U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–567 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 115–443 

AMERICA’S WATER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS 

AND CHALLENGES: FEDERAL PANEL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 17, 2018 

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

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

GABRIELLE BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JANUARY 17, 2018 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

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

WITNESSES 

Ryan Fisher, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) 

And Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Work), United States 

Department of the Army ..................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Response to an additional question from Senator Barrasso ......................... 9 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 10 

Senator Moran ........................................................................................... 23 

Senator Sanders ........................................................................................ 25 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 26 

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

Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ......................................................... 31 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 33 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 33 

Response to an additional question from Senator Sanders .......................... 47 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Rico ............................................................................................... 48 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 48 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers ........................................ 85 

(1) 

AMERICA’S WATER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS 

AND CHALLENGES: FEDERAL PANEL 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2018 

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

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

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

Wicker, Fischer, Moran, Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan, Shelby, Cardin, 

Sanders, Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand, Booker, Markey, 

Duckworth, and Van Hollen. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

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

Today we are holding our second hearing in as many weeks highlighting the importance of water infrastructure and of passing a 

new Water Resource Development Act, or WRDA, in 2018. WRDA 

is a bill that authorizes projects and funding for the Army Corps 

of Engineers Civil Works Program. 

Last week, the Committee heard testimony from a variety of private sector stakeholders representing inland waterways, ports, 

rural areas, as well as those promoting ecosystem restoration 

projects. Their testimony provided further evidence that it is critical that Congress keep with the tradition of biennial WRDA consideration and passing such legislation this year. 

Today we will hear from the Federal officials on how we can best 

address water infrastructure needs and challenges in any WRDA 

legislation. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

has oversight over much of the Corps’ mission in water infrastructure, including locks, dams, flood migration, inland waterways, and 

ports. This hearing provides us an opportunity to hear from the 

Army and the Corps on what they perceive as the best solutions 

to the needs and challenges facing important water infrastructure 

projects spread all across America. 

As I said at least week’s hearing, unlike other contentious issues, 

historically, Republican and Democratic members of this Committee have been able to work together to pass WRDA legislation. 

I also noted last week that this legislation impacts every member 

of this Committee’s diverse constituencies. 

To illustrate, Congress must prioritize the prevention of flooding 

and the modernization of our Nation’s levees, which protect peoVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:53 Jan 18, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\30567.TXT VERNE
2 

ple’s lives and their livelihoods across the Country. We can’t allow 

a repeat of the circumstances that led to the flooding in Worland, 

Wyoming and the evacuation of 80 citizens when the Big Horn 

River flooded due to ice jams. 

We must also not lose sight of western States’ water supply and 

consumption needs. My constituents in Wyoming, as well as others, 

are well too familiar with the challenges associated with providing 

long-term water supply and storage. 

Let’s not forget that sediment buildups continue to decrease the 

storage capacity of western reservoirs. An adequate and reliable 

water supply is necessary if western and rural communities and 

their economies are going to continue growing. 

The Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation should continue sharing related information and work together in the hopes of solving 

these water supply problems. 

To reiterate, we all have an important interest in maintaining 

the Nation’s water infrastructure. Let us commit ourselves and our 

resources toward legislating a bipartisan WRDA bill in 2018. Too 

much is at risk for us to abdicate this responsibility of ensuring the 

public’s safety, as well as ensuring the flow of goods, commodities, 

and raw materials through our inland waterways and ports. 

I will now turn to the Ranking Member for his testimony. Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, it is great to see you both and we thank you. You 

will be working extra hard until we get Val confirmed to help you 

out a little bit. But thank you so much for being here and for your 

good work and your service. 

This is the second of two hearings, as we know, and one of the 

great things about hearings on WRDA is this is something we can 

work on together. It is not so much a red State, blue State, it is 

not so much Democrat or Republican; it is just important stuff. And 

we realize that and we have a good history of that thanks to Senator Inhofe and Barbara Boxer and others before them. 

When I first heard the term WRDA, I said, what is that? I am 

not a big fan of acronyms. I like this one. But WRDA is another 

one of those funny sounding acronyms that we all use too often in 

Washington. While it might sound funny, the truth is what is incorporated into a WRDA bill has a huge effect, oversized effect on 

the daily lives of a lot of us and our constituents. 

For instance, Members of Congress, perhaps like those of us here 

today, talk about critical dredging. That may sound boring, but if 

a ship is trying to get into this Country carrying fruit, carrying 

vegetables, carrying meat, carrying seafood, a number of other 

foodstuffs, and our ports are unable to be reachable, that means 

prices at the grocery store might go up. And if prices at the grocery 

store rise, families who might already be struggling to put food on 

their table will have to figure out how to stretch their budget just 

a little bit further. 

For most of all people among us, that ship being able to reach 

its port isn’t just a policy decision here in Washington, which is 

3 

what we focus more on, but could be the difference between a hungry child or a healthier child. 

Last week we discussed how more than 99 percent of the U.S. 

overseas trade volume moves through coastal channels that the 

Army Corps of Engineers maintains. I think that is amazing. I 

heard that number and I was amazed. Think about it, 99 percent. 

Additionally, the Corps’ inland waterways and locks form a freight 

network, think of it as a water highway, connecting waterways and 

ports, and providing direct access to international markets. They 

also serve as critical infrastructure for the U.S. military, as we 

know. 

But the Corps does more than just conduct navigation projects. 

The agency is also involved in flood risk management, environmental restoration, among others. Navigation, however, makes up 

the most significant portion of the Corps’ authorized work. Unless 

the Country experiences flood events, navigation work is the most 

visible activity in the Corps’ portfolio on a day-to-day basis. 

Unfortunately, as we all know, Federal funding for new project 

construction and major rehabilitation has steadily declined. Corps 

activities have shifted to operations, to maintenance, and rehabilitation of existing infrastructure, while a backlog of deferred maintenance has continued to grow ever since. As a result, much of the 

Corps’ infrastructure is now exceeding its useful lifespan. 

Our waterways are the backbone of our economy, and the Corps 

is often an invisible agency keeping much of it together with limited resources. New estimates that my staff received after last 

week’s hearing reveal that the Corps’ overall construction backlog 

is now in the neighborhood of $96 billion worth of projects. If provided, this money would only address current needs; it does not include any of the funds that are needed for future investments. 

We had a chart we used last week from the American Association 

of Port Authorities, a beautiful chart, but a little busy, a little busy. 

This one is a little less busy. But it illustrates, I think, very well 

what I am about to say, and that is, according to the American Association of Port Authorities, in port infrastructure alone, our 

Country is expected to need over $65 billion in investment over the 

next decade to ensure a nurturing environment for U.S. job creation and economic growth. 

As we heard last week, the American Society of Civil Engineers 

infrastructure report card tells an even more unsettling story. With 

dams, levees, and inland waterways receiving a grade of D, as in 

deplorable, their report card estimates that $162 billion of investment is needed in these types of infrastructure, 162. 

As I said last week, with an annual budget that hovers around 

$4.6 billion, the Corps has a seemingly impossible math problem to 

overcome. Or maybe we have a seemingly impossible problem to 

overcome, and that is actually being willing to spend money for the 

things that we need, actually truly need. I like to say if a thing is 

worth having, they are worth paying for. 

This Committee has worked hard on a bipartisan basis in recent 

years to return to the practice of developing WRDA bills in a timely 

manner. I am encouraged that we will continue that tradition in 

2018 so that the ports, channels, waterways, and flood management initiatives on which so many States, businesses, and AmeriVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:53 Jan 18, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\30567.TXT VERNE
4 

cans depend can keep moving ever more goods and people without 

interruption. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, both of you. It is 

great to see you again. I look forward to hear your plan to overcome the more than $100 billion problem and enable us to invest 

in our future. It will be interesting to see how you do it on $4.5 

billion a year. 

We must work in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion with the Administration to really address these concerns, build a consensus on 

a path forward in a smart, cost-efficient way. I would conclude by 

repeating what I said before: if things are worth having, they are 

worth paying for. This is worth having. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

In just a moment we will hear from our two witnesses: Ryan 

Fisher, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Civil Works and Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for the 

United States Department of Army, as well as Lieutenant General 

Todd Semonite, who is the Chief of Engineers and Commanding 

General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Before we get to the opening statements, I would like to first welcome Mr. Fisher, who recently took over as the Acting Assistant 

Secretary of the Army for Civil Works in November 2017. While it 

is critical that we confirm a permanent Assistant Secretary as soon 

as possible, there is important work that needs to be done in the 

meantime, and we appreciate you filling in today and testifying before this Committee. 

I would also like to welcome back to the Committee Lieutenant 

General Semonite, who last testified before this Committee at a 

Transportation Infrastructure Subcommittee hearing last May regarding the economic benefits that water resources have for local 

communities and for State economies, as well as the national economy. 

So, I welcome you both here today and remind you that the full 

version of your written testimony will be made part of the official 

hearing record. Please keep your statements to 5 minutes so that 

we may have time for questions. Look forward to hearing from you. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, could I just say one thing? 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. The Finance Committee is meeting right now. 

We are having a markup on a couple of key nominees, and I am 

going to have to slip out probably close to 10:30. I will be back, but 

I don’t want to be disrespectful, it is just I wear a couple of different hats around here, like you do. Thanks so much. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Chairman, let me also say that there are 

nine members of this Committee that are also on the Commerce 

Committee, and it seems like we are always meeting at the same 

time, so you are going to see us disappearing and reappearing during the course of this hearing. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Fisher, please proceed. 

5 

STATEMENT OF RYAN FISHER, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS) AND ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORK), UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Mr. FISHER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Carper, members of the Committee, I am honored to testify before you 

today on the water infrastructure needs and challenges facing the 

Nation. I am joined today by Lieutenant General Todd Semonite, 

Chief of Engineers. He will also provide a short opening statement. 

As the Chairman mentioned, I was sworn in as the Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works in November and am currently serving as the Acting Assistant Secretary as 

well, and I very much look forward to working with this Committee 

as you move toward a possible WRDA bill. 

The Corps of Engineers has played a significant role in the development of the Nation’s water resources. The Civil Works program 

of the Corps has three main missions: commercial navigation, flood 

and storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. In 

this regard, the Corps work with our Nation’s coastal ports to 

maintain their channels, operates and maintains the inland waterways, supports State and local flood risk reduction efforts, works 

to restore significant aquatic ecosystems, and operates and maintains multipurpose dams and the reservoirs that are behind those. 

Additionally, the Corps is one of the top Federal providers of recreation in this Country. 

The Corps constructed much of its civil works infrastructure in 

the first half of the 20th century, so, as you can imagine, the Corps 

dedicates a significant amount of its resources to maintain those 

key features of this infrastructure. 

My office is working with the Administration as it continues to 

work on policy and administrative changes that can improve infrastructure delivery to the Nation, and Lieutenant General Semonite 

can elaborate a few examples where the Corps is making improvements within its regulatory program, as well as how it assists others in granting permission to modify existing civil works projects. 

The way that we use our water resources can affect the Nation’s 

economy, its environment, and public safety. The Army and the 

Corps stand ready to help in addressing the water resource challenges of the 21st century, and I look forward to working with you 

on this very important issue, and again I thank you for the opportunity to appear here and testify today. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fisher follows:] 

6 


30567.007
7 


30567.008
8 


30567.009
9 


30567.010
10 


30567.011
11 


30567.012
12 


30567.013
13 


30567.014
14 


30567.015
15 


30567.016
16 


30567.017
17 


30567.018
18 


30567.019
19 


30567.020
20 


30567.021
21 


30567.022
22 


30567.023
23 


30567.024
24 


30567.025
25 


30567.026
26 


30567.027
27 


30567.028
28 


30567.029
29 


30567.030
30 


30567.031
31 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Fisher. 

