U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

34–176 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 115–428 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 2800, AMERICA’S 

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2018 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 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 

MAY 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 

James, Hon. R.D., Assistant Secretary of the Army Civil Works ........................ 4 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 7 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 8 

Senator Sanders ........................................................................................ 9 

Response to an additional question from Senator Sullivan .......................... 12 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statement of Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts ............................. 39 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 2800, AMERICA’S 

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2018 

THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2018 

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

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:21 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, Cardin, 

Whitehouse, Gillibrand, Markey, 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. 

Last week, our Committee held the first legislative hearing on S. 

2800, America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018. 

Today I am very pleased to welcome to the Committee R.D. 

James, who is the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. 

This second hearing on the bill is an opportunity to get the agency’s insight and feedback on our legislation. Next week this Committee will mark up the important legislation. We plan to add a bipartisan manager’s amendment to the bill to further improve it. 

America’s Water Infrastructure Act is a bipartisan piece of legislation. I introduced it along with Ranking Member Carper, the 

Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee Chairman Inhofe 

and Subcommittee Ranking Member Cardin. The bill is now also 

sponsored by Senator Capito and Senator Van Hollen, Senator 

Wicker, and Senator Boozman. 

At least week’s hearing we heard broad support for the legislation from State leaders, from farmers, from civil engineers, and 

from other stakeholders. The Committee has received letters and 

statements of support from a wide-ranging number of organizations, including the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National 

League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National Audubon Society, and 

the National Rural Water Association. 

Water infrastructure is important to every community in this 

Country. These systems support economic growth and competitiveness; they provide water for cattle and for crops. They are used to 

ship goods; they deliver drinking water and address wastewater; 

they keep homes safe from dangerous floods; and they provide 

water in times of drought. I can’t overState the importance of the 

2 

Nation’s water infrastructure system. The America’s Water Infrastructure Act will help deepen nationally significant ports and fix 

aging dams and irrigation systems. This bill will maintain the 

navigability of inland waterways and increase water storage in the 

West. It is reform legislation to get projects moving and make Government more efficient. 

America’s Water Infrastructure Act will cut bureaucratic red 

tape. The legislation will give local leaders and stakeholders a 

greater role in deciding which Army Corps projects should be priorities. It is good news for small, for rural, and for inland States. 

Local leaders know which projects would have the best impact on 

their communities, the greatest impact. 

The bill includes a study by the National Academy of Sciences on 

how to improve, structure, and manage the Army Corps. This study 

will let us know how to further reform the agency. 

Our legislation includes permitting reform for important water 

storage projects. These reforms should allow for the development of 

more water storage, which is critical to communities in Wyoming 

and across the West. 

The successful Water Infrastructure Flexibility Act program, or 

WIFIA, is reauthorized in this bill. This will further authorize millions of dollars to accelerate investment in the Nation’s water infrastructure. Under WIFIA, those dollars will leverage $2 billion in investment. 

Programs like WIFIA get taxpayers more bang for the buck. And 

we are working on additional changes to the bill that will help 

smaller rural communities leverage WIFIA dollars to build needed 

infrastructure. 

The bill is bipartisan. It is fiscally responsible. It will have a real 

impact in rural America and across the Nation, so I look forward 

to continuing to work with my colleagues on this Committee to advance this important infrastructure legislation. 

With that, I would like to turn to the Ranking Member and cosponsor of the bill, Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. I apologize 

for being late. I was invited to be part of the roundtable that focused on the cost of inaction, a conversation on U.S. infrastructure, 

a business roundtable with Jamie Diamond and a fellow named 

Brendan Bechtel, the CEO of Bechtel, Larry Willis, who is the 

President of AFL–CIO transportation trades, Congressman Rodney 

Davis, Republican from Illinois. 

We focused on infrastructure and why we are unable to get anything done. Finally, I had to leave near the end of the show, and 

I apologized and I explained why I was coming and why we are trying to show some leadership here on this Committee to actually get 

something done on the water infrastructure part of our Nation’s 

needs. 

I am delighted to be here and partnered with our Chairman. I 

am glad to be a partner with Jim Inhofe and Ben Cardin as the 

chairs and ranking members of the relevant Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee. 

