010. 

Senator INHOFE. On what criteria you would use. Then you could 

perhaps share that with us during the development of that criteria. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. In the past, it has been a 30-day turnaround 

time for a work plan that is approved. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. The last question, what do you like better, 

that side of the bench or this side? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. I think I know. Thank you very much. 

Senator BAUCUS. You bet. 

Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank both 

of our witnesses. 

It is quite clear that in this budget climate, we are not going to 

have the resources to be able to do all that we need to do. I thank 

you for the way that you have prioritized. I looked at the President’s budget, and obviously I would have liked to see more in it. 

But I thought that the priorities, the way that you went about it, 

was the way that we need to go about making these tough decisions. So I thank you for that. 

I am going to talk about one or two projects in Maryland. But 

I want to talk first about a success that we have had with Poplar 

Island. You have been there, you understand this. But at the time, 

it was rather controversial, because we were taking an important 

site for dealing with dredged material that dealt with keeping 

channels open, and we combined that with a priority ecosystem 

project. When you do the cost benefit analysis, that can become a 

problem. 

So I guess my question to you is, what steps are you taking to 

make it so that we can do these types of projects in the future, 

where you are combining two types of priorities, one ecosystem restoration, the other to deal with maintaining channels opened by 

dredge sites? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, one of the things that we are in the process 

of doing is revising what is called the Principles and Guidelines, 

which are the rules that we follow in order to determine what is 

in the Federal interest and determining what the investment 

should be in a water resources project. We are modernizing those. 

They were implemented in 1983. So we, along with the other Federal agencies, are modernizing those. We hope to have those developed by June of this year. 

What they will do is allow us to look at other benefits from water 

resources projects, not just the National Economic Development 

benefits, but in addition, what the environmental benefit is, what 

the social impact of that project would be, and have these types of 
35 

consideration be more on an equal footing as opposed to just the 

economic driver in the past. 

Senator CARDIN. For the benefit of my colleagues, Poplar Island 

was an island that at one time was inhabited that had just about 

disappeared within the Chesapeake Bay. The Corps restored that 

island using dredged material, using it as a dredge site, which was 

very important to keep the channel open, probably the major 

dredge site keeping the Port of Baltimore open. It restored an ecosystem that is now the pride of the community. It is an incredible 

site, and I invite you all to visit. It is not too far away. 

We now have a second location, as you know, the Mid-Bay areas. 

We are making progress in moving forward with that particular 

program, James and Barren Islands. My question to you is that, 

that has gone through an exhaustive study, it has gotten the 

Chief’s Report, things are moving forward in a very progressive 

way. There is funding in order to move forward with that site. 

However, it does not have congressional authorization at this 

point. As you know, we are going through some different views as 

to how Congress will authorize projects in the future. 

My question to you, is the Administration prepared to ask Congress to authorize the Mid-Bay project so that we can stay on track 

to keep that moving forward? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator Cardin, the Mid-Bay Island project is still 

within agency review within the Administration. So as you said, 

there is a Chief’s Report, but that Chief’s Report is still undergoing 

Administration review. 

Senator CARDIN. What is the time schedule on that? 

Ms. DARCY. I wish I could give you a date, Senator, but I am 

working on it. 

Senator CARDIN. Here is a challenge, and I understand you have 

a lot of things that need to be done. The challenge is that if we are 

all in agreement that this project needs to move forward, in the appropriate priority order, I understand the different priorities, but 

we need to stay on schedule in order for dredged material to have 

a place in a way that not only keeps our channels open but also 

deals with the ecosystem restorations. If we run into a situation 

where you are blocked and you want to move forward because you 

don’t have congressional authorization, and we can’t move until 

you move because of our new rules, we are going to have a problem. 

So I just urge you to understand the new environment in which 

we are operating and give us a little bit of room, and a little bit 

of flexibility. If you need us to act, ask us to act, so that we are 

not blocked in moving forward on what we think is a very important project. 

One last point, and that is on your analysis, I thank you for all 

the help you have done in the Port of Baltimore. I can tell you 

chapter and verse of what you have done. But when we get to our 

rural ports, such as Salisbury, the cost analysis sometimes doesn’t 

work the same way, even though the port of Salisbury is vital to 

the rural part of our State. We just urge you, as you go through 

the new way of doing these analyses, to understand the importance 

of these ports, particularly in rural areas, to the economic strength 
36 

of that community. Salisbury is a case in point, critically important 

to the people of the Eastern Shore. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BAUCUS. Senator Barrasso, you are next, and then Senator Whitehouse after that. I have to step out for a few minutes. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We have been debating in Congress the scope of this Administration’s attempt to regulate climate change using what I feel is a 

back door method toward cap and tax policies, and trying to do it 

through regulations, where legislation could not pass this body. I 

have introduced legislation that would stop such policies across all 

agencies. I have highlighted that climate change regulations are 

being pursued way beyond the Clean Air Act at the EPA. 