General SEMONITE. 

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL TODD T. SEMONITE, 

COMMANDING GENERAL AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. 

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

General SEMONITE. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and distinguished members of the Committee, it is my pleasure to be here today, accompanied by Mr. Fisher, to provide testimony on the significance of the Water Resources Development Act, 

which provides the United States Army Corps of Engineers valuable authorities to implement the broad Civil Works program. 

As Mr. Fisher mentioned, the Corps has played a significant role 

in the development of the Nation’s water resources. This infrastructure is a vital component of our national economy, enabling the 

low-cost shipment of goods through our coastal ports and on the inland waterways, reducing the flood risk to communities and businesses, and restoring aquatic ecosystems. 

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

and a half, and I continue to be amazed by the breadth and complexity of the Civil Works program, as well as the expertise and 

dedication of the professionals that work in our organization. It is 

my belief that the credibility of the Corps is measured by our ability to deliver results that are on time, on budget, and of exceptional 

quality. In order to achieve these standards, the Corps continues 

to evaluate itself on how we can best accomplish these outcomes. 

To be most effective at delivering the Nation’s water infrastructure 

needs, the Corps must become more efficient and consider new 

ways to prioritize, finance, and incentivize investments in water resource infrastructure. 

The Corps has sought to review and apply a wide array of authorities provided in recent Water Resource Development Acts in 

a diligent manner. We are rapidly approaching completion and 

communication of an implementation guidance for both the 2014 

and the 2016 Acts. Our team has endeavored to make substantial 

improvements in tracking and accelerating this progress, and, looking ahead, I believe that we can continue to improve our methodologies. 

The Corps is also working to develop policy and administrative 

advancements that can improve infrastructure delivery. More specifically, we are looking internally at our policies, regulations, organizations, and procedures in order to identify opportunities for increased efficiency and effectiveness. These efforts include reducing 

redundancy and delegating authority to decisionmaking to the most 

practical and appropriate level. Several examples include streamlining the review process for potential modifications to Civil Works 

projects and seeking improvements to the execution of the regulatory program. 

The Corps is fully committed to addressing the water resource 

challenges of the 21st century and seeks to evaluate opportunities 

to be more efficient and effective in the delivery of the Civil Works 

program. We recognize the significance of infrastructure investment to the Nation’s economy and we look forward to working with 

32 

this Committee as it develops a Water Resource Development Act 

for 2018. 

Thank you for allowing me the time today to address the Committee. 

33 


30567.032
34 


30567.033
35 


30567.034
36 


30567.035
37 


30567.036
38 


30567.037
39 


30567.038
40 


30567.039
41 


30567.040
42 


30567.041
43 


30567.042
44 


30567.043
45 


30567.044
46 


30567.045
47 


30567.046
48 


30567.047
49 


30567.048
50 


30567.049
51 


30567.050
52 


30567.051
53 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much to both of you for 

your testimony. We have a number of members here with lots of 

interest and will ask about certain projects that are going on. 

I would like to start. General Semonite, rural communities in 

Wyoming affected by ice jam flooding, the city of Worland that you 

are very familiar with, they are anxious to see projects built under 

the Ice Jam Prevention and Mitigation Pilot Program authorized by 

Section 1150 in the WIIN Act. Could you just give us an update 

of the status of the Corps’ implementation of this Ice Jam Prevention and Mitigation Pilot Program? 

General SEMONITE. Yes, sir. So, right now we have four pilots 

that we are working. One of these is an active pilot. It is in Mile 

City, Montana and it goes back to fully look at some innovative approaches to be able to do ice jams. Worland, Wyoming is clearly one 

of the ones that we want to continue to keep working. We are 

pending new start approval and funding right now, but we have received a request from a letter to be able to put this in the CAP 

data base and continue to work this out. 

There is a third one in Platte River, Nebraska and a fourth one 

in Yellowstone River, Montana to be able to continue to find, I 

think, innovative ways. And you and I have talked about this in 

the past. We have to be able to figure out how can we use some 

of these emerging technologies to be able to try to bring down this 

disaster response. 

I have also personally talked to my Cold Regions Laboratory in 

Hanover, New Hampshire on ways that they can do this, innovative approaches, and continue to infuse those in there. We are certainly willing to do up to ten of these pilots. Right now we have 

only really seen four different communities that are interested. 

There is a cost share to this, so that is where the communities 

have to be able to find available funds. But we are committed to 

continue to make progress in this ice jam initiative to be able to 

bring down that risk. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Mr. Fisher, since the General mentioned the CAP, the Continuing Authorities Program, I just want to ask you a little bit 

about that, because, as this is carried out by the Corps, it is vital 

to many rural communities. In particular, one of its several authorities concerns flood risk management challenges. What are 

your plans to help ensure that flood risk management projects that 

are backlogged in the CAP program queue are studied and billed 

in an efficient manner? And is there anything Congress can do to 

help the program succeed? 

Mr. FISHER. So, yes, sir, the backlog is real, as was mentioned 

earlier, and it applies to every program, CAP included. I believe 

you are referencing the Section 205 flood risk program. The Administration, we are open to everything, basically. We have seen opportunities for contributed funds agreements, where non-Federal interests can contribute money toward construction, or even operation and maintenance in some cases. There is a lot of discussion, 

obviously, of the P3 public-private partnerships that this Administration is open to pursuing, as well. But as you mentioned, yes, $96 

billion backlog and a budget that is roughly $5 billion, $6 billion 

a year, that is very real and the Administration looks forward to 

54 

working with this Committee to find innovative ways to bolster 

that CAP program and other programs as well. 

Senator BARRASSO. General Semonite, rural communities still 

face challenges associated with providing long-term water supply 

and storage. Federal water storage facilities out west continue to 

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

problem for western States’ economies where there are rapidly 

growing populations enlarging energy industries, agriculture operations. 

In 2016, Section 1115 of the Water Infrastructure Improvements 

for the Nation Act was enacted to help address this problem by creating the pilot programs to enable removal of sediment in Corps 

and Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs. Can you give us a little status on how things are going there? 

General SEMONITE. Yes, sir. And we are worried about sediment 

buildup. I mean, the Nation has spent a lot of money building some 

of these structures. We want to make sure, first of all, we are optimizing that capacity. The more sediment goes in, obviously, the 

less water you can keep in there or the less flood control capacity. 

On the other hand, that continues to put pressure on the backside 

of these dams. Wherever we can mitigate that, we want to do it. 

We need to do it in an environmentally sensitive way. And the particular WRDA you are talking about does allow us to look at 10 different pilots to be able to go back and look at how can we remove 

sediment from behind dams. To be honest with you, though, we 

have not found partners right now that necessarily want to go into 

those pilots. So, we want to continue to stay open to that. 

One of the things we do want to do, though, is look at those technologies. We have an environmental advisory board. We bring in 

some of the best from academia that are out in the Nation. I met 

with them in the Everglades last week, and some of the technologies we have seen in some areas where they are actually taking sediment, pumping it right over that structure and letting nature put that sediment back down in there. Now, we have to think 

about the environmental parts of that, but this might not be where 

you have to come in and dredge out the back of that dam and then 

find a way of getting rid of it; but how can you use regional sediment management to somehow let nature refresh where that sediment needs to go, and then you are really solving two problems 

with one. 

So, this is some of the innovative stuff we have to do to find out. 

Don’t just do it the old way, just the expensive way; how can we 

think out of the box and still do it so it is environmentally friendly. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. 

Senator CARPER. Question, if I could, for Mr. Fisher. Have you 

ever been to Delaware? 

Mr. FISHER. Sir, I have not, not in this capacity. 

Senator CARPER. Have you ever been to Maryland? 

Mr. FISHER. Yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Well, you have been to Delmarva, but not to the 

Del portion of Delmarva. 

55 

We are proud of our beaches. We have, the last time I checked, 

more five-star beaches in Delaware, believe it or not, than, I think, 

maybe any other State. And there is some pretty good competition 

around us, so that is pretty good talking stuff. 

Senator Cardin has a lot of interest in beach nourishment and 

beach replenishment, and certainly so do a lot of States up and 

down the East Coast. But for us in our State, we have maybe even 

more interest in the construction of a dune system that actually 

helps protect our beaches, not just our beaches, from loss down to 

Ocean City line, the Maryland line, but a dune system that protects not just our boardwalks, not just our businesses in the coastal 

towns, not just the folks who live there, our infrastructure, roads, 

highways, bridges, water, sewer, but all the above. And what we 

found out in the money that we spend in dune protection for our 

coastal towns, the cost of that is not cheap, but the cost of that is 

small compared to the cost of replacing one major hotel. So, it is 

really cost-effective. 

I don’t know that we do as good a job as we ought to be able to 

do on cost-benefit ratio, but here is my question. And if you can’t 

answer this one right off the top of your head, then I will ask you 

to do it for the record. But it is important to us and it is important 

certainly to other States up and down the East Coast. But beach 

nourishment projects tend not to compete well in benefit-cost ratio 

analysis, which, compared to larger projects like ports. We have a 

great interest in ports as well, like the Port of Wilmington. How 

should we update or how could we update the benefit-cost ratio to 

incorporate more value from these types of projects into the assessment? 

Mr. FISHER. Certainly. And I probably will have to do some research on this and get back to you with a fuller answer. BCR, as 

you know, is about maximizing return on investment; it is an opportunity cost calculation, and we certainly want to be looking at 

all the benefits of those dune projects and that sort of thing to 

make sure we are calculating all those effectively. But, yes, I will 

commit to providing you further information as I further research 

and briefed on that topic. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. We look forward to that soon. Thank you. 

General Semonite, you want to make a quick comment on that? 

General SEMONITE. Sure. 

Senator CARPER. Let me just say again Delaware has a love affair with the Army Corps of Engineers. We just love the folks who 

work out of your Philadelphia office and just value very much the 

wonderful work they do not just for us, but up and down the Delmarva. Thank you. 

General SEMONITE. Sir, to address your issue, and I think a 

theme that I would want to stress today is that just as you said 

up front, $96 billion of construction backlog, this Country can’t afford that, so we have to find innovative ways of having some of the 

stakeholders put some skin in the game. And if they are able to 

do that and somehow we can change the benefit-cost ratio to a 

point where now their project is able to see funding, then I think 

we have incentivized a lot of these people to be able to take some 

of that burden off the Federal Government. Right now, the processes don’t necessarily allow, if somebody were to give money in, 

56 

to be able to add more to their cost share or to put more money 

in from that particular area. You would like to think that those 

would compete better to be able to bring down the Federal bill and 

also make those things more viable. 

So I think as we work with the Committee, is it benefit-cost ratio 

or remaining benefit-cost ratio, it goes back to how OMB scores 

these, and how can somehow we find a way of changing some of 

this to a degree relatively a metric-based process to put a little bit 

more common sense back into how we use the Federal dollar. 

Senator CARPER. Earlier in my time, in fact, when I was Governor, the Federal Government put up a very large portion of these 

projects on our coast. The State share was raised, as you know, a 

few years ago. States now pay more than one-third of the cost of 

most of these projects, which is, I think, appropriate. I think it is 

appropriate. 

I have a question now, if I could, for both Mr. Fisher and General 

Semonite. In past budget cycles, my staff and I have worked to find 

out why Delaware projects were not included in the President’s 

budget. A big one that was included was the dredging of the Delaware River Channel and Delaware Bay Channel, which is important for a number of our States, including New Jersey and PA. But 

on more than one occasion it appears that a given project was 

somehow mistakenly deleted or omitted during the Administration’s budget develop and review process, including the Office of 

Management and Budget. We find this Administration black box to 

be a problem and a disservice to the American people. How do we 

create a more transparent and collaborative process to ensure that 

local and regional priorities do receive funding? 