3 

I am proud of the bipartisan work that we have done thus far 

on this legislation and, again, I hope it will serve as a model for 

what we can get done along with other committees if we work together going into the future, and that is what we intend to do. 

I also want to thank Secretary James for joining us again today. 

We just appreciate so much the help that you and your team have 

provided to date so that our legislative process can move quickly 

and smoothly. 

As I said before and I am sure you will hear me say again today, 

coastal issues are mighty important to Delaware, the lowest lying 

State in the Country, and the water resources bill is critical to our 

State’s economy, as it is to the economies of many States that are 

represented here today. 

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

Over 99 percent of the U.S. overseas trade volume moves through 

waterways that the Corps maintains. Think about that. Over 99 

percent of the U.S. overseas trade volume moves through waterways that the Army Corps of Engineers maintains. 

The Corps’ inland waterways and locks form a freight network, 

really sort of a water highway, that provides access to international 

markets through our ports. They also serve as critical infrastructure for the U.S. military. 

Our bill authorizes investments in this system in multiple ways. 

Most notably at the request of Secretary James and of many Senators both on and off this Committee, the bill better positions the 

Corps to be an active partner with ports, with communities, with 

States, with Tribes, and other stakeholders in growing and expanding our Nation’s economy. 

Putting our local stakeholders at the table with the Corps will 

enhance the process and help the Corps become a more viable partner in projects that promote long-term economic growth. 

We have heard from many Senators that reinvestment in this 

partnership is much needed and that our Committee needs to address criteria that the Corps uses to budget for projects. 

For the better part of a decade, now, the executive branch has 

calculated water project costs and benefits in a way that has led 

to a backlog of unfunded and uncompleted, but needed, projects. 

Our bill works to address this problem by authorizing new funding 

and project planning requirements at the Corps’ most local level, 

the individual Corps districts. 

This legislation requires local participation in the development of 

these new district plans, too. Hopefully, this participation will 

allow for a more transparent and long-term look at the Corps’ activities, while also building a greater groundswell of support for increased appropriations for the Corps’ initiatives. 

Our legislation also authorizes investments in both our inland 

and our coastal waterways. I am particularly proud of a provision 

that will support the selection of natural infrastructure alternatives as a practical solution in situations where and when the 

development of gray or more traditional infrastructure alone may 

not work. 

The Army Corps of Engineers also works to reduce risk to human 

safety and property damage from flooding. Flooding alone currently 

costs the United States billions of dollars annually. As the 2017 

4 

hurricane season illustrated, our Nation needs to be ready for the 

next extreme storm or flood event because it almost certainly is 

coming. 

The total cost for extreme weather and climate events in 2017 

exceeded $300 billion. Let me say that again. The total cost for extreme weather and climate events in 2017 exceeded $300 billion, 

a new annual record in the United States. In truth, it is no longer 

a matter of if the next extreme weather event is coming; it is just 

a matter of when. 

Our bill allows the Secretary of the Army to waive the cost share 

for hazard mitigation related feasibility studies so that we can be 

shovel-ready before the next storm, before the next storm hits. Additionally, the bill modifies the Corps’ existing emergency authorities to allow the agency to participate in storm damage recovery for 

a longer period of time, make more resilient infrastructure decisions, and, where appropriate, cost share infrastructure replacement so resources can go further. 

As we have heard already, I think, here today, the American Society of Civil Engineers Infrastructure Report Card currently gives 

our Country’s dams, levees, and inland waters a D, for deplorable, 

for decrepit, for decaying, representing an overall backlog of 

unconstructed projects totaling some $96 billion. Our bill also reauthorizes the Corps’ dam safety programs and makes much needed 

changes as proposed by civil engineers. 

Clearly, we have a good deal of additional important work to do 

to move this bill across the goal line; however, the cumulative efforts of a number of people, many of them in this room today, have 

enabled us to get off to a good start. If we continue to work hard, 

and in a bipartisan fashion, I believe we will enact water resources 

legislation that will strengthen our Country in many ways, and in 

a timely manner, and maybe set an example that other committees 

in both the House and the Senate will choose to emulate. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, our colleagues, 

Jim Inhofe, Ben Cardin, your staffs, our staffs for your leadership 

on this bill. 

We welcome Secretary James back before our Committee. We 

look forward to hearing from you today and using your input, along 

with that of many other stakeholders, to craft legislation that we 

can all be proud of. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

We will now turn to our witness, R.D. James, Assistant Secretary 

of the Army for Civil Works. 