I took note of a recent January 2011 report issued by the Bureau 

of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers. The report is entitled Addressing Climate Change in Long-Term Water Resources 

Planning and Management. The report says, ‘‘The Bureau of Reclamation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers recognize 

that there is a critical need to begin incorporate climate change 

science into the design, construction and operations of our water 

resources management infrastructure.’’ I will say it again. ‘‘The Bureau of Reclamation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers recognize that there is a critical need to begin incorporate climate change science into the design, construction and operations of 

our water resources management infrastructure.’’ 

I would ask both of you, is that a statement you agree with, don’t 

agree with, and what are your positions on that? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, sir, I agree with that. We are currently looking 

at adapting our projects to incorporate climate change, things like 

sea level rise, increased temperature of waters, to consider those 

when making project decisions and design decisions. 

Senator BARRASSO. General? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I agree with that statement, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. Then what science are you using, General? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Some is data measured science. Other is 

prediction based on the actual temperatures, for example, whether 

we get more snow melt, what is the effect on our systems. We are 

also looking at the Everglades and the Florida Keys, for instance, 

where we have measured sea level rise over time, and what would 

happen if we continue on that trend line. We look at the worst 

case, we look at the current case if you just extrapolate it out, and 

then we look at a lesser case. We try to predict and do what is appropriate based on those scenarios. 

Senator BARRASSO. So you are going to use taxpayer dollars in 

making decisions on how to spend those dollars in the design and 

construction of, in terms of infrastructure. My question is, what 

statute if any do you believe authorizes the U.S. Army Corps to 

embed climate change into your mission? 

General VAN ANTWERP. From our standpoint, if you design a 

project and it is supposed to have a certain project life, then you 

have to account for what happens during the entire lifetime of that 

project. For instance, in New Orleans, we are building some of the 

bases of the levees wider so that you could come back later and 

build them higher, because we know we are going to get some sub-
37 

sidence; we know we are going to have some climate change affecting them. 

If a levee is designed for a 50-year life span, then we look at 

what happens during those 50 years. We feel that this is authorized as part of project design. 

Senator BARRASSO. Recently I had a chance to visit New Orleans, 

and I can understand how you can predict some of the subsidence 

in the levees. Are you talking about man-made climate change or 

are you talking about just climate change in general? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I don’t know if I would draw a real distinction of man’s contribution. Probably the most easily measured 

right now is sea level rise; we know what sea level rise has taken 

place. So we actually have the data for that. But the other is predictive, based on the experts that help predict the weather and predict the snow melt and all those kinds of things, what is happening 

to the glaciers, all that is part of that scientific study. 

Senator BARRASSO. Over what period of time are you looking 

when you say the predictive value? Are you talking 50-year trends 

as you make decisions? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Generally a 50-year trend for a project. 

If you are building a port, for example, if you are going to a certain 

depth of that port, then one of the things that it does affect, and 

we have seen this more and more, is dredging. It affects the silting 

in, because if there is a slight sea level rise, it affects how far the 

saltwater intrusion goes up in the mouth of the river. All these are 

things that are measurable. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, General. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Welcome. In Rhode Island a year ago, we 

had the worst flooding that anyone can remember. We had 100- 

year flood limits, overwhelmed, all over the State. We had 500-year 

flood limits hit in a number of places. Twenty-five thousand plus 

homes were flooded, nearly 3,500 businesses. I can remember 

standing on flooded roads and watching rivers flow over bridges 

that ordinarily went over the river. I watched a father and son 

have to be picked out of a truck that had filled up to the windows 

with rescue folks and boats. In West Warwick, there were families 

that had to be taken out of the upper story windows of their homes 

by jet ski and boat. It was a really big thing. 

It was particularly traumatic economically, because Rhode Island’s history goes back to the mills that were powered by the rivers, all the way back to the famous Slater Mill of Pawtucket. So 

the job loss and the interruption economically was very profound. 

Now we are trying to recover from it. We are working with you all, 

and I just wanted to try to see where we are on some things. 

Ms. Darcy, you state that there is sufficient carryover funding 

from prior years to finance the Section 205 Continuing Authorities 

program for flood damage reduction for Fiscal Year 2012. Exactly 

how much funding is currently available for Section 205 projects, 

and does this funding level allow for any new projects to be initiated? 

Ms. DARCY. What we have done in this budget is taken $23 million from our carryover for the Continuing Authorities Programs 

for four of the specific programs, and put them into five of the 

other programs. I can get you, hopefully before the hearing is over, 
38 

the exact number of what would be in that particular Continuing 

Authorities Program. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It was a pretty bad flooding year in a lot 

of areas. Presumably there is going to be an influx of Section 205 

applications. Are you taking that into consideration? Or is there a 

distinct possibility that the new projects coming in will overwhelm 

the funding that you have the ability to carry forward? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, I think we will have to look at the funding 

level we do have in the CAP program and will have to consider 

each incoming request individually. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The flooding was so significant, and the 

evidence that climate changes are in fact creating far more heavy 

precipitation events, particularly in the northeast so abundant now 

that it appears that the only sensible thing to do is to reconsider 

some of the 100-year flood, 500-year flood planning and rethink 

what is really likely to be faced, by particularly these urban communities with rivers flowing through them, and their vulnerability 

to flooding. 