As you know, while Corps projects have a large national value, 

many times they primarily impact the local economy or the local 

health and safety, and it seems this gets lost in the current budgeting process. Any ideas on how we might address this? Thank you. 

Mr. FISHER. Well, we certainly want to be working with all the 

relevant cost share partners and stakeholders on projects, be it in 

Delaware or anywhere. 

Senator CARPER. I like that, Delaware or anywhere. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FISHER. But, no, this Administration, in the budget process, 

obviously, the Fiscal Year 2019 budget is being developed now, 

and, with limited resources, we want to make sure that we are targeting taxpayer funds where they are most needed, using risk-informed decisions to target that funding. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. 

General SEMONITE. Sir, I think the word you used, transparent, 

we are committed to continue to be up-front and open, and to be 

able to make sure we are having this dialog. So, you talk about 

what is a national project, what is a local project. Wilmington Harbor right now is a great example. They are looking to try to have 

a new access channel, so we assigned an MOA to try to figure out 

how can we continue to be able to coach them through how to make 

their project viable and to be able to compete. So that is where we 

want to make sure we are up-front. What are some of the trap 

lines? What are some of the lessons learned we have learned? And 

then at some given point the best thing we can do in the Corps is 

57 

to give Mr. Fisher and you our recommendations of where the best 

use of that Federal dollar is. 

Now, if it doesn’t meet the cut line, then that is something we 

have to go back and look at. But I think when it goes to that, 

whether it is harbor deepening or some of these other infrastructure projects, the value back to the Nation here is unbelievable, 

and we have to be able to champion some of those the best we can. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks so much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Fisher, following Senator Carper’s lead, have you ever 

been to Oklahoma? 

Mr. FISHER. I have not, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. Well, we may have to correct that, because we have some specific problems in Oklahoma that we have 

been working with the Corps, and I think we have sent letters to 

the Corps and OMB on the importance of prioritizing new start 

programs, some of our levee system that we have. Senator 

Boozman and I are very much concerned also about some of the 

problems we have with our best kept secret, and that is that my 

State of Oklahoma houses the most inland port in America, and we 

do have ships, barges coming up and down. But Senator Boozman 

and I are very much concerned about the condition of the locks and 

the dams, and we have been talking about that for a long period 

of time, and I would hope that we would be able to address this 

as we look at the Fiscal Year 2019 budget, as well as the Fiscal 

Year 2018 work plan. So just keep that in mind, and any comments 

you want to make about that at a later time would be fine. 

In the WRDA bill in 2007, that was 10 years ago, I authored Section 3134, creating an innovative program for lakes within Oklahoma and elsewhere in America. This had been a contentious subject for a long time and we have had quotes from various people 

that have been in the Corps for a long period of time saying we are 

not in the recreational business, we are not going to be involved 

in that. However, they are involved. Anyway, just to make sure 

there is no question about that, I added language at that time, 10 

years ago, and we actually, in the WIIN Act, more recently, removed the sunset provision to ensure that lake development innovation can be pursued by the Corps and used in other districts, too. 

While we have seen a couple of truly great developments, and we 

have in Oklahoma, we have, unfortunately, been told that Congress 

did not provide the Corps with any additional authorities needed 

to actually be innovative. 

Now, General Semonite, do you agree with that statement? 

General SEMONITE. Sir, you know—— 

Senator INHOFE. It was made on behalf of the Corps. A quick answer is fine. 

General SEMONITE. We definitely want to be as innovative as we 

can. I am not convinced that there is a funding piece there, though, 

that I can necessarily put my arms around. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. Now, this is what I am going to ask you 

to do, because I can’t find out what it is that we didn’t do to give 

you the authority to do it, so I would like to maybe get a report 

from you or someone you can have address this subject, say, in the 

58 

next week or so. Let us know what are the obstacles out there, because I can’t find them. 

Second, the city of Bartlesville, Oklahoma currently has three 

water storage contracts at a particular lake and the most recent 

contract was secured at a rate of $67.38 per acre foot. Now, that 

was the quote that we got, and it has been activated, from the 

Corps of Engineers. 

Now, it is a growing city. They have problems over there and 

they have actually increased their use by 100 percent, and they 

really can’t do much more. However, they just tried to get another 

quote from the Tulsa District Corps of Engineers, and that quote 

was $1,997 per acre foot. Now, it has gone up from $16 to $2,000 

an acre foot, and obviously that is something that can’t be provided. 

Now, my office initiated a dialog between the district and the city 

to find a compromise. It is my understanding that the district will 

be reaching out to the division and headquarters in order to do so. 

The Water Supply Act of 1958 directs the Corps to cooperate with 

States and local interests in developing water supplies in conjunction with Federal water projects. 

Now, the problem that we had with the district office is that this 

is out of our jurisdiction; we are going to have to go up the ladder. 

Well, today we are going up the ladder; that is you. And we would 

like to have your—are you familiar with this problem in that particular city? 

General SEMONITE. Sir, I am not familiar other than the last 24 

hours. There was a GAO report that talked about Corps pricing. 

And I hate to say it, but the way that the rules were established 

several years ago, that pricing is different when it comes to Stateto-State and city-to-city. Depends on how much did the project cost, 

when was it built, what were the authorized—— 

Senator INHOFE. That is the GAO—— 

General SEMONITE. That is the GAO report. So, the Tulsa District has provided a proposal to our Southwestern Division as of the 

last couple days. I will take a look at it. I will get back with you. 

I agree with you, you can’t have that level of an increase, $67 to 

$1,900. Something sounds wrong there. Sounds to me like we have 

our hands tied with how we charge water supply rates based on 

the project’s original construction cost, the year of the agreement, 

inflation, etcetera. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. 

General SEMONITE. So there is some formula that we are probably caught into, and we have to figure out how to get relief from 

that. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, my time has expired, but you know that 

GAO has stated in this report that they didn’t get the ample information from the Corps to be able to make these determinations. 

General SEMONITE. Then I will solve that, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. Very good. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, thank you both for your commitment to our Country. 

As you can hear from the passion of the folks, such important 

59 

projects for our communities are often the difference between security and safety and destruction or worse in some senses. 

I want to focus in about the Rahway River Flood Control Project. 

This is an extremely high priority for tens of thousands of people 

in my constituents who live in the impacted area, which happens 

to be some of the most populated counties in my State. I want to 

reiterate that the storms in November 2007, Hurricane Irene, 2011 

damaged hundreds and hundreds of homes and cost businesses 

over $100 million due to the flood damage. I cannot overState the 

importance to my constituents and the risks that they face from 

flooding from the Rahway River and the importance of finding a 

way forward on this incredible project. I know you are familiar 

with it, probably pretty intimately, at least I hope so. 

There is so much concern at the end of the day that we will have 

studied this a lot, for over a decade, and little gets done. There is 

rising skepticism among some of my local leaders, cynicism that we 

are facing now. And I know that we can work together to overcome 

that skepticism, that cynicism, and you all have shown to me in 

the past your incredible creativity and engineering expertise, and 

I know that if we cooperate together with the local leaders that we 

can get this done and move forward. 

So my first question, Lieutenant General, is I understand that 

there are ongoing discussions with the Corps that may be willing 

to both extend the 3x3x3 Rules, which I know you are familiar 

with, and continue the elevation of the project by doing a detailed 

geotechnical study of the Orange River Reservoir Dam. Can you 

confirm that, sir? 

General SEMONITE. Senator, I can confirm that we are very involved with this. We do have the authority to extend the waiver, 

and we have extended a waiver to be able to make that study go 

longer. The other thing is we are very worried about the safety of 

that. This is a State dam, not a Federal dam, and some of the proposals that were asked for was to be able to do something that we 

don’t think, in good engineering science, you can just go in and do. 

They were going to make some more outlet structures. 

We want to work with the State to find a solution, but the actual 

recommended solution from the State we don’t think is 

engineeringly viable. So, this is where we want to work with the 

locals to be able to figure out how we can get a better solution, continue the study to be able to figure out what options are out there, 

and then the question is how can we continue to make sure that 

it does compete for funding, if in fact we see the need out there. 

But we are very concerned about the importance of that particular dam and we are committed to work with the State to try 

to find a solution, but it might not be the solution that the locals 

want. It is a very tight, constricted area and it is a very complicated dam. We know this one well, so we need to be able to really come up with a solution that is probably going to take a different 

engineering solution. 

Senator BOOKER. No, I appreciate that. I think the commitment 

of being willing to extend the 3x3x3, that is huge, and your willingness to be creative in working with the locals to come up with a 

solution that works on both sides, that kind of passion is important. That kind of commitment is important to me. 

60 

General SEMONITE. Yes, Senator. And the cost of this is going to 

be out of the box. This is a very narrow area, so you are going to 

probably have to make the footprint bigger, so I am just saying it 

is not going to be an easy fix. But we are committed to find as 

much innovative solutions as we can, or at least be able to somehow put other mitigating effects in place to be able to bring down 

the risk to the local people that are there. 

Senator BOOKER. That, I appreciate. For Senator Menendez and 

I this is such a top priority because, as you know, New Jersey is 

the most densely populated State in terms of population, and this 

is one of our most densely populated areas in a densely populated 

State, so I am really grateful for that commitment; it means a lot 

to me. 

I want to, with my last minute here, really quick. The Federal 

flood risk management standard, you know that that has been 

changed, and after what we are seeing about a lot of the flooding 

and the challenges facing Texas and the Virgin Islands and Puerto 

Rico, the rule that was repealed would simply ensure that federally 

funded projects in a floodplain, such as roads, bridges, hospitals, 

infrastructure are built to withstand extreme weather and flooding 

that is often driven by some of the impacts we are seeing of climate 

change. So as the Federal Government is allocating tens of billions 

of dollars to help these communities to rebuild, I think it is essential that we make sound investments that will withstand the extreme weather. 

So, the simple question I have really quick is as the Army Corps 

continues to work to help communities rebuild from natural disasters, how important do you think it is to have strong flood risk 

management standards that take into account climate science and 

the sea level rise that is happening? 

General SEMONITE. Senator, I think it is very important. We are 

right in the middle of doing Puerto Rico and the Virgins right now, 

when you talk about resiliency there, so we have a lot of experience. But it does go back to we can’t afford to continue to build 

products that are not going to be able to take care of what nature 

could throw at us. So, we have to be able to put that in accordance 

with the current authorities we have and to be able to continue to 

think of the deep fight. When we do plans and we do projects, we 

factor in how is that going to react when it comes to climate change 

or sea level rise. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate your 

comments. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Booker. 

Senator FISCHER. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Fisher and General, for being here today. 

As I have mentioned many times before in this Committee, Nebraska operates a very unique system with our 23 natural resource 

districts, which are based on river basin boundaries rather than 

county lines. Our NRDs are governed by locally elected boards, enabling them to be effective in addressing local water concerns. 

Many times the NRDs are the local partners for a lot of the Corpsrelated projects. 

61 

However, due to the Corps’ inability to operate in a time-efficient 

manner, these local partners are faced with astronomical costs and 

delayed projects. For example, one NRD has been working for the 

past 8 years to secure a 408 permit to begin construction of the 

Missouri River levees that protect Offutt Air Force Base, and currently this NRD has spent nearly $5 million to secure this permit. 

Even more concerning is that the NRD has worked with six different permit review teams from the Omaha District Corps office. 