I want to remind the Secretary that your full written testimony 

will be made part of the official hearing record, so please try to 

keep your statement to about 5 minutes so we will have time for 

questions. We all look forward to your testimony. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. R.D. JAMES, ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY CIVIL WORKS 

Mr. JAMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the esteemed Committee. I am honored to be back before this Committee 

today to discuss the water infrastructure needs and challenges of 

this Nation and S. 2800, America’s Water Infrastructure Act 2018. 

5 

I am R.D. James, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 

Works. 

The Administration is reviewing this bill and does not have a position at this time. Today I would like to discuss the Civil Works 

program and some of the reforms I am already leading with the 

Corps or which the Administration has proposed to help meet the 

Nation’s water resource challenges going forward. 

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 works with 

our Nation’s coastal ports to maintain their channels, operates and 

maintains the inland waterways, supports State and local flood 

risk management activities, works to restore significant aquatic 

ecosystems, and operates and maintains multipurpose dams, as 

well as the reservoirs behind them. 

There are about 250 million day visits a year for recreation at 

Corps lands and reservoirs, making the Corps one of the top Federal recreation providers. The infrastructure that the Corps maintains includes 13,000 miles of coastal navigation channels, 12,000 

miles of inland waterways, 715 dams, 241 locks, 195 

navigationsites, 14,700 miles of levees, and hydro plants at 75 locations with 353 generating units. 

These projects provide risk reduction from flooding in our river 

valleys and along our coasts, facilitate the movement of approximately 2 billion tons of waterborne commerce, and provide up to 

24 percent of our Nation’s hydropower. 

During my tenure on the Mississippi River Commission, river engineers proved to me that flood control and navigation on major 

rivers work hand-in-hand. Flood control structures enhance navigation. Navigation improvements facilitate passing floods. Reservoirs, 

floodways, and backwater areas must be reserved for use in both 

river flooding and in drought. 

The Corps has proven its ability to manage these structures as 

a system to protect lives and promote commerce. However, much 

of this infrastructure was constructed in the first half of the 20th 

century and today requires a significant amount of resources to 

maintain. The current paradigm for investing in water resources 

development is not sustainable. 

The Corps continues to work on policy and administrative 

changes that can improve infrastructure delivery cheaper and faster. I am looking at the organization myself, the authorities, policies, regulations, and procedures, to expressly identify opportunities for increased efficiency and effectiveness. This includes efforts 

to reduce redundancy and delegate authority for decisionmaking to 

the most practical and appropriate levels. 

Delegating decisionmaking authority for numerous programs, including Section 408 permissions, down to the district has streamlined the process and shortened the time it takes to reach a decision. I am committed to positioning the Corps for success, to move 

dirt cheaper and faster. 

Our Civil Works water infrastructure allows us to live better, 

safer lives and more fully realize the natural benefits from this 

great Nation. The way we promote and protect our water resources 

affects our Nation’s economy, its environment, and its public safety. 

6 

The Army Corps stands ready to lead in addressing the water resource demands and challenges of the 21st century. 

I look forward to working with this Committee on these very important issues. I appreciate your efforts to raise many of these 

issues in your new bill. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. This 

concludes my statement. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. James follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. R.D. JAMES, ASSISTANT

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY CIVIL WORKS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I am honored to be back before this Committee today to discuss the water infrastructure needs and challenges for the Nation, and S. 2800, America’s Water Infrastructure Act, 2018. I am R.D. James, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 

Works. The Administration is continuing to review this bill and does not have a position at this time. Today, I would like to discuss the civil works program and some 

of the reforms I am already leading with the Corps or which the Administration has 

proposed to help meet the Nation’s water resources challenges going forward. 

As stated in previous hearings, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 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 works with our Nation’s coastal ports to maintain their 

channels; operates and maintains the inland waterways; supports State and local 

flood risk management activities; works to restore significant aquatic ecosystems; 

and operates and maintains multipurpose dams, as well as the reservoirs behind 

them. There are about 250 million day-visits a year for recreation at Corps lands 

and reservoirs, making the Corps one of the top Federal recreation providers. 