As we look at those, these studies are particularly significant. I 

am hoping that you can assure me that you will continue to help 

Rhode Island assess these infrastructure weaknesses and assess 

the vulnerability of these rivers to these flooding events, that it 

will continue to be a priority for you. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, sir. I can also answer your earlier questions. We 

have sufficient funds for all Section 205 projects already in design 

and construction. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. But does that leave you any margin 

if other ones come down the pike for you? Or does that exhaust 

your 205 capacity? 

Ms. DARCY. I am not certain. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Can you take that as a question for the 

record? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, sir. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We just want to know how bad the situation is in terms of the likelihood of what we need getting funded. 

One of the biggest problems we have is that we have dams that 

have been around a long time. They are in heavily populated areas, 

heavy residential population, also heavy commercial activity. We 

have 95 high hazard dams in Rhode Island. Obviously, we need 

your help with them. Can you tell me how you prioritize dam repair funding in your budget proposal with respect to high hazard 

dams in high populated areas? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, we have a dam safety program within the 

Army Corps of Engineers that assesses the dam safety requirements for all of those which are Federal dams. We call Dam Safety 

Action Classification (DSAC) 1 the dams that are most highly vulnerable and the highest risk to public safety. Those dams are the 

ones that are at the top of our priority list for funding. We are 

funding all of our ongoing DSAC 1 dams in this budget. But again, 

these are Federal dams, they are not private dams. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much 

for letting me go over a few moments. If I could just add one point? 

Senator BAUCUS. Sure. 
39 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. On the question of whether the Army 

Corps should be paying attention to the factual observations and 

the scientific trends related to climate change, or whether they 

should be listening to the political messages coming from this 

building, I think that the story of King Canute settles the question 

of whether political orders or the natural order will ultimately prevail. I am pleased that you are staying with the facts and the 

science and the natural order. Because I think that is going to be 

the real effect out in the world. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you. 

Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate our 

witnesses. Thank you for being here, and we do appreciate your 

hard work in sorting through these problems. 

I would just like to, I think with several others today, just go on 

record as saying that we really do need some detailed planning regarding the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. That is something that 

I think you all are going to have to lead on. I think the President 

is going to have to lead on. But it is something that needs to be 

done. 

We hear a lot about the completion of the Panama Canal, as it 

is retrofitted, and people are telling us, it is going to have, potentially, could have a tremendous impact, if we are ready for it as 

things are done a little bit differently with our shipping lines. So 

again, I would really encourage you to do all that you can do to 

help us. 

I will let you respond to that in a second. 

The other thing is, I was wondering, we have an earmark moratorium right now. I think all of us agree that the teapot museums, 

things like that, in the climate that we are in now, we have to be 

so frugal with the taxpayers’ money. I was wondering, in the public 

they understand that in getting ready for the Panama Canal construction that we need 50-foot harbors here and there to make 

room for these gigantic ships that come through. 

I was wondering what kind of problems you are encountering in 

the sense that we can’t authorize a lot of that stuff right now. If 

you are in the middle of projects now that you have put money toward, and yet you need more authorization to complete the project, 

but we really don’t have the ability now to provide the authorization. Can you comment on that for us? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, regarding the post-Panamax vessels that 

are going to be coming this way, we do have several harbors that 

are currently dredged to 50 feet, which can accommodate a postPanamax vessel. We have several studies underway for the deepening of other ports around the country to a 50-foot depth. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I don’t mean to interrupt, but do we have that 

on both the east coast and the west coast? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, sir. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

Ms. DARCY. Baltimore and Norfolk on the east coast are currently at 50 feet. New York-New Jersey will be going to 50 feet. 

We have 50 feet at Oakland and 50 feet at L.A. Long Beach cur-
40 

rently. We have some ports on the west coast, Tacoma, WA for example, which is naturally at 51 feet. 

Senator BOOZMAN. In regard to projects that you need more authorization for, are you having that kind of problem without the 

ability of Congress to authorize the funds toward the projects? Or 

do you see that coming in the future? 

Ms. DARCY. I think it is coming in the future. Currently we have 

a number of studies underway to determine whether an additional 

depth is warranted, both economically and financially for the Federal investment. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Well, not only depth, but I am just talking 

about projects in general that are going on that the Corps has a 

hand in. 

General VAN ANTWERP. If I might just add, right now we have 

six projects that are authorized but not constructed, authorized to 

go to the 50-foot, but not constructed to that level yet. 