After eight very painful years and millions of dollars spent, the 

original levee design has changed very little. Consequently, the 

permitting process has added very little safety or resiliency value 

to the project. The delay in acquiring the 408 permit has undoubtedly added millions of dollars to the construction costs of the 

project, but, more importantly, it has placed Offutt Air Force Base, 

its personnel, private citizens, private and public property, and billions of dollars in infrastructure at an unnecessary risk because the 

levees are not yet rehabilitated. 

General, I will ask you first. In your professional experience, is 

this delay acceptable? And will you commit to me today to expedite 

approval of the 408 permit for this project? 

General SEMONITE. Senator, I will, not just for that project. What 

we have done in the last year, and I said this in my opening statement, I hate to say it, but over the last hundreds of years we have 

migrated a lot of stuff to Washington, DC. that probably didn’t 

need to come here. The real true technical experts, a lot of times, 

are the local districts and those divisions. So, a 408 process, it got 

to the point where it was so backlogged that this caused us to be 

able to look at ourselves and say how can we delegate in power this 

down to the generals and the colonels that we hire to do this job. 

So, since I have talked to you last, the 408 program has completely 

been delegated back to the division and the district; there will be 

no 408 approvals in Washington, DC. 

I don’t know the exact process on the Offutt one, but I will find 

out, ma’am. 

Senator FISCHER. But, sir, my issue here is with the district office, it is with the district office that has had six different permit 

review teams, that has spent 8 years in reviewing this project that 

has cost local taxpayers $5 million. And we can’t get this done for 

Offutt Air Force Base, which is home to the 55th Wing, which is 

home to STRATCOM, to build levees to protect this base. That is 

my issue, sir, it is with the local district. 

General SEMONITE. OK, so, ma’am, I have to find out. I don’t 

know exactly this deal. Most of the time the districts do have to 

send it up the chain. It starts at the district, but it had to come 

to Corps Headquarters, so we have delegated it down. We know 

Offutt very well; we are building STRATCOM’s headquarters. We 

are very committed to the Air Force contingent back at Offutt, so 

I will find out what the status of this permit is. And unless there 

is something that we are doing that is either not in the realm of 

engineering science, there should be no reason why we can’t find 

a solution to that permit. I don’t know the details, so I can’t promise you we will approve it, but we will certainly get rapid resolution. 

62 

It goes back to this whole streamlining thing. We should not 

have to take years to be able to resolve permits. 

Senator FISCHER. And I would appreciate that, because it affects 

the base, it affects national security, it affects our local communities. So, I would appreciate hearing from you soon on that, sir. 

Thank you. 

Mr. Fisher, how do you believe the Administration can assure us 

that the Corps is operating effectively and efficiently so that 

projects can be budgeted for completion and finished to provide for 

the public health and safety of the communities and citizens that 

these projects were designed to protect? 

Mr. FISHER. Sure. Thank you. As has been discussed today by 

various members and myself, we recognize the construction backlog, and this Administration certainly wants to look at the innovative ways that the General has mentioned, contributed funds, other 

partnerships that, when we authorize something in a WRDA bill, 

that we can ultimately get to a completed project on those things. 

Senator FISCHER. Well, thank you. And I would ask if you will 

commit to me that the Corps is going to review Section 408 permitting process and determine if it is needed for flood control projects. 

And once the Corps has made this determination, will you provide 

an update to this Committee? 

Mr. FISHER. Yes, I can commit to that, working with the General 

on the 408 process and filing any report and communication that 

is needed. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. I look forward to hearing from both 

of you. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Fisher, thank you for your testimony, particularly looking for innovative ways. We all recognize that the backlog and resources are a mismatch here, and we have to find ways to move 

forward on very important projects for our communities and for our 

economy. 

General Semonite, I appreciate very much your leadership in so 

many ways working with us. I will just mention what Senator Carper mentioned on beach renourishment. We talked about adapting 

to the realities of climate. The beach renourishments have saved 

millions and millions of dollars in property losses and has been our 

first offense against these storms. So, there are many reasons why 

we are pleased that we have been able to keep, actually we are a 

little ahead of schedule on the beach renourishments on the Atlantic coast of Delmarva, so thank you very much for your help in all 

of that. 

I want to talk about one of the highest priorities in Maryland. 

You are not going to be surprised that I am going to mention Mid 

Bay. But I want to go back to Poplar Island, which was innovative 

at the time. We had never had a project that would be a location 

for dredge material, but would also be an environmental restoration where we would have a win-win situation that would not only 

allow us to move forward with dredging that was desperately needed for the economics of the shipping lanes, but also give us a plus 

for the community, which helped their local economy as well. So, 

63 

it was a win-win situation and Poplar Island has been very, very 

successful thanks to the courage of Congress to authorize this and 

the Corps to move forward with it. 

The challenge is that we now need a second location, and Mid 

Bay is the second location within the Chesapeake Bay for the location of dredge materials. It has been authorized by Congress in 

2014, so we are on schedule. 

Just to followup on Senator Fischer’s point about time, we need 

to be fully operational by 2029, and, in order to meet that date, we 

can’t lose any of the dates moving forward. And we are concerned 

because it has not been budgeted for the first phase of 

preconstruction engineering, which is a matter of concern to all of 

us. 

So my question to you is will you work with this Committee to 

do whatever we need to do within the next WRDA authorization to 

make sure Mid Bay stays on schedule? We understand funding 

issues, but stays on schedule from the point of view of congressional authorization? 

General SEMONITE. Sir, I will talk a little bit about the project 

and I will let Mr. Fisher talk perhaps about the funding and the 

future commitments. 

First of all, you and I met here a couple months ago. We had to 

get a revalidation on that done. The dredge material management 

plan has been approved since you and I met. We do have now the 

report. I will sign by the 31st of January basically a revised report 

that goes back to Mr. Fisher that validates that particular thing. 

I think for all of the members in the Committee, I am concerned 

about dredge material management, and we, as we continue in this 

Nation to deepen harbors or to keep these harbors maintained, that 

material management is getting harder and harder to deal with. 

And if we don’t think of innovative ways like Poplar Island and 

Mid Bay to be able to find environmentally sensitive ways of doing 

it, we are going to end up shutting down some of these harbors, 

and we can’t afford that to happen. I was the guy that briefed Mid 

Bay back in 2007, when we came in here to say that this was a 

good project. 

So, right now, what will happen is that report that I will sign 

will go to Mr. Fisher. It has to be cleared by OMB. If that happens 

and Mr. Fisher has the ability to be able to put PED money against 

it without any additional authority, he has that under his control. 

So, we think that from a Corps perspective we are on plan to continue with the process. 

And I will let Mr. Fisher talk about any of the funding commitments. 

Mr. FISHER. So, yes, we certainly want to work, when it gets to 

my desk, for there to be no surprises. I want to be able to work 

hand-in-hand with the General so that when it does come to our 

office we can expedite and help the project move forward and meet 

those 2029 and other milestones and deadlines you referenced. 

General SEMONITE. I think, Senator Cardin, the other thing is we 

are using Mid Bay and Poplar Island as ways around the whole 

Nation that we should be doing some of this. We are looking at an 

option right now in the Upper Mississippi River. We have some 

other options we are working out in California. This ability to be 

64 

able to find an ecological restoration, but done on dredge material, 

is a smart way to go. We did the same thing in New York Harbor 

and Jamaica Bay, so it is the way. The Corps has to think out of 

the box to solve two problems with one. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, General, I very much appreciate your 

leadership on these types of projects. 

Mr. Secretary, I just urge you that in the OMB-type bureaucracies, these types of programs are not well understood, and unless 

we have an advocate, it can be delayed, and when it is delayed it 

looks like it could become an earmark in Congress rather than an 

authorized program by Congress. We have those hurdles we have 

to overcome. So, all I am suggesting is to stay on schedule, and I 

appreciate your willingness to do everything we can to stay on 

schedule. It does require us to be innovative to make sure that the 

formal requirements have been met so that the funding can continue and we don’t run into a process obstacle from OMB, so we 

need your help. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Senator ERNST. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Gentlemen, thank you for being here today. 

General Semonite, always good to see you. I am sure you know 

the topic that I am going to bring up this morning, the Cedar Rapids Flood Mitigation Project. 

Mr. Fisher, you and the General have both made references to 

value back to the Nation when it comes to the benefit-cost ratio. 

But when you talk about value back to the Nation, I think when 

you are referring to the BCR, you often, or what that brings to 

mind is the fact that those places with higher property values are 

worth much more to our Nation than the rural areas where property values are lower. And, since 2008, Cedar Rapids has experienced two major floods that have cost the city billions, billions of 

dollars in damages and lost economic activity. 

Despite being authorized in WRRDA 2014 and mentioned for 

prioritization in 2016, the project has not received any Federal 

funding due to the low benefit-cost ratio that results from the city’s 

relatively low property values. The Cedar Rapids Flood Project is 

$600 million in total; the Federal cost share of that is only $73 million. So, the city is bearing the brunt of that project, while the Federal Government would have $73 million to contribute. 

Now, going back to the BCR, the metric, as currently calculated, 

is very problematic. The lives and livelihoods of the people in Cedar 

Rapids are just as important as those of individuals who reside in 

those coastal areas with higher property values. A solution is needed to ensure that all areas of the Country have a fair shot when 

competing for these important Corps projects. 

So, General Semonite, we have talked about this before. I am 

going to refer back to the December confirmation of R.D. James, 

the President’s nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Civil Works. He committed to working with me and OMB to modify 

the BCR metrics in a timely manner, and I am going to quote his 

words: ‘‘It’s not right that there’s people in this Country who will 

65 

never ever get any type of water infrastructure project under the 

current BCR analysis.’’ 

Do you agree with Mr. James’s assertion, and do you also agree 

that the metrics need to be changed? 

General SEMONITE. Ma’am, I personally do agree that the metrics 

need to be changed. We can’t do one-size-fits-all or one-metric-fitsall. Your specific area is one where the local people out there saved 

lives because they were very, very aggressive in getting that flood 

fighting done, and we were lucky, to a degree, that somebody didn’t 

get hurt out there. But I think we have to go back in and take a 

look at this. I am not convinced, though, that under the current 

metric we are going to see the light of day on this one. So, this is 

where we have to do something different, either change the metric 

or go back and somehow reformulate the project to be able to figure 

out how can we get the cost down and maybe bring the risk down. 

I had a meeting with my guys yesterday to say we have to be able 

to figure out how to solve this somehow. Just plugging through and 

beating our head against the wall on this one is not going to make 

progress, so we either have to change the metric or go back in and 

actually say is there some way that we can redesign it to come into 

a benefit-cost ratio that is in line with current OMB metrics. 

Senator ERNST. I appreciate that, and I will hold you to that because we do have to make progress on this. We have been through 

a number of flood events there and we will probably have another 

flood event before we get this solved. 

In Fiscal Year 2017, five projects received funding under the 

human safety exception, five, human safety exception, which gives 

the Corps discretion to fund projects with low BCRs if it deems 

there is a significant risk to human safety. Four of the five projects 

were in California. Four of five. And in a December 2016 letter to 

me, the Corps indicated that the decisions are determined on a 

case-by-case basis. 

Can you shed some light on this process, because, as we have 

discussed in this Committee before, there does seem to be a black 

hole of decisionmaking? Can you talk to me about the process and 

how those decisions are arrived? 

General SEMONITE. So, ma’am, I am not exactly an expert on 

this, but I did talk to Mr. Fisher yesterday. I think we both have 

to take a look at this process and go back, especially on that particular project, is there the ability to be able to apply this human 

exemption back on that particular project and revisit that decision, 

if nothing else, based on some of the other ones we have learned, 

and based on the fact that I don’t necessarily see this thing happening the normal way. So, unless we are innovative in thinking 

what other tool in our kit bag can we use to get it authorized, then 

I don’t see it happening, so this is where I think we both have to 

take a hard look at it. 