The infrastructure that the Corps maintains includes 13,000 miles of coastal navigation channels (including the channels of the Great Lakes), 12,000 miles of inland 

waterways, 715 dams, 241 locks at 195 navigationsites, 14,700 miles of levees, and 

hydropower plants at 75 locations with 353 generating units. These projects help 

provide risk reduction from flooding in our river valleys and along our coasts, facilitate the movement of approximately two billion tons of waterborne commerce, and 

provide up to 24 percent of the Nation’s hydropower. 

Much of this infrastructure was constructed in the first half of the twentieth century and today requires a significant amount of resources to maintain. The current 

paradigm for investing in water resources development is not sustainable. 

The Corps continues to work on policy and administrative changes that can improve infrastructure delivery. My staff and I are looking at the organization, authorities, policies, regulations, and procedures to expressly identify opportunities for 

increased efficiency and effectiveness. This includes efforts to reduce redundancy 

and delegate authority for decisionmaking to the most practical and appropriate 

level. Delegating decisionmaking authority for numerous programs, including Section 408 permissions, down to the district level has streamlined the process and 

shortened the time it takes to reach a decision. I am committed to positioning the 

Corps for success. 

The way that we use our water resources affects our Nation’s economy, its environment, and public safety. The Corps stands ready to help in addressing the water 

resource demands and challenges of the 21st Century. I look forward to working 

with the Committee on these very important issues. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of Committee. This concludes my statement. I look forward to answering any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have. 

7 


34176.008

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled, "Legislative Hearing on S.2800, America's Water Infrastructure Act of 

2018" 

May 17,2018 

Questions for the Record for Assistant Secretary R.D. James 

Chairman Barrasso: 

I. Secretary James, the current benefit-cost ratio calculation or BCR does not consider the 

unique importance of flood risk management projects in rural areas with lower property 

values. Severe floods in rural areas destroy property and livelihoods. America's Water 

Infrastructure Act of20 18 creates an additional framework to the BCR calculation to fix 

this inequity. What examples can you share where this was an issue in your decades of 

experience working on water infrastructure projects? Do you see a benefit to rural areas 

with the new additional BCR framework that is in this bill? 

Answer; The Administration is reviewing this legislation, which you introduced a week ago on 

May 8, 2018. At this point, we have not yet developed a position on this legislation. 

The Corps uses performance standards to allocate the funds provided in the Budget. The Corps 

uses the benefit-to-cost ratio to rank some of its projects based on their economic return to the 

Nation. However, the Corps uses other metrics as well. The Budget includes significant funding 

to address flood risks in rural areas. 

The Corps continues to explore options for evaluating non-monetary benefits from projects. In 

some cases, it is already possible to use such metrics alongside the benefit-to-cost ratio to inform 

investment decisions. 

2. Secretary James, last year this committee held a hearing regarding this country's growing 

invasive species problem. It is clear that once established, invasives become increasingly 

difficult and expensive to eradicate, and they ultimately end up costing our economy 

billions of dollars each year. In Wyoming, my constituents and I want to protect our 

waters from invasive such as Zebra and Quagga Mussels. America's Water Infrastructure 

Act includes language to increase funding for watercraft inspection stations in the Upper 

Missouri River Basin, and in the Snake River Basin. Can you explain why watercraft 

inspection stations in the vicinity of reservoirs are important to fight fighting this invasive 

scourge? 

Answer: The primary vector for transferring quagga and zebra mussels across river basins is 

private recreational vessels and associated trailers. In addition to reservoirs, any water way or 

body of water with ramps and/or access points that accommodate trailered watercraft is 

vulnerable to aquatic invasive species. The best way to prevent establishment of these invasive 

mussels is to stop introduction through public education and inspections, which can occur at the 

existing watercraft inspection stations. Currently, inspection and decontamination programs vary 

by state .. Some conduct inspection and decontamination primarily at ramps located on 
8 


34176.009

waterbodies, while others rely on highway stations. Both approaches are effective in fighting 

aquatic invasive species. 

3. Secretary James, the Continuing Authorities Program or "CAP" as carried out by the 

Corps of Engineers is vital to many rural communities. In particular, one of its several 

authorities, commonly referred to as section 205, concerns flood risk management 

challenges. This includes projects that address ice jams, which are a serious concern to 

Wyoming residents in towns like Worland and Greybull. The bill we are discussing 

today provides additional authorization of appropriations for the CAP program and 

increases the per-project caps. Can you give your views on how important these CAP 

programs are to the Corps in addressing water resource problems nationwide? 