Senator BOOZMAN. But again, projects in general that the Corps 

is doing, whether it is deepening a channel or some other thing 

that you are in the middle of, are there cases now where you are 

going to need additional authorization to complete the project? Is 

that going to be a problem in the future? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, it could be a problem in the future. But currently, within the funds that we have, what we have to do is 

prioritize within the authorized projects that we have, both within 

the ports program as well as within the Inland Waterways program. So whatever depth is currently authorized, we will prioritize 

within our criteria for determining whether it is a budgetable item 

or not. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. Again, I very much would appreciate, like I said, your leadership, the President’s leadership and 

the committee’s leadership. I know I can speak for all of us, we are 

very willing to try and figure out the Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund. But we are going to need some help in that regard. 

Thank you very much. Again, thanks for all you do. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator. 

I would like to ask you, Secretary Darcy, about some Montana 

issues. One is certification of levees. We have talked about this before, along with FEMA. A very good meeting a couple or 3 months 

ago. I thought it was good, people want to work together. 

But the upshot of it is that there are a good number of levees 

in our State that can’t be certified. FEMA is redrawing flood plain 

maps. Some of these, it is going to turn out, it is clear that the 

levee is not adequate, which is going to force insurance rates to go 

up very significantly. 

The Corps, until recently, used to pay for those certifications. But 

apparently it does not, my understanding is that Federal waterways along the Mississippi, not in States like Montana, or Missouri. That is a problem. 

We talked a bit about floods. We are going to talk more about 

floods. But it doesn’t rain much west of the 100th meridian, ordinarily. The population density is very scarce. Our population in 

Montana is six people per square mile. I think the most populous 

State might be New Jersey, with 1,000. It rains in New Jersey. It 

rains in Washington, DC. It does not rain in the west. At least in 
41 

the high plains States. It doesn’t rain. Our annual rainfall is 

maybe at 13 inches, 14 inches, something like that. That includes 

snow. Ordinarily. Although this last year, we had a little more 

snow, so we could have floods. 

But my point is, ordinarily it doesn’t rain very much, which 

means we have very low population densities. We are just different 

from other parts of the country. We don’t have the population, don’t 

have the resources to support a lot of projects that other communities can support. There would be no interstate highway through 

Montana if we didn’t have an interstate highway system, where 

Americans paid diesel and gasoline taxes and we distribute dollars 

back to the States for highway programs. We couldn’t afford it. We 

have the highest State gasoline taxes already in the Nation. 

People would drive across the country, they would get to the high 

plains States, and they would stop, there wouldn’t be any interstate any more. We can’t handle it. We are just different in the 

west, because it does not rain. 

So these small communities are strapped. They are really 

strapped. I would guess on some kind of a, figure out a formula, 

on a population resource base formula of some kind, that these 

small Montana communities, like Mile City, MT, for example, they 

can’t afford it. 

So I am asking you, don’t you think this is a fairly high priority? 

That is, to get certification or pay for the certification of some of 

these smaller communities that otherwise can’t afford it? Because 

you did do that up until 2008, then stopped, leaving them—no 

pun—high and dry. What can you do? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, you are correct, we did certify and then in 

2008, in many cases, we stopped certifying. Currently we certify 

levees that we build and also levees that we have built. The only 

time we can certify non-Federal levees is if a local entity provides 

the funding and it is determined that the Corps of Engineers is 

uniquely qualified to do that certification, as a result of the Thomas Amendment. 

But the rural communities are in a situation, as you know only 

too well, of being financially strapped in order to do this certification. But the determination was made that the certifications that 

we were doing were just not in the budgetable part of our levee 

safety program. 

Senator BAUCUS. That determination was made by whom? 

Ms. DARCY. It was made in 2008. 

Senator BAUCUS. By whom? 

Ms. DARCY. By, I believe, the Secretary at the time. 

Senator BAUCUS. Who was that? 

Ms. DARCY. In 2008 it would have been Mr. Woodley. 

Senator BAUCUS. Who is Secretary now? 

Ms. DARCY. That would be me. 

Senator BAUCUS. Do you have authority to modify that determination? 

Ms. DARCY. Within our budget, yes, sir. 

Senator BAUCUS. Do you have authority to change priorities 

around a little bit? 

Ms. DARCY. A little bit. 
42 

Senator BAUCUS. Do you think these certifications, we are not 

talking about huge, big projects here. We are just talking about 

certifications. Don’t you think that might be a good idea? 

Ms. DARCY. I think it is something that I will look into immediately, sir. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much. Because it is a problem. 

It is a real problem. 

Ms. DARCY. It is a problem around the country, sir. 

Senator BAUCUS. Especially in some of our communities. It is 

really tough. 

Next subject, very briefly, I am going to be very brief here. The 

Authorized Purposes Study, has money been appropriated for that? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

Senator BAUCUS. Then there is an amendment, I guess over in 

the other body, to not pay for that, it’s on the Continuing Resolution. I presume the Corps does not favor that amendment to strike 

the continued funds for that authorized study? 

Ms. DARCY. The President’s Budget does not contain any funding 

for that study. 

Senator BAUCUS. No funding? 

Ms. DARCY. No. 

Senator BAUCUS. Why are you stopping midstream? 

Ms. DARCY. The Administration never budgeted for that study. It 

has always been a congressional action. 