You and I have talked several times on this. I would love to come 

back and say here is the realm of what, if anything, the Committee 

needs to do to have this one see the light of day. 

Senator ERNST. We will have you back, sir. You are welcome in 

my office any time, and I look forward to having those discussions. 

General SEMONITE. Thanks, ma’am. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you very much. 

66 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Ernst. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here. We look forward 

to working with you as we do our next WRDA bill. And although 

this is not always a bipartisan Committee in the area of interest 

to you, it is a bipartisan Committee, and I hope you take advantage 

of that fact. 

One of the predicaments that coastal States like mine face is the 

sea level rising along our shores. NOAA has recently increased its 

predictions for global sea level rise and, in certain areas, particularly in my State, because of the way the ocean flows and works, 

that actually gets amplified a little bit further. 

Let me ask you first if the Army Corps has any quarrel or dispute with those NOAA sea level rise projections. 

General SEMONITE. Sir, I am not sure that I am smart enough 

to know on how they apply to Rhode Island right now. I don’t 

think, fundamentally, we have any—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, we will take care of that for you. We 

have very good people working on it. 

General SEMONITE. And, sir, I will ask the New England District 

as well so that we can take a look. I know you are specifically concerned about—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Do you have any quarrel or dispute with 

the NOAA general sea level rise findings that they have proposed? 

General SEMONITE. No, sir. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So, you will be taking that information 

into account in your planning of coastal projects? 

General SEMONITE. We take that, along with any other technical 

information that is out there, sir. Our expectation is to make sure 

we are using the best science available. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And particularly where you are dealing 

with long-lived projects, it is important, is it not, to understand the 

conditions that those projects will be facing all the way through 

their useful life, and not just at the point of completion of the construction? 

General SEMONITE. Fox Point is a great example of that, sir. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. We are probably going to have to rebuild all that at some point fairly soon, and we have people in 

Rhode Island starting to look at how we wall off the city of Providence from much heightened storms. 

We have an additional problem, which is that the FEMA projections for coastal flooding have, over and over, been proved very 

badly wrong. In Houston and in Florida they just had some pretty 

harsh experience of what the flooding actually looked like compared to what FEMA maps had predicted. In Rhode Island we have 

very good work that has been done at the local level looking into 

how FEMA got its maps done with huge anomalies like multi-foot 

discrepancies on either side of one of the transects that gets done, 

which is obviously impossible in nature, and yet was obviously satisfying to the contractors who did this work for FEMA. 

So, I think we have two problems. One, as Members of Congress, 

we need to make sure that FEMA’s mapping gets up to speed and 

that communities are not being asked to rely on false information 

67 

and bad mapping estimates. But the second thing is we have you 

to work with. And to the extent that you, in your projections, are 

relying on those same FEMA maps, and not trying to improve or 

supplement them, your work faces the same problem that we face. 

How are you addressing this problem of FEMA’s erroneous coastal flood mapping? 

General SEMONITE. Sir, I probably don’t have a good answer for 

that on the fact that I don’t think we lean just on FEMA. I think 

we look at the rest of that science out there. NOAA is another very, 

very reliable source. I don’t think we are 100 percent reliable on 

FEMA. We take that information and obviously there are going to 

be different interpretations of it, but if you need to, I will certainly 

come back and give you a better answer specifically with Rhode Island. But right now I think when it goes back to you have two 

things you addressed. One is future projects we have to look at, 

how do we make sure we wrap sea level rise and climate change 

into that; and then the other one existing infrastructure. That barrier is a 1958 barrier, so a lot has changed in the last 50 years. 

How do we make sure—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. What used to be adequate is not adequate. 

General SEMONITE. And then is there a modification we can 

make? Do we need to figure out how to study it? But you are right 

on the point. We have to be able to figure the requirement and the 

risk before we can start putting an engineering solution in. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am down to 30 seconds, so let me ask my 

last question, which is that in your Fiscal Year 2018 budget, the 

Army Corps of Engineers designates $1.32 billion for what the 

Army Corps describes as inland projects. And the Fiscal Year 2018 

budget defines $46 million in proposed expenditure for what it defines as coastal projects. That is a 30:1 ratio favoring inland 

projects over coastal projects. Should that be the case? And particularly should that be the case in the light of the dramatic changes 

that coastal States are seeing? 

Mr. FISHER. Yes, Senator, I will take that question. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Because we are on the losing end of 30:1 

in Rhode Island. 

Mr. FISHER. Right. I understand that. I appreciate the concern. 

The budget amount, Fiscal Year 2018 budget amount is appropriate given the President’s fiscal priorities and the Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works responsibilities, and the need to reduce the Federal deficit, as well. But I appreciate the concern. I will certainly 

look into that discrepancy between inland versus coastal and look 

forward to working with you and this Committee further on that 

and what the rationale behind that might be. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. Thirty to 1 seems like a lot, 

particularly given what is happening along our coasts. Thank you, 

sir. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Shelby. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Fisher, thank you. We are hoping before long you will 

only have one hat to wear, because it is difficult to wear two, but 

you are doing a good job of it. But I know that you are in the policy 

area; I know what your job is, to approve things. I don’t know if 

you have been to Alabama or not, but I know you are aware of our 

68 

problems down there in Mobile and what we are trying to do, and 

that is what counts. But I know the General has; he has spent a 

lot of time in the Mobile area and he knows, so I want to address 

some of my questions to him. 

General, we have been through this before and I have talked 

with you about this, but bring us up to date on your view of where 

we are going, where we are as far as deepening the Port of Mobile 

from 45 feet, say, to 50 feet, and also widening it, because a lot of 

us believe that is a game-changer down there. 

General SEMONITE. Senator, I think you are the one that said 

your top 10 priorities are Mobile Harbor. 

Senator SHELBY. No. 1. 

General SEMONITE. Yes, sir. So, we certainly understand that. 

There is a lot of potential in Mobile Harbor, as there are in a lot 

of these other coastal ports that continue to help the Nation’s economy. Right now we are right in the middle of a GRR, a re-evaluation report. As you and I have talked, I would love to be able to 

get that done earlier. Our current estimate is to have that done by 

November 19, which will then set that up for Mr. Fisher to be able 

to approve PED money, which is that design, which means that 

theoretically you could continue to see a lot of progress going. 

I would love to try to push that to the left. I will talk to the district commander and see what we can do to accelerate that. On the 

other hand, because we want to make sure we have a good project, 

I would rather get it done right and have all of the right stuff, than 

try to do it too fast. 

Senator SHELBY. We want you to do it right. 

General SEMONITE. So, we are committed to meet that November 

19 date. If there is ever a time where I think we can cheat that 

to the left and do it the right way, we will certainly do that. 

Senator SHELBY. In your judgment, what will deepening a port 

from 45 feet to 50 feet do for the port itself, as far as—— 

General SEMONITE. Well, one of the things is that businesses are 

going to go where they are going to be able to get the best return 

on value and they are going to make the most money, so they have 

to come into a port these days and be what we call light-loaded. 

In other words, if they can’t use the full 100 percent optimization 

of that particular ship, then that means that port is less viable. 

They are going to go somewhere else. And we are deepening a lot 

of ports certainly in the Gulf and in the East Coast. So that means 

that at some point you are going to find that businesses would be 

more likely to come to Mobile if they can get that extra 5 feet of 

depth. 

Now, I think the other part of that is that we also have to make 

sure that our commitment back to protecting the environment is 

done right, and Mobile Harbor, sir, you need to know, is one of the 

case studies of the right way to do that. We are using that dredge 

material management and we are taking that to either put in to 

be able to recreate wetlands on the east side of the bay or even to 

put that back on one of the—— 

Senator SHELBY. In the Dauphin Island area. 

General SEMONITE. The Dauphin Island, as well. And there are 

some differing opinions as to the deepening of the harbor with respect to perhaps erosion on Dauphin Harbor. We aren’t necessarily 

69 

in agreement with that particular opinion. We think you can effectively deepen Mobile Harbor without causing undue environmental 

damage. 

Senator SHELBY. Well, we appreciate your work there, and also 

Secretary Fisher’s. I am going to continue to work with you because, as you said, this is my No. 1 priority, and I believe it is the 

No. 1 priority for the region there. Thank you. 

General SEMONITE. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Van Hollen. 

Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Fisher, General Semonite, good to be with you today. I just 

have a couple questions following up on some of the issues Senator 

Cardin raised. 

General Semonite, you have been in a number of meetings on 

that issue with respect to the Mid Chesapeake Bay project, which 

is essential for creating an ecosystem with the dredge material 

from the channel to keep the Port of Baltimore competitive. And 

my understanding is that both of you said that you would get the 

predesign funding ready so that we could also get to the construction funding within the current authorization window, is that correct? 

Mr. FISHER. I don’t believe we committed to the PED funding; it 

was certainly mentioned and we will certainly take a look at it as 

that moves from General Semonite’s office to mine, absolutely. 

General SEMONITE. Senator, just a quick update. The material 

management plan has been done since we talked last. Right now, 

I will sign a validation of that particular project by the 31st of January and give it to Mr. Fisher. It does have to clear OMB. Senator 

Cardin and I just talked about that, but the bottom line is, once 

that clears, then it is the Secretary’s decision to go ahead and put 

PED. But we don’t need any additional authority so we can start 

right into the planning and design. 

Senator Van Hollen. So you can move forward with that aspect 

of it before you get the authorization. 

General SEMONITE. It does have to clear OMB, as I understand 

it. 

Senator Van Hollen. I just want to make sure I understand the 

timeline and which budget submission we are talking about here. 

So, this ultimately has to be in the President’s budget submission, 

is that correct? 

Mr. FISHER. Yes, the PED funding would need to be in that submission. And like the General mentioned, I will certainly commit 

to working with OMB so that they are aware of this and they are 

getting everything they need from the Corps and my office as well. 

Senator Van Hollen. OK. Have you had any conversations with 

OMB about this project? Either of you gentlemen. 

Mr. FISHER. To date, no, I have not. 

General SEMONITE. I have not, sir, not on that one. 

Senator Van Hollen. OK. If I could just ask a broader question 

with respect to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. I don’t know 

what input, if any, either of you have on those issues. Is that something you are very involved with, the expenditure of those funds? 

Mr. FISHER. Yes. We budget for those, yes. 

70 

Senator Van Hollen. So my question is, given the current back- log, I believe it is about $56 billion in backlog in the Harbor Maintenance Fund and $3.24 billion in the Operation and Maintenance 

Fund, the $56 billion being the shortfall in the construction and 

$3.2 billion in the Operation and Maintenance Fund. Do you believe that the Congress should direct more of the funds from that 

account into harbor maintenance at this point in time in order to 

make sure that we have the dredging that we need to make sure 

our ports are competitive? 

Mr. FISHER. I would say that while additional funds can certainly 

be expended for critical dredging and maintenance of coastal harbors and channels, the current budget, the Fiscal Year 2018 budget 

proposed by the President is the appropriate amount given the 

President’s fiscal priorities and the responsibilities of the Corps’ 

Civil Works program. But I do look forward to working further 

with you and this Committee to find innovative ways to use that 

trust fund and get the most out of it. 

Senator Van Hollen. Well, do you agree with the assessment that there is a $56 billion backlog in construction projects in harbor 

maintenance? 

Mr. FISHER. I don’t know the number, sir, but I am very aware 

that there is a backlog. 

Senator Van Hollen. And the purpose of these fees that go into 

a fund are for harbor maintenance, isn’t that the case? 

Mr. FISHER. Yes. 