Answer: The Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) allows the Corps to provide support to 

many communities for water resource solutions that are smaller and less complex than the 

projects that require specific congressional authorization. 

Ranking Member Carper: 

4. There have been proposals across the Administration aimed at streamlining decisionmaking processes to deploy projects more quickly. We have heard from tribal nations 

that they arc in favor of deploying more infrastructure in their communities where it is 

badly needed, but they also want to ensure that their legal rights and interests are 

accounted for throughout decision-making and development processes. 

What pre-decisional guidelines and policies does USACE anticipate implementing to 

ensure tribal rights to lands, natural resources, and cultural, sacred and historic sites are 

considered? 

Answer: At this time, the Corps is not developing any new pre-decisional guidelines and 

policies in regards to Tribal consultation. The Corps has a Tribal Consultation Policy that was 

signed in 2012. This Policy outlines the Corps' responsibilities to federally-recognized Tribes as 

well as a fi·amework for consulting with them. Fundamental to the Corps' Tribal Consultation 

Policy is that it recognizes the sovereign status of Tribal governments and the Corps' obligation 

for pre-decisional government-to-government consultation. 

5. As mentioned in your testimony, the Army Corps is looking at ways to delegate decisionmaking authority to other entities. Tribes have a unique trust relationship with the United 

States, and part of that relationship is to ensure that the federal government provides 

certain protections to tribes from regulatory encroachment by states. 

How does the Army Corps intend to ensure that tribal rights, lands, resources, and 

historic and cultural sites are protected in situations where a state or other entity is 

requesting delegated decision-making authority? 

Answer: The decision whether to approve requests for a State or Tribe to assume responsibility 

lor permitting some activities regulated under the Clean Water Act Section 404 program is made 
9 


34176.010

by the Environmental Protection Agency and they would be better positioned to respond to 

questions regarding the process for making those decisions and the consideration given to 

protection of tribal rights, lands, resources, and historic and cultural sites. 

Senator Sanders: 

Water Infrastructure 

6. On June 21, 2017, the Vermont Congressional delegation sent a letter to Lieutenant 

General Semonite, who at the time was the U.S. Army Corps Commanding General, 

requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) develop implementation 

guidance for Section I I 77 of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act. 

On July 28, 2017, the Corps responded to the Vermont Congressional Delegation with a 

letter stating that the Corps was "currently drafting implementation guidance, which 

should be finalized no later than the fall of2017." That implementation guidance still has 

not been issued. Please provide a status update and where specifically the Corps is in the 

drafting process. Given the agency's delay, it is my hope that the implementation 

guidance for Section 1177 will be published by July 2018. Will this guidance be 

published by July 20 I 8? 

Answer: Implementation guidance for Section 1177 has not been completed but will be 

completed as soon as possible. 

Puerto Rico 

7. Please provide a timeline of the Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) work on emergency 

power restoration in Puerto Rico in response to the damage caused by Hurricane Maria. 

After the Corps received their mission assignment from FEMA on September 30, 2017, 

when exactly did the Corps arrive on the main Island of Puerto Rico and begin working 

to restore power? When did the Corps arrive and begin the work to restore power on the 

Islands ofVieques and Culebra? 

Answer: FEMA assigned the Corps the grid power restoration mission on September 28, 2017. 

Corps staff already residing in Puerto Rico as well as additional staff from the Jacksonville 

District office were already on the island at that time. The following shows some of the key 

dates of the Corps efforts to restore power in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria: 

September 28, 2017- FEMA notifies Corps of grid power restoration mission. 

October 4, 2017- Corps received Mega Power mission to provide generator at two Puerto Rico 

Power plants (Palo Seco and Yabucoa). 

October 8, 2017- Corps awards contract to provide 50 Megawatt power generation at Palo Seco 

power plant to stabilize the grid (Weston Corporation). 

October I 0, 2017 Corps executes contract with DLA to purchase initial power restoration 

material. 

October 13, 2017- the Corps 249'" Prime Power arrives in Puerto Rico to begin repair of 

distribution lines. 