Senator BAUCUS. Aren’t you about halfway through it? Aren’t you 

conducing the study? Congress, my gosh, if we are doing a study, 

it is a waste of money to stop midway. 

Ms. DARCY. We have been conducting the study and doing a lot 

of surveys that have been required by the legislation. But it is not 

included in this year’s budget. 

Senator BAUCUS. Don’t you want to know the results of a study 

so you are more efficiently spending your dollars? This is huge. Because it is my understanding that this study could very well result 

in different priorities for the Corps on this system, because a study 

would show that it is more efficient, makes more sense to spend 

dollars in some areas rather than other areas. I presume, the 

whole subtext of the whole afternoon is you have to spend dollars 

wisely, because we don’t have as many. 

Don’t you think you want to learn as much as you can, to spend 

dollars as wisely as you can, ordinarily, as a general principle? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, Senator. However, within this limited budget, 

this study in particular did not—— 

Senator BAUCUS. Don’t you think you would learn a lot more if 

this study were completed? 

Ms. DARCY. We probably would. 

Senator BAUCUS. You could make decisions with respect to priorities much more accurately? 

Ms. DARCY. I think the study would help us to inform future decisions, yes. 

Senator BAUCUS. Especially when people think that the results 

of that study will show quite a significant difference, a different result compared with current Corps practices? 

Ms. DARCY. I think there is probably some validity to that. However, I think others would argue—— 
43 

Senator BAUCUS. Do you have the authority to spend dollars to 

complete the study, Secretary? 

Ms. DARCY. I currently don’t have it in my budget. 

Senator BAUCUS. But do you have authority to change your budget, so you could have, dollars could be spent to complete the study? 

Do you have that authority? 

Ms. DARCY. The authority to prioritize—— 

Senator BAUCUS. Do you have the authority to shift funds, given 

X number of dollars, given that X number of dollars, shift funds so 

that the study would be completed? Don’t forget, we are not talking 

about a new study. 

Ms. DARCY. Right. 

Senator BAUCUS. We are talking about completing a current 

study. I think I heard you say you had been conducting parts of 

the study up to this point. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, with congressional adds. 

Senator BAUCUS. That is irrelevant. The point is, you have been 

conducting the study. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, we have been conducting the study. 

Senator BAUCUS. I am not exploring who provided the money or 

didn’t provide the money. I am saying, the money has been provided. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

Senator BAUCUS. You have been conducting the study? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

Senator BAUCUS. You did agree you would probably be better off 

if you knew the results of the study, even though it is not in your 

budget? 

Ms. DARCY. Correct. 

Senator BAUCUS. You also have authority to find dollars for that 

study? 

Ms. DARCY. I think, and I will have to check on this. I think it 

would be viewed as a new start. Because it has never been in the 

budget before. 

Senator BAUCUS. I thought I heard the General say they have 

two new starts. 

Ms. DARCY. There are new starts in this budget. 

Senator BAUCUS. Well, there are four, according to Senator 

Vitter. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, there are. 

Senator BAUCUS. Well, if there are four new starts, that is not 

a defensible answer. To say it is not a new start is not a defensible 

answer. It is not a new start, it is ongoing. We are not going to 

belabor the point. Listening to you, I think you basically agree with 

everything I have said, except you just haven’t got the money for 

it. 

Ms. DARCY. Correct. 

Senator BAUCUS. I am saying that you probably could get the 

money for it if that were your decision. I am suggesting that you 

revisit that one, too. Come on. This is not rocket science. You want 

to know the results of the study so you know how to better spend 

your dollars, I presume. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 
44 

Senator BAUCUS. I am way over my time. St. Mary Diversion, 

project, you know about that, St. Mary Diversion, there is money 

for it, it is authorized. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

Senator BAUCUS. I think $500,000 appropriations spent on it to 

get this thing going. It is the same. These poor people cannot begin 

to pay for keeping the St. Mary Diversion going. It is falling apart. 

They haven’t got resources. They can’t pay for it. They need help. 

I would go back and ask you to look at that one, too. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, sir. 

Senator BAUCUS. We are a State where it doesn’t rain. We are 

spread out. We don’t have big factories, we don’t have big seaports. 

We don’t have big airports. We are all spread out because it just 

doesn’t rain in Montana. We are different. 

Thank you. Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

By the way, I think what you need to finish your study is about 

half of this book. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator VITTER. I would love to give it to you if you could go to 

some bank teller and cash it in. Unfortunately, it is spent, in my 

opinion, to little or no effect. 

A couple more Louisiana points that I was on. Several parishes in southeast Louisiana have spent $41 million to storm-proof interior pump stations. That is acknowledged to be fully reimbursable 

from the Feds through the Corps. We have multiple documents acknowledging that by the Corps. There are even documents with a 

plan to pay immediately for at least $25 million of those funds 

identified. But the Corps is not doing that to date. 

Forty one million to these local entities is a lot of money. They 

are out. They have fronted that money. That is a big deal to them. 