Senator Van Hollen. So how would you justify diverting funds 

that were raised for that specific purpose from people who were essentially paying a user fee, how can you justify diverting those 

funds for other purposes within the budget? 

Mr. FISHER. Sir, I don’t believe we would try to justify that. We 

want to be able to use the funds for that purpose which they were 

intended. 

Senator Van Hollen. So you would support an effort to make sure 

that more of the funds that are raised into the Harbor Maintenance Fund go for that purpose, is that correct? 

Mr. FISHER. Yes. 

Senator Van Hollen. OK. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to take 

a second to echo what Senator Inhofe said earlier about the importance of the McClellan-Kerr Waterway for not only the State of Arkansas and the State of Oklahoma, but the entire region and the 

whole system put together. 

Lieutenant General Semonite, certainly, I agree with you, I think 

all of us agree with you that we simply don’t have enough appropriations to properly address America’s crumbling water infrastructure, and infrastructure in general. Because of our debt and deficit, 

though, we are certainly in need of innovative funding mechanisms. One of the tools that the Corps has at its disposal is the 

WIFIA program that was established in WRRDA 2014. While the 

USEPA, Environmental Protection Agency, has published guidance, 

received appropriations, and issued a request for projects to begin 

implementing the EPA WIFIA program, the Corps WIFIA program 

71 

has no published guidance or Federal funding. The final WIFIA authorization of appropriations for the Corps and the EPA is 2019. 

The WIFIA program has great leveraging power to make taxpayer 

money go further, while also incentivizing the private sector to get 

involved in public-private partnerships, the P3s that we are hearing so much about right now. 

Can you tell me does the Corps not view the WIFIA program as 

a viable option to address infrastructure? Also, what steps has the 

Corps taking to get the WIFIA program off the ground, if any? 

I will take either one of you. Mr. Secretary? 

Mr. FISHER. This is probably going to be one of these questions 

I have to get back to you on. I need to get a fuller brief. I know 

that the Corps has a lot of federally owned and operated projects. 

When you take a look at how WIFIA applies in that instance, as 

well as what you reference, P3s, we need to determine what actions 

are going to be required to foster that public-private partnership 

investment as well. So, if I can, I will have to come back to you 

on that. 

Senator BOOZMAN. It didn’t sound like it is a priority. 

General SEMONITE. Senator, one of the things that we are doing, 

and it goes both for P3 and WIFIA, is that we have to make sure 

we have that policy. The House did pass guidance that the Corps 

should slow down on any P3s, actually banned us from doing P3s, 

other than Fargo-Moorhead, which is a project in North Dakota, 

until we establish policy. And we certainly understand we have to 

have some degree of policy. We are, right now, drafting that WIFIA 

policy inside of our headquarters. We will get with the Secretary 

to work through that. I do think we have to continue to work down 

this road because, as you said, we have to find innovative ways of 

doing that. 

And I think this is something that both the Secretary and I could 

come back to give you, to the Committee or you personally, an update of where we are going; what are the milestones, what do we 

hope to achieve, when are we going to get it done. 

Senator BOOZMAN. No, I understand. The House also, in 2014, 

passed the WIFIA program, and earlier you talked about on time, 

on budget; and there is a huge lag here. And that is one of the 

problems that we have with the bureaucracy, is this kind of thing. 

In WRRDA 2014 and the Act of 2016, Congress attempted to advance projects by allowing non-Federal entities to fund projects by 

expanding reimbursement opportunities and credit. In December 

2016, the GAO reported that non-Federal sponsors are leading $4 

billion in Corps-related studies and projects. From that $4 billion, 

the Federal Government has reimbursed $400 million to cover 

some of the Federal costs related to those projects. 

Lieutenant General Semonite, what can non-Federal entities expect from the Federal Government regarding credit and reimbursement opportunities? Also, what else can the Federal Government 

do to incentivize non-Federal entities to get involved in more 

projects? 

General SEMONITE. So, I will answer it in two ways. One is that 

we do have a relatively robust program for non-Federal sponsors to 

be able to put money in, and we call those either contributed funds 

or accelerated funds or advanced funds, and there are different 

72 

rules on each type of those three. But that way, if a stakeholder 

wants to go faster, they can put in their money. And a lot of times 

they will advance those moneys up front so we can start that 

project, get it going, and then give them credit down the road. And 

that program works pretty well and we have streamlined our ability to receive funds, and you have given us some extra flexibility 

to be able to do that. 

I think the other thing we have to look at is it goes back to this 

point of if a stakeholder is ready to put more funds in, then, like 

I said earlier, that should make that benefit-cost ratio revised, because the actual cost to the Federal Government is now much less. 

And if you have a project that is close, if it is 2 to 2.3 or something 

and somewhere there is that extra money put in, that would advise 

that mass, so now you are going to be able to get that across an 

OMB metric. And although I think the metric ought to be changed, 

if in fact it is not, at least it shows if a stakeholder puts skin in 

the game and puts money and contributions in, now, then, that will 

incentivize the process and be able to get those projects approved. 

So, I think this is goes back to this benefit-cost ratio versus revised benefit-cost ratio, and you and I have talked about this in the 

past, sir; how do we continue to work with OMB to find some innovative ways to be able to really bring down the burden on the Federal Government. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you very much, and we do appreciate 

your hard work. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

Senator CAPITO. Senator CAPITO. Thank you all for your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was going to ask you about the WIFIA program, but my colleague from Arkansas did a good job in talking about that, and 

hopefully we will get some further information. Certainly, as we 

look at an infrastructure package coming in from the President, 

there has been a lot of talk about modeling things after TIFIA, 

which is what WIFIA was modeled after. But if, for some reason, 

there are obstacles there, I think we need to make sure that we 

know exactly what they are and how to avoid those in terms of a 

vibrant infrastructure package. 

I am from West Virginia. We have the Mon River locks and the 

Ohio River locks, obviously, I would suppose, some of the oldest 

locks and dams in the Country, particularly on the commercial 

side. And we have seen over the years how one large project like 

Olmsted can crowd out all of the other projects. So I guess, just 

briefly, what is the status of that project? And, in the future, do 

you see or how do we prevent a high profile, say, port project 

crowding out all of the other projects, because there is so much 

need, and how do you prioritize that as you are moving through to 

avoid this kind of situation in the future? 

General SEMONITE. So, the Olmsted project is going very well. 

We are on plan to be able to continue to bring that to closure here 

in the next year. I think that that will allow some additional investment in other construction accounts in the years out there. 

One of the challenges, and maybe one of the successes, and the 

Committee has done quite well at it, if in fact there is a special, 

73 

I will call it a bin of projects, how do you somehow, as opposed to 

having everything rack and stack, ma’am, against the overall bin, 

how do you carve out some? 

A good example is refuge harbors. Right now there is a certain 

bin that we put a certain amount of money into on small harbors 

that would never compete well against a large harbor. So, if there 

are some special categories that we could then carve out to be able 

to make sure they do compete within that sub-bin, I think that is 

a pretty good model to be able to say big projects are going to compete on their own. But where we really do have equities out in 

some of these niche capabilities that just can’t compete because of 

the benefit-cost ratio, we ought to look at that. And it really goes 

back to this idea you have given us a lot of tools. Have we used 

those to the best of our advantage to figure out every single way 

we can try to get some of these projects approved? It doesn’t mean 

more money, necessarily, but it means that they will be able to 

compete better against the existing funds that are available. 

Senator CAPITO. I would say, too, for the areas most affected of 

the smaller projects, the impacts can be as great, maybe not economic impacts as measurable, but ability to grow, live, and prosper 

in a certain region certainly are critical to having those infrastructure. And a lot of times you can get a bigger bang for your buck, 

too, because they are less expensive. 

General SEMONITE. Sure. 

Senator CAPITO. You know, I think one thing that was a great 

thing that we did in the last WRDA bill, I think it was the WRDA 

bill, when the revenue from diesel fuel went up and Congress increased that tax from 20 cents a gallon to 29 cents a gallon. Now, 

I can tell you I have been in Congress for probably longer than 

some other people would want me to be, but I can count on one 

hand how many people have come in my office and said we will 

help pay for this. You know, they weren’t looking for the Federal 

Government to actually be the be-all and the end-all, but we will 

take this is so important to us, it is such an economic driver for 

us that raising the tax on something we use every day as a critical 

part of our expenses is something that we need to do and we are 

willing to do. 

So, I think if we can look for other ways to do that, you know, 

in general, in the infrastructure package I think would probably be 

a good idea. 

Streamlining of the regulatory process, do you have a dashboard 

now where you have all your different agencies weighing in, or 

would that concept be good for you as we move forward in some 

of these larger projects, where the stakeholders can find out exactly 

where they are, when they are, and how they expect to get where 

they want to be, whether it is you, EPA, Fish and Wildlife, Forest 

Service? You can imagine how confusing it is for all of the different 

agencies to figure out, particularly on the NEPA review issue. 

General SEMONITE. So, Senator, I did talk in the beginning. We 

are beginning to streamlining these, and a lot of that does go back 

to delegating that authority down to a level that has the capacity 

and the competency to be able to do that, so we are seeing progress 

there. 

74 

We have a series of different dashboards. I would like to think 

that they are responsive back out to the public. But we are doing 

about 80,000 permits now, so you can come back onboard, see the 

status out there. Sometimes, though, if it is not responsive enough, 

we want to be able to have them call into the district to find out 

what is out there. Sometimes the applicant doesn’t put in all the 

right things, so they might think they have supplied everything; we 

might still be waiting on something; and that is where the dialog 

has to go back. 

I think we have to continue to look at more innovative ways from 

an IT perspective of how can we be more transparent and be able 

to be more responsive back out there. So, I am not sure exactly, 

if in fact we are meeting the need. If not, I will certainly try to 

change what we have to do. But we are committed to trying to give 

responsive feedback to permit applicants so they know what the 

status of their permits are. 

Senator CAPITO. Well, just anecdotally, because I have you in 

front of me, I would like to say that the Huntington Corps and the 

Pittsburgh Corps are great to work with; they have been very responsive with our office, and I would just like to give them a pat 

on the back. Thank you. 

General SEMONITE. Thanks, ma’am. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Capito. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Semonite, I am concerned about the progress of the 

Hudson-Raritan Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Study that is currently being undertaken by the Army Corps. This comprehensive 

study will result in environmental restoration projects across the 

New York-New Jersey region. Section 1322 of the 2006 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act directed the Army 

Corps to expedite completion of this study. However, it continues 

to be delayed due to bureaucratic hurdles and restrictive Army 

Corps policies that make it difficult to complete large, complex 

studies such as this. 

Will the Army Corps prioritize completing this study as soon as 

possible? 

General SEMONITE. Senator, we will. I would like to come and 

probably have our guys lay that out for you and be able to make 

sure we give you more detail on exactly what some of the challenges are there, but we are committed to that study. It is an important area. There is risk there, without a doubt, and we do want 

to continue to be as aggressive as we can in bringing this study to 

closure. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Concerns have been raised to my office that 

completing the Hudson-Raritan Feasibility Study has been made 

difficult by the Army Corps’ 3x3x3 Rule, which requires feasibility 

studies to be completed in 3 years, cost up to $3 million, and involve all three levels of Corps review throughout the study process. 

What flexibility does the Army Corps have to adapt study requirements for large, complete projects, like the Hudson-Raritan 

study, that cannot conform to the restrictions of the 3x3x3 Rule because of their size and scope? 