October 16, 2017- Corps awards contract (Fluor) for transmission and distribution line repair. 

October 19, 2017- Corps awards contract (PowerSecure) for transmission and distribution line 

repair. 
10 


34176.011

November 7, 2017- Corps awards contract {APTIM Federal Services) to provide 25 Megawatt 

power generation at Yabucoa power plant to stabilize the grid. 

December 4, 2017 Corps, in coordination with PREP A, installs two 1.8 megawatt generations 

to act as a "mirco-grid" power plant to provide the island ofCulebra with power. 

February 14,2018 Corps installs three 1.8 megawatt generators on the island ofVieques to act 

as a "mirco~grid'' to provide stable power to the island. 

March 16, 2018- Amendment to Mission Assignment (MA # 16) extends the l 00% federal costsharing through May 18, 2018. 

March 23, 2018- Amendment to Mission Assignment {MA # 16) executed for additional 

electrical grid repair work to be completed by May 18, 2018. 

April 6, 2018- Contract modification extension was issued to PowerSecure for additional 

electrical grid restoration work 

May 17, 2018- Funds obligated for Mission Assignment (MA #33) with a l 0% Puerto Rico 

cost-share for grid restoration work to begin on May 19, 2018 to be performed by non-Corps 

contractors with materials supplied by the Corps. 

8. Based on the Corps' experience working on Puerto Rico's electric infrastructure and a 

life cycle cost analysis of rebuilding the electric grid, do you believe it would be more 

cost effective to simply rebuild the same grid infrastructure that was in place before 

Hurricane Maria, given that grid infrastructme's demonstrated vulnerability to extreme 

weather events? Does it make economic sense to rebuild the same electric infrastructure 

on either Vieques or Culebra? 

Answer: Per the Stafford Act, the Corps' power restoration work in Puerto Rico was to replace, 

in kind, the system that was in place before the hurricanes. For the most part, that meant linefor-line, pole-for-pole, and wire-for-wire. However, there were exceptions, primarily where the 

cost of a different solution is less than restoring to the pre-storm condition. For example, in 

some cases the original poles might have nm up an undeveloped stretch of mountainous terrain 

or through wetlands. The Corps was able to change the installation, if a better solution was 

identified, such as running the new poles along a road near that mountain or near that wetland, 

after a review for cost, schedule and any right-of-way issues. 

Per the Stafford Act, the Corps mission also has included meeting current code requirements, 

where the power system did not meet them prior to the storm. Therefore, the grid was upgraded 

to current Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority standards. In addition, new lines and new poles 

replaced decades-old infrastructure. Therefore, the replacement system will be more resilient 

going forward than was the pre-existing grid. 

9. What measures has the Corps taken to improve its ability to respond to future hurricanes 

in Puerto Rico, should it be called upon again to do so by FEMA? 

Answer: USACE continues to participate in and contribute to discussions among the Federal 

agencies on lessons learned in Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria, including consideration 

of the geography of the island, and the challenges in getting people, equipment, and supplies to 

its coastal and interior regions in the aftermath of a disaster. These discussions will inform 
11 


34176.012

future local and Federal planning and preparedness efforts, and will cover issues such as training, 

exercises, and the stockpiling of equipment and supplies. 

The Corps continues to maintain staff in FEMA 's Joint Recovery Office tracking the residual 

recovery efforts. In addition to maintaining the capacity to surge personnel into Puerto Rico both 

in advance parties and post-storm response elements to carry out FEMA Stafford Act Emergency 

Support Function #3 (Public Works and Engineering missions), the Corps maintains an "Antilles 

Field Office" that maintains liaison with the Puerto Rico Electrical Power Authority and FEMA 

Region!!. 

I 0. On May S'h, in his testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources, Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Electricity Bruce Walker 

stated: 

The Governor [of Puerto Rico} and [the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority} 

should immediately ensure that updated, effective mutual aid agreements are 

primed to quickly provide support during the next event. 

In your professional opinion, how would updated, effective mutual aid agreements 

impact the delivery of disaster relief resources- including food, medical supplies, 

emergency responders, emergency power generation equipment, and workers to repair 

damaged electric infrastructure- to Puerto Rico in the event of a future hurricane? 

Answer: The Corps is not involved in Mutual Aid Agreements with local utility authorities and 

that question would be better directed to the Department of Energy and/or FEMA. 