When will they get reimbursed? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, the reimbursement has to come from appropriated funds. We don’t have the appropriated funds to reimburse 

them. 

Senator VITTER. In your budget, aren’t you asking for reprogramming well above that figure? 

Ms. DARCY. In the budget, I believe we are asking for transfer 

authority, not necessarily reprogramming authority. I will double 

check that. It is both. 

Senator VITTER. Under either category, you have numbers well 

above that $41 million figure that you are trying to move for other 

purposes. So why can’t you use some of that money to repay these 

locals who are out that amount of money, who have fronted it on 

the promise of reimbursement, and now there is no reimbursement? 

Ms. DARCY. I will have to check. I believe the funds for transfer 

as well as the reprogramming are identified for other purposes 

within the larger project. But I can’t tell you right now what that 

is. I will ask staff to help me get you that answer. 

Senator VITTER. My point is that they fronted this money on the 

clear promise of reimbursement. You all say that is correct. You 

had a plan to reimburse at least most of it. Now you have pulled 

back on that. Meanwhile, you are asking permission to move 
45 

money around within your budget far in excess of that amount for 

other purposes. That seems unfair when these locals are out what 

is to them big dollars in terms of their operating budgets. 

Ms. DARCY. I will look into where we are moving that money. 

Senator VITTER. Final issue is dredging in the lower Mississippi 

River. This is the most significant maritime navigation channel in 

the country, in fact, in the western hemisphere. So many things 

flow into the Mississippi, go to the lower Mississippi, so much commerce depends on that. In the last 3 years we needed $115 million 

to properly dredge that in 2008, $181 million in 2009, $118 million 

in 2010. You are budgeting $65 million for this year and you are 

saying there is not going to be any transfer. We are not going to 

fill in the gaps any other way. 

How are we possibly going to not curtail commerce when you are 

budgeting well less than half what we have spent in those previous 

years? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Senator, I would say first of all, future 

reprogrammings are not ruled out. We are watching the status 

every day. In fact, we are trying to get a third dredge; I am sure 

you know that we received no bids for that third dredge contract. 

We are looking to activate one of the Corps dredges. 

But we haven’t ruled out reprogramming. We are watching it 

very closely. We have many, many ports and harbors in the Nation 

that aren’t at authorized width. We try to get them to depth first, 

but it may mean you can’t run two ships side by side. We are 

watching it very closely, and we are watching the navigation industry and the buoys as well. It may be that they are not at authorized width and depth all of the time. That would be the tradeoff. 

But we are watching it very closely. 

Senator VITTER. Let me applaud your saying that future reprogramming is not ruled out. General Walsh has told me future 

reprogramming ain’t going to happen. But I am happy you outrank 

him. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator VITTER. Second, we are not shooting for perfection. My 

concern is not that we are going to be short of what is on a piece 

of paper. My concern is that we are going to inhibit commerce and 

basically cost jobs. So if you can please be attuned to that, because 

that is a vital artery. 

General VAN ANTWERP. I get status reports almost on a daily 

basis. We are watching, is it an inch or whatever. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. 

Final comment, which goes back to this idea of temporary structures, in some cases building to June 1, and you said all the money 

is in hand to make all of that permanent. I obviously hope you are 

right. That wasn’t my understanding. Part of what I was basing 

my understanding on is this reprogramming sheet from the Corps, 

which identified future west bank and vicinity needs for resilient 

futures, resilient is the other word for permanent, $320 million. 

That gave me the impression that we are basically at least $320 

million short. 

So I want to make sure that is not your understanding. You 

think we have in hand what we need? 
46 

General VAN ANTWERP. Senator, I think we have what we need 

to finish the 100-year permanent facilities. 

Senator VITTER. Well, again, I know I am repeating myself, but 

if you all can followup with every feature that is temporary, the 

time line to make it permanent and where the dollars are in hand 

to get that done, that would be very comforting. 

Thank you. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Boozman, you are on. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Just very quickly, I notice that you, in your 

budget, you include $50 million, a $40 million increase on comprehensive levee safety, the levee safety initiative, which is really 

a big deal in the sense of, in many parts of the country. I would 

just like for you to comment a little bit about that and tell us 

where that is in your priorities and things. That is something that, 

as we understand more about, we are starting to realize the impact 

of the condition of some of these levees. 

Ms. DARCY. Thank you, Senator. The levee safety program is one 

of our priorities. What we want to use the money to do is get an 

assessment of the safety of levees throughout the country. We currently have 14,000 miles of levees, Corps of Engineers Federal levees. But there are 100,000 miles of levees in this country that we 

don’t know the condition of, and we don’t know the safety of them. 

Part of what we are doing is to start out with assessing the Federal levees and then look at the levees of other Federal agencies, 

as well, as if we can get the information willingly, from private levees. The goal is to be able to get an assessment of what the levee 

safety is to the best extent possible throughout the country within 

that budget. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Senator, if I might add just a little more 

of the breakdown. About $20 million of that goes to expand the 

database, $25 million to conduct inspections of 125 federally authorized levees, and then $4 million for the Silver Jackets program. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator. Madam Secretary, General, what are the most efficient harbors, ports, in the United 

States? Which ones are right up there, which ones are you proud 

of? 