75 

General SEMONITE. So, Senator, like all rules, we put that in effect to try to be aggressive, to try to be able to bring down our 

timelines, find out ways of being more economical studies and 

doing them quicker. Unfortunately, some of these large studies do 

have to take more than $3 million and more than 3 years, so we 

have a process. The 2-star general sitting behind me, he is the guy 

that approves that authority to be able to waive that, so we certainly have the authority to have some of these more complicated 

studies like that go longer, and we certainly have no problem doing 

that because we want to do that science right and get it done appropriately. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. So, do you believe you have the flexibility 

you need to ensure that these types of studies which have Federal 

funding and a non-Federal partner are not unnecessarily delayed 

due to arbitrary bureaucratic constraints? 

General SEMONITE. I certainly think I have all that flexibility. If 

I find out later that something is wrong on this particular one, I 

will get back with you, ma’am, but right now I don’t think we have 

our hands tied at all. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Great. 

I am also troubled by the pace of recovery for Puerto Rico and, 

in particular, the length of time it has taken to restore power. In 

particular, I have heard horror stories about the situation on the 

Island of Vieques and the dire situation that exists there due to, 

in large part, the lack of electricity. 

What is the current status of the Army Corps’ work overseeing 

the restoration of the power grid on the Island of Vieques? 

General SEMONITE. So, Senator, I have taken five trips to Puerto 

Rico in the last 7 weeks. I know Puerto Rico very, very well. We 

have about 2,000 people down there working through Christmas, 

working through the holidays. Today we have about 80 percent of 

the load restored. That is not necessarily people; that is the load 

on how much has historically been out there. 

Just Puerto Rico alone, a very, very quick data point, 62,000 

power poles; 3,100 miles of cable. That all had to be brought in. 

The problem was this was after Texas got hit, Florida got hit, and 

the Virgin Islands got hit. So, the demand on the electrical system 

to be able to provide that material, it took us a while to do that. 

Right now, our goal is to get 50 percent by the end of November. 

We met that goal. Seventy-five percent by the end of January. We 

are at 80 percent today and it is only the 17th of January. I committed to the Governor to try to get 95 percent of that power up 

by the end of February, but, Senator, unfortunately, there are some 

parts, on top of those mountains, where there are 5 or 10 houses 

way down at the top of the ridgeline. The electricity for those 5 

houses on the side of a cliff. So, it could be as late as May for the 

last 5 percent. I want to make sure I clarify because I don’t want 

to over-promise. I would much rather deliver this as fast as we 

could. But we are all in to fixing the grid in Puerto Rico. This is 

normally not a Corps of Engineers mission, but we are honored to 

step up to be able to try to get it, and we are 100 percent committed to get electricity on as fast as possible. 

I tell the Governor every single day you have a right to be frustrated down there because everybody deserves power, but it is not 

76 

because the Corps of Engineers is not going as fast as we possibly 

can. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Have you been able to build in any resiliency, or are you just doing patchwork? 

General SEMONITE. So, the way that the Stafford Act is there is 

response and then there is recovery, so basically we are going back 

in with all new materials and we are putting it to code and to 

standard. I hate to say it, some of the lines we are replacing actually had two or three storms’ worth of damage, but they were just 

leaning over, so all the trees fell on top of the lines, all the lines 

come out. So now we are putting all of it back up. We, by the Stafford Act, are putting it back up to the original standard unless we 

have FEMA’s flexibility in some areas to be able to make it more 

resilient. But that is something where the guidance we have gotten 

from Mr. Long is to be able to basically rebuild the existing standard, but with new equipment to code. That alone will give us more 

resiliency. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. We have been trying to amend those rules 

so that, actually, you can build in resiliency. 

General SEMONITE. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Because it is kind of absurd to say, oh, well, 

it was built in 1970; we are just going to put it back to 1970 standards. Like that is a waste of money. So, I urge you to ask Congress 

for the ability to, when you do do these projects, build them to 

state-of-the-art with resiliency enhanced so we are not there after 

the next storm. We have a bipartisan bill to do that. We are hoping 

to be able to get votes on that bill, but that is the kind of work 

I would like you to aspire to do in the future. 

General SEMONITE. Yes, Senator. We have testified several times 

and we certainly are more than willing to do that if we have the 

flexibility. Good example, what kind of pole do you put in? If we 

can put in a stronger pole, but still underneath the authorities we 

have, we certainly want to do that. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. And you have not been able to do that for 

Puerto Rico? 

General SEMONITE. We have when it comes to materials. We 

have better materials in there. And, like I said, a lot of areas where 

they were built, it was never built to code. This is an antiquated 

system. I did the grid in Iraq in 2004. Parts of Puerto Rico were 

worse than what I saw in Iraq in 2004. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator WICKER. 

Senator WICKER. Mr. Chairman, let me just note for the record 

how much I appreciate Senator Gillibrand mentioning the Island of 

Vieques and the situation in Puerto Rico. 

And, General, I don’t have a question about that, but those listening should understand that there is bipartisan support for doing 

as much as we can as quickly as possible to alleviate the suffering 

there. 

You know, this is about America’s water infrastructure needs 

and challenges, and, you know, I don’t know how well it is understood among the public, until we have a disaster, how important 

77 

our Nation’s infrastructure is and how vital the Corps of Engineers 

is until you have an event, and then we wonder why it hasn’t all 

been taken care of beforehand. And I particularly would direct our 

witnesses’ attention to the Mississippi River Tributaries Program, 

which has been around since 1928 and is still not completed after 

all these years. 

If you read or go back and re-read the book ‘‘Rising Tide’’ by 

John Barry and understand the absolute devastation that took 

place to our Country, that rose all the way up to a president of the 

United States and a secretary of commerce and millions and millions of people, until you go back and remember what could happen 

if we didn’t have the Corps there, if we didn’t have programs like 

the MR&T project, we don’t fully understand this. 

Some people out in the Country like to call this pork barrel or 

talk about projects as if they are somebody’s pet project or pet program. This MR&T program and the other infrastructure that we 

have all around the Country is just vital to people’s lives, to our 

ability to earn a living and to recover from those disasters that we 

know are coming. 

You know, I am told that there is a 54:1 benefit-to-cost ratio for 

what we have done so far in the Mississippi River and Tributaries 

Project. We have invested over $14 billion, a lot of money, but we 

have prevented over $800 billion in damages. 

Lieutenant General, those figures are pretty accurate, aren’t 

they? 

General SEMONITE. Sir, you are exactly right. I mean, this is about 88 percent done. We have continued to put about $350 million into this, but there is still more work to get done. And I have 

been down to that project several times and the investment of 

proactive up-front certainly pays dividends when it comes to a 

storm coming back through, the ability to alleviate risk. 

Senator WICKER. These are real benefits, real disasters, real 

damages that haven’t happened to people because we are able to 

do this. And yet we have this annual fight; it doesn’t matter if it 

is a Republican administration or a Democratic administration. In 

2015, the administration requested $245 million; the appropriators 

and the Congress ratifying upped that to $302 million. In 2016, the 

administration came in, and this was the Obama administration, 

$225 million requested; the Congress upped that to $345 million. 

2017 request, $220 million; that appropriation turned out to be 

raised from 220 to $368 million. And the request this year is $253 

million. We will have to increase that. It makes us look like spendthrifts. 

I am not on the committee anymore, I was back in another day 

and another job I had, but it just seems to me that I am not even 

going to ask you, Mr. Fisher, to justify this, because I think it 

would be unfair to you. Let me just say that this investment that 

we have made, that the Lieutenant General spoke about, that has 

gotten us to the point of 88 percent and saved all these lives and 

all this heartache, is really money that we have appropriated over 

and above what administration after administration after administration has been requesting. 

I will just leave that statement out there. I will let you comment, 

if you would like. 

78 

Also, let me just say we have to fix this Mat Sinking Unit problem, and it has to come out of O&M. 

General, if we do what we need to do on the Mat Sinking Unit, 

it is going to take quite a chunk out of O&M, is that correct? 

General SEMONITE. It is, Senator. About 4 months ago I was on 

that Mat Sinking Unit working one of those machines, you know, 

tying the mats together. That is an antiquated system. It looks like 

something that came off a farm back in 1952. 

Senator WICKER. And it keeps the levees from washing away. 

General SEMONITE. Yes, sir, it does. But, on the other hand, you 

can’t just continue to keep putting Band-Aids on it. So, we have a 

long-term plan, a funding schedule. I mean, it is in the order of $20 

million to $30 million a year, but we would, at least myself personally, would continue to recommend to the Committee to keep funding in that so we can continue to keep that critical—we have to replace this thing. So that is what that funding schedule does, is continue to get the new unit back up and running and getting it onboard. We are in the design right now, which is good. We have 

some money this year, we are doing a prototype, but we see great 

value in a replacement for the Mat Sinking Unit. 

Senator WICKER. Well, you know, Mr. Chairman, I have gone 

way over. It is not really a very sexy topic, but when the water is 

up and the soil starts churning on the other side of that levee. and 

you start worrying about the levee failing, it gets pretty serious to 

millions and millions of Americans. 

Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Wicker. 

Senator MARKEY. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Welcome. Thank you both for your service. 

General, the Sagamore and the Bourne Bridges are the only two 

roads connecting Cape Cod to Massachusetts. I don’t have to tell 

you that at all. But, regrettably, these two 80-year-old bridges, 

which are crucial evacuation routes since it is the only way off, are 

structurally deficient. The Corps of Engineers maintains the 

bridges and is currently conducting a study to evaluate whether 

they need to be replaced. 

General, as an agency charged with reducing risks from disaster, 

how does the Corps of Engineers rehabilitate bridges that serve an 

essential public safety and commercial function, and would it be 

helpful if Congress created an authority that dedicates Federal 

funding for the replacement or restoration of these types of assets 

and then allows the Corps to divest the bridges to be able to able 

and willing non-Federal partners? 

General SEMONITE. Senator, I strongly agree with you that we 

have to do something different on bridging. We have 897 bridges. 

Some of these are small ones across like the intercoastal waterway. 

But those two you talked about, and I was on those 4 months ago, 

as well as about five gigantic bridges we have in Pennsylvania, are 

big, big bills. Right now, per bridge, each one of those, if we rehab 

it, it is going to be $300 million; if we replace it, it is going to be 

about $400 million. So, you are talking about an $800 million deficit. 

79 

Now, the question is does the Federal Government need to be 

able to keep bridges in our inventory. I would recommend that we 

have to go down this path of finding a way to divest those. It would 

be great if the State came in and took those over, but the State is 

probably going to say we will only do that once you bring them up 

to a given standard. 

So, we want to work with the Committee to try to find ways, and 

it goes back to critical infrastructure and water. If we can figure 

out how to somehow bring down some of the bills that we have for 

these old bridges, then we are able to use that same money, assuming Congress keeps appropriating that, into other areas that might 

be a better return investment back for the Nation. 

Senator MARKEY. And I agree with you, and that is why Federal 

money is so important; we have that leverage going into a negotiation on an issue like that. 

General SEMONITE. And early on I said what about innovative 

approaches. This goes back to where is a local or State interest to 

be able to step up to take some of these things over. We just have 

a lot of inventory in the Federal Government. I would love to see 

some of this divested back into locals that maybe can take care of 

it and budget for it better than we can. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, sir. 

I have always supported environmentally responsible shoreline 

protection projects where sand is pumped onto beaches to protect 

against storm surge and coastal erosion, but when the Town of 

Sandwich, Massachusetts attempted to use sand from the Federal 

Cape Cod Canal that otherwise would be dumped in the ocean to 

protect their community, Federal requirements became a major obstacle. The U.S. Army Corps required the homeowners to provide 

easement, ceding away their coastal property line forever, even 

though the sand from this beneficial use project would only remain 

on the beach for 5 years. Ultimately, the town was unable to use 

Federal funding for this essential shoreline protection project, 

which, to me, makes no sense at all. 