General VAN ANTWERP. It depends on how you define efficient. 

But if you define that they are self-cleaning and don’t require 

dredging and will be at that depth, Tacoma, WA is one, L.A. Long 

Beach is another. They sustain their depth through natural forces. 

So those kinds of ports, we wish they were all like that. We have 

some like Southwest Pass, where we need dredges there most of 

the time. 

Senator BAUCUS. That is very interesting. But if you define it 

also in terms of volume or tonnage and so forth, then which ones? 

Efficient, not only self-cleaning, but also efficient inspectors, loading and unloading and so forth. 

General VAN ANTWERP. We have 59 harbors that take about 90 

percent of the commerce. The total amount of that is about $1.4 

trillion. So there is a smaller set of the 926, 928 ports and harbors 

in the country. 
47 

We categorize them by high, moderate, and low use harbors. In 

this particular budget, we have cut the funding for low use harbors, in half. It was just a matter of priorities, of how we had to 

use those dollars the best we could. So some of that is based on 

tonnage and ton miles. That is how we prioritize. 

We also look at a lot of other factors, such as safety factors, are 

they ports of refuge and things like that around the country. 

Senator BAUCUS. What about other ports in the world, same 

question. Which are self-cleaning, which are most efficient? 

General VAN ANTWERP. There are a lot of ports that are going 

to be able to take Panamax ships. That is why we have the ports 

in our program, to get to that 50-foot depth in the United States. 

Because that is going to be required if you want to take a fully 

loaded Panamax ship in the future. 

Senator BAUCUS. That is 50 feet? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Fifty feet. 

Senator BAUCUS. So how many ports can handle 50 feet today, 

United States.? 

Ms. DARCY. We have Baltimore, Norfolk, we will shortly have 

New York-New Jersey. Oakland on the west coast, L.A. Long 

Beach, Tacoma, and I think those that are currently at 50. New 

York-New Jersey will be at 50. 

Senator BAUCUS. What about overseas? Are there some ports you 

look at and say, man, that is sort of the gold standard? Are our 

ports the gold standard? Which ports are the gold standard? 

Ms. DARCY. I think some of ours are gold standard, but I have 

been to Singapore, and that is a pretty amazing port. 

Senator BAUCUS. Have you been to Shanghai? 

Ms. DARCY. I have never been to Shanghai, but I have seen 

Singapore, and that is pretty amazing. 

Senator BAUCUS. About 3 years ago, I spent some time talking 

to CEOs of major companies, business roundtable is what it was. 

I was concerned about American competitiveness and the need for 

more up to date infrastructure, and how it is more difficult now for 

the United States to respond. This country has responded to other 

crises, Pearl Harbor, the Depression, Sputnik. It is kind of hard to 

see the current globalization competitiveness that is affecting our 

country and what other countries are doing. It is just hard to see. 

Anyway, I mention all this for whatever it is worth, we were 

talking in this group informally. One fellow stood up, he is the 

head of a major transportation company. He said, Senator, I have 

seen Sputnik. It is Shanghai Harbor. He is scared to death of the 

efficiency of Shanghai Harbor. I have been there, too. I can’t speak 

with authority as to how good it is compared to others, but I just 

am concerned about where we are competitively. We have to get 

our ports and our waterways up to snuff. Because clearly, that 

helps improve efficiency, lowers transportation costs and helps 

lower the cost of doing business, American business men and 

women. 

I know we have a budget that is going the wrong direction here. 

I have been a little bit difficult perhaps in pressing you to figure 

out how we are going to pay for some of this stuff. But we are 

under the gun, our country, in my judgment. We had better figure 
48 

out pretty quickly how we are going to pay for upgrades to the 

most efficient infrastructure in the world, so we can compete. 

I tell you, we will project more political strength worldwide the 

more we project economic strength. Part of economic strength is 

just up to date, solid infrastructure. There is more to it than that, 

clearly. But we all travel. I travel, I got off a plane 5 or 6 years 

ago in Chongqing, China. Middle of China. I couldn’t believe the 

airport. It was the most modern, up to date airport I have ever 

seen. Interstate highway system rivals ours, maybe better. Newer, 

just as good, 30 million people, have this big interstate highways 

system, big fancy airport in the middle of China. Let alone all the 

other infrastructure projects built. 

So I am just urging you, we are kind of bring out our little pencil 

and looking at columns and all that, think big. Thing big, blue sky, 

in the envelope, we have to start thinking outside the envelope so 

we start to address these concerns for our kids and our grandkids. 

I don’t want to sound corny here, but I think all of us have a 

moral obligation, it does sound corny, but I believe it strongly, we 

have a moral obligation, all of us, particularly those of us in service, when we leave this place, we leave it in as good a shape or better shape than we found it. We are not here forever. You are retiring, General. You are going to be around a long time, though. 

But I just urge us to start thinking big, what are we going to do 

for our kids and our grandkids. Because if we do that, automatically it means it is going to be better for us too. 

I understand that you have to leave. So thanks for your attendance. We appreciate it very much. I was a little firm with some of 

the questions I asked you, Ms. Darcy. It is not personal. 

Ms. DARCY. I know. 

Senator BAUCUS. It is just protecting my people and my State, 

because we have some real, real concerns. I know you understand 

that. 

Ms. DARCY. I do. 

Senator BAUCUS. I know you will take it into very strong consideration. 

Ms. DARCY. I will. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional statement submitted for the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF MARYLAND

Madame Chairman: 

Thank you for holding this hearing today. The Army Corps of Engineers is an important partner for us in developing and managing the water infrastructure of 

America. In the Chesapeake Region, they are also an important ally in ecosystem 

protection efforts. 

The President’s budget is inadequate to meet the needs we have out there. I think 

all of us can agree on that. I know that in Maryland a number of important projects 

are not part of the President’s budget for fiscal year 2012. 

We also all know that in the current budget climate that not all needs are going 

to be addressed. So I want to compliment Ms. Darcy and General Van Antwerp for 

bringing us a budget that makes a serious attempt at balancing our needs with our 

resources. I particularly want to thank them for working with industry representatives to come up with ideas on how we can put more user fees to work in meeting 

our harbor and inland waterway needs. 
49 

The new Principles and Guidance for the Corps developed in response to WRDA 

2007 should provide a new national water policy. The original draft, released in September 2008, did not reflect the clear mandate provided by Congress in WRDA 

2007. The final P&G needs to set forth clear and compulsory policies and criteria 

to guide Federal water project planning. These should include clear directives to 

avoid adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent possible, along with 

specific requirements that ensure compliance. For example, a clear requirement to 

utilize non-structural and restoration approaches to solve a water resources problem, where practicable, would provide the type of direction needed. Such a requirement would produce projects that preserve and restore the natural systems so critical for protecting communities from floods, droughts, and sea level rise, and for providing vital habitat to fish and wildlife. Such policies and criteria should take precedence over the use over the old benefit-cost analysis used to guide project selection. 

As the National Academy of Sciences has made clear, benefit-cost analysis cannot 

ensure that projects are appropriate for Federal investment, comply with Federal 

law, or will meet societal obligations that include protecting public safety and the 

environment. The old cost-benefit analysis worked in some cases. For example, it 

recognized the importance of the Port of Baltimore. The Port is an enormous economic engine for Maryland with national significance. There are 126 miles of shipping channels leading to the Port of Baltimore. In 2008, approximately 47.5 million 

tons of cargo, including 33.0 million tons of foreign cargo valued at $45.3 billion, 

and approximately 14.5 million tons of domestic waterborne cargo, moved through 

the Port of Baltimore. 

Among the 360 U.S. ports, Baltimore is ranked No. 1 for handling several different commodities including trucks and roll-on/roll-off cargo. The Maryland Port 

Administrations estimates that The Port generates 50,700 jobs in Maryland with 

$3.7 billion in wages and salaries. Additionally, there are approximately 68,300 related and indirect jobs associated with Port activities. The President’s budget reflects this economic power by including funding for the Port, its channels and its 

primary dredge disposal site at Poplar Island. The Port of Baltimore is one of America’s greatest ports, supporting an incredible array of jobs. But it is not the only port 

in a State that has more miles of shoreline than the entire west coast of America. 

Salisbury is a relatively small city and an unexpected place for Maryland’s second 

busiest port. Located 30 miles inland from the Chesapeake Bay, the port of Salisbury is vital to the entire Delmarva Peninsula. Under the old formula, the vital nature of this port to an entire region of the country is given little importance because 

the total commercial value of the shipments handled at the port cannot rival those 

of the Nation’s major ports. 

Farmers need Salisbury to move corn and soybeans to market. Shale, sand and 

aggregates move up and down the Wicomico River, supporting thousands of jobs in 

the construction industry. The rural economy of the Eastern Shore is tied to the 

port, but that value is underestimated in a strict cost-benefit analysis. Similarly, 

Maryland is home to scores of other ports, many of them tiny operations that support our independent watermen. . .the men and women who make their living crabbing or oystering the Chesapeake’s waters. 

The new P&G policy should require that the nation’s water resources projects reflect national priorities, encourage economic development, and protect the environment by: 

(1) seeking to maximize sustainable economic development; 

(2) seeking to avoid the unwise use of floodplains and flood-prone areas and minimizing adverse impacts and vulnerabilities where such areas must be used; and 

(3) protecting and restoring the functions of natural systems and mitigating any 

unavoidable damage to those systems. 

That integrated approach to the Corps’ budget is exactly what we need in an era 

of shrinking revenues and continuing needs. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses about the President’s budget, 

about the P&G policies under development and about our plans to reauthorize the 

Water Resources Development Act later this year. 

Æ