So, General, should we explore opportunities to make the Corps 

project requirements more flexible for these beneficial use of dredge 

material projects? Shouldn’t we find better ways to ensure that 

these requirements are not preventing the Corps from using quality sediment for beach nourishment and aquatic restoration? 

General SEMONITE. So, Senator, I am a big fan of considering 

dredge material as a resource as regional sediment management. 

There is a lot of places that we can put this type sand to do exactly 

what you are talking about. There is current policy, though, that 

if in fact we use beach renourishment, then at some given point 

there are local homeowners’ association there and access back to 

that beach. 

I am not specifically aware of the project in Sandwich. I would 

like to think that somewhere we could have figured out a solution 

somewhere, but, if nothing else, we will certainly find out and I 

will talk to the New England District and figure out what happened and how can we somehow figure out, without perhaps challenging the policy that is a national policy, how could we have 

found a better way to use that sand. Taking it out to the ocean, 

sir, is a waste of a good resource. 

80 

Senator MARKEY. It is a waste of a good resource, and saying you 

have to give up permanent in order to get something that only 

lasts for 5 years is something that ultimately, then, reach stalemate, so that is not good. 

Finally, if I may, for some communities in Massachusetts, 

Wellfleet, Plymouth, New Bedford, Essex, Gloucester, Newburyport, the waterways are filling up with so much sand that vessels 

cannot reliably and safely pass, which harms commerce, recreation, 

and safety. Many of these waterways are federally owned, and it 

is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ responsibility to dredge these 

waterways, and that is why I believe that we should use all of the 

resources in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for these important dredging projects, instead of raiding that pot of vital funding 

for deficit reduction, as we are doing now. And I hope that we can 

address this issue in the upcoming water resources bill. 

Maybe, if you could, General, just give us a few comments on 

that issue in terms of the resources you need in order to get the 

job done in communities like Wellfleet and others that I just mentioned. 

General SEMONITE. Sir, I will just hit on the current dredging. 

We clearly have a lot more requirements right now than we have 

funds, so we do have to prioritize; and we have a relatively deliberate formula as to where can we dredge and where we can’t. I will 

let Mr. Fisher address the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, but we 

definitely have requirements that exceed our capabilities, and that 

means in some areas we have not been able to dredge, and some 

of those rivers have almost gone into a caretaker status because we 

have not been able to do what we need to do to protect the Federal 

waterways. 

Mr. FISHER. Sir, I would just add I am very aware of the balance, 

the large balance in the Trust Fund, as you mentioned, and we certainly want to make sure that those fees that are collected are targeted to the improvements they were intended to be. 

Senator MARKEY. Because these communities are really under 

stress. And it is a nationwide issue, so the more that we can work 

on that project maybe in the infrastructure bill, I think the better 

off we would be for the economy of our Country, as well, for the 

growth that is possible, because you are dealing with these central 

issues. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

Senator CARPER. 

Senator CARPER. Not every member of our Committee, in their 

comments and questions, have raised the issue of our failure to appropriate the dollars that are needed to enable the Army Corps of 

Engineers to do your job. It is not even close. It is not even close. 

I mentioned the estimates of the American Association of Port 

Authorities. The underfunding in port infrastructure alone cited by 

them, I guess last year, $65 billion in investment over the next 10 

years. Actually, if we are interested in a nurturing environment, 

includes the work that we do in infrastructure on our rivers, ports, 

levees, so forth. Sixty-five billion dollars over the next decade they 

say is needed. 

81 

And our friends over at the American Society of Civil Engineers, 

their infrastructure report card, which just came out, tells an even 

more unsettling story; not $65 billion, but their report card estimated, I think, about $162 billion in investments that are needed 

in dams, levees, inland waterways, and so forth. A hundred and 

sixty-two billion. 

And what do we do in response to this? I think we have a budget for the Army Corps of Engineers that hovers just under $5 billion. 

And we are looking at these kinds of needs. We know that we need 

them. We know that if we invest money in these ways, it will actually grow our economy, strengthen our economy, make us safer and 

smarter. And we are considering a budget. I don’t know if we are 

going to actually pass a real budget this week or another some 

kind of short-term funding resolution, but the Administration is 

asking for, I want to say, tens of billions of dollars more money for 

defense spending. The U.S. already spends more, Mr. Chairman, I 

am told, then the next 10 nations combined, and we are going to 

add to that. We are going to be spending more than the next 12 

nations combined. 

The President just signed legislation into law last month that re- duces revenues for running the Government by $1.5 trillion to $2 

trillion over the next 10 years, and we sit all around here today 

bemoaning the fact that the Army Corps doesn’t have the money 

they need, doesn’t have the resources they need. Well, there is a 

good reason why not: we are not providing it. We are not providing 

it. In this case the Administration is not asking for it and we are 

not providing money. I think it is shameful. I think it is shameful. 

We ask you and the folks that work for you to do more than any 

humans could actually do. Maybe no one else feels a sense of 

shame on this Committee. I do. The old comic strip character, Pogo, 

we see the problem, and it is us. We are a big part of the problem. 

I want to come back to Puerto Rico. General Semonite, you and 

I have talked about Puerto Rico before. I appreciate what you said 

in response to Senator Gillibrand’s question. We think of Puerto 

Rico as Puerto Rico. This is north, this is south, this is east, and 

this is west, and most of the generating capacity for electricity is 

in the south, as I recall. Most of the generating capacity is down 

here to the south. Not all of it, but a lot of it is diesel. They bring 

it up from Venezuela and places like that in the south. They spend, 

I think, and the General can correct me if I am wrong, 27 cents 

per kilowatt hour in our State, so we spend maybe a quarter of 

that. And yet somehow they are supposed to be able to compete 

economically. 

The question about rebuilding to code and that sort of thing, I 

was largely encouraged by what you said on that, but I think if you 

have most of the generating capacity for electricity down here in 

the south and most of the people live up here in the north, and in 

between you have mountains, and we are spending a fair amount 

of money trying to get the electricity from the south to the north, 

why don’t we bring down some liquid natural gas in big ships from 

the north, which would be the U.S., and build some new generating 

capacity? It would bring down the cost of electricity dramatically 

and the folks in Puerto Rico could actually cleanup their air and 

their environment as well. 

82 

And I know this is not all on the Army Corps, the Department 

of Energy has requirements here and expectations here, but my 

dad used to say use some common sense. That would be, in my 

judgment, using some common sense. 

But for folks in Puerto Rico who are still struggling, I am glad 

that we are still concerned. We want them to know that we are 

still concerned. I hope to talk to Governor Rosello tomorrow about 

this. But for the work that has been done on their behalf in some 

cases, without a lot of thanks, we want to say thanks to those people who have been helping and the businesses that have been 

helped. 

The last thing I want to mention, if I could, Mr. Chairman, I 

mentioned earlier in my statement, Mr. Fisher and General, that 

the people of Delaware have had just a wonderful relationship for 

years with the Philadelphia Office of the Army Corps of Engineers. 

We have been very, very grateful for the work that they do and 

their responsiveness. 

My staff tells me that sometimes they experience frustration in 

being able to obtain timely information from the Corps Headquarters staff and other regions. Maybe you don’t have the folks or 

maybe you are just not aware of this, but I said give me an example, and they could give me several examples. They have written 

them down here. I am not going to take the time now, I am out 

of time, to go through them, but I just want to flag it and I will 

follow with a QFR, question for the record, and I will actually give 

you some specifics here. 

But that is it for me, folks, and we thank you for being here. 

Ryan, when I became Governor of Delaware, they asked me, if 

I had a magic wand, what would I do with my magic wand. I had 

just been elected; hadn’t even been sworn in. They said what would 

you like to use with a magic wand, and I was with Mike Castle. 

He had been Governor; he was just about to become a Congressman. We were just trading places; I had been a Congressman and 

was about to become Governor. And I said, if I had a magic wand 

as a new Governor, I think I would like to have a magic wand that 

would enable me to make sure that every kid growing up in my 

State has at least one good nurturing, mentoring, caring parent 

with high expectations for that child, at least one. Hopefully two, 

but at least one. 

I was inaugurated as Governor a couple weeks later and I got in 

my office, opened up my desk where I looked for the magic wand, 

but didn’t find it. Didn’t find it. And we have done a whole lot of 

things in 8 years to try to make sure that we are doing what we 

need to do to strengthen families. That was what we did for 8 

years, strengthened families; basic building block of our society. 

You are new. When you go look in your office drawer and you 

are looking around for a magic wand, you probably could use one 

that would cough up about $200 billion in infrastructure improvements over the next decade. That would be about $20 billion a 

year. I don’t know that we can do that, but, Mr. Chairman, we 

have to do better than this. We have to do better than this if we 

are serious. I am serious; I know you are as well. We have to do 

better than this. 

83 

General SEMONITE. Senator Carper, if I could just make one comment. You said earlier about how is the Committee doing on funding. I just want to make sure that both of you understand our appreciation for the delt that you do give us. Regardless of what 

comes in the budget, that extra money, we distribute that through 

the workplan. It is not billions and billions and billions of dollars, 

but I will tell you what, we go very, very hard to make sure we 

are finding the best ways to use that; and that extra money, last 

year it was about $1.2 billion, it pays an awful lot of dividends 

back into some of these projects, so I personally want to thank you 

for that extra commitment. 

Senator CARPER. You are welcome. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. And, General, if you can’t find a magic wand, 

we are hoping that you can find some scissors to cut through some 

of the government red tape that I hear about from communities, as 

well, trying to solve these problems. 

Is there anything that you need in terms of potential statutory 

authorities that could help improve the Corps’ and local communities’ ability to complete work on water resource infrastructure in 

a more efficient and maybe cost-effective way? Anything you can 

think of we can do for you? 

General SEMONITE. Senator, I will be honest with you. I have 

never been in a Senator’s or Representative’s office where they 

haven’t offered that same thing; what can we do to give you some 

advice. We are certainly looking at how we can do it. We have done 

a lot of work in the last couple months of figuring out what are 

some of those things we can ask for you. I think the single biggest 

issue is probably that benefit-cost ratio. How can we somehow get 

some degree of relief there? And you and I talked about this last 

year. How do we make sure that that money is going to the right 

place even if in fact the arbitrary metric doesn’t necessarily apply? 

So, I think that is where we have to look at some innovative solutions. And, again, we aren’t looking at the pot is going to necessarily get any bigger, but how can we make sure some of those 

projects that are very, very viable at least compete better for funding. 

Senator BARRASSO. And following up with a final question for 

Mr. Fisher, just in terms of ability to complete projects, as opposed 

to partially built projects and lengthy constructions that drag on 

and on, I am interested in learning your view on how the Corps 

can work to help ensure the projects included in any potential 

WRDA bill are built to completion using kind of efficient funding 

streams to provide for much of the project funds up-front, rather 

than every year trying to get additional funding. Anything that you 

have, any thoughts on that? 

Mr. FISHER. I think it would be similar to my answer at the 

opening of the hearing about the CAP 205 program you referenced. 

We want to keep using those contributed funds authorities that are 

out there. We want to look at public-private partnerships and nonFederal investment in these things as a way to innovatively move 

these projects from WRDA to completion. 

Senator BARRASSO. It doesn’t look like there are any more questions today, to be asked today, but, as Senator Carper said, he may 

put in some written questions. Other members may put in some 

84 

additional questions for the record, so the hearing record is going 

to remain open for 2 weeks. 

But I want to thank both of you for being here for your testimony 

and for your time. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:51 p.m. the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

85 


30567.001
86 


30567.002
87 


30567.003
88 


30567.004
89 


30567.005
90 

Æ 


30567.006