II. Please provide the Corps' best estimate as to how much money was spent on diesel as of 

May 31, 2018 for emergency power generation on the main Island of Puerto Rico. Please 

also provide separate estimates as to how much money was spent on diesel as of May 31, 

2018 for emergency power generation on the Islands ofVieques and Culebra. 

Answer: The Corps spent approximately $110 million on diesel fuel as of May 17, 2018 for 

emergency power generation on the main island of Puerto Rico. The Corps spent approximately 

$57 million for the Palo Seco Mega power generators and $21 million for the Yabucoa Mega 

generator. Approximately $32 million was spent on the remaining emergency power generators 

(spot generators). In addition, as of May 17, 2018, the Corps has spent approximately $900,000 

on diesel for emergency power generation on the Islands ofVieques and Culebra. 

12. In your professional opinion, is the electric grid in Puerto Rico ready for the next 

hurricane season? Is the grid infrastructure prepared to withstand another Category 4 

hurricane? 

Answer: The restored system should be more resilient going forward than was the pre-existing 

grid. 
12 


34176.013

Senator Sullivan: 

13. Assistant Secretary James, since your last appearance before the Committee I am pleased 

to acknowledge that the planning charrette for the Arctic Deep Draft Port project in 

Nome has occurred. This first step included the City of Nome as the local sponsor, and 

strong participation by the Army Corps' Alaska District team, as well as representatives 

from other federal and state agencies. While this is progress, 1 am concerned about any 

remaining reluctance to utilize all available statutory authorities to allow this project to 

move forward. The next milestone will be in late June when the initial alternatives are 

presented, followed by more direct involvement by Army Corps headquarters in the 

review process. 

We have discussed how Nome, and the majority of communities in Alaska, do not "fit" 

into the traditional national economic determination formula, which led Congress to enact 

provisions that allow for non-economic factors to form the basis for authorizing a project. 

I have led the effort to include national security interests as important factors for an 

Arctic Deep Draft Port, which is in addition to the factors included in the Remote and 

Subsistence Harbor provision. 

1 understand that Army Corps policy requires the preparation of an economic evaluation, 

but this should not preclude moving forward under all the authorities congress has 

provided including alternative, non-economic authorities. Will you commit to me that 

Army Corps headquarters will embrace all available statutory authorities to allow this 

project to move forward in an efficient and expeditious manner? 

Answer: The Corps' current focus is to complete the planning process for this project. The 

Corps anticipates meeting the alternative milestone this summer as planned. Additional funding 

to complete the study phase of this project will be considered in the tltture along with other 

programs, projects, and activities across the Nation competing for the available resources. 
13 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much, Secretary James. 

We appreciate your being here. There are a number of members, 

obviously a big turnout, are interested in this topic. 

Let me start with this. 2017 was a record year for runoff in the 

Upper Snake River Basin around Jackson Lake in northwest Wyoming. It experienced significant amounts of flooding. As of last 

month, runoff predictions for this year were 136 percent of average, 

which is presenting, again, another significant risk of flooding. 

Landowners and stakeholders from around the area have been 

contacting my office with concern for how the Army Corps and the 

Bureau of Reclamation have managed the spring runoff out of 

Jackson Lake and down the Snake River. 

I sent you a letter on April 18th regarding this issue and I ask 

unanimous consent that this be entered into the record, and it will 

be without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

14 


34176.003

May 15, 2018 

Senator John Barrasso 

Chairman, 

Committee on Environment & Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Senator Jim Inhofe 

Chairman, 

Transportation & Infrastructure Subcommittee 

205 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Senator Tom Carper 

Ranking Member, 

Committee on Environment & Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Senator Ben Cardin 

Ranking Member, 

Transportation & Infrastructure Subcommittee 

509 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Strong Support for Inclusion of the SRF WIN Act in America's Water Infrastructure Act 

Dear Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, Senator lnhofe and Senator Cardin, 

The nation's leading construction, engineering, municipal, conservation, public works, 

infrastructure finance, labor and manufacturing organizations, strongly support the Securing 

Required Funding for Water Infrastructure Now Act- the SRF WIN Act- and your efforts to 

reauthorize the Water Resources Development Act. We believe the inclusion of the SRF WIN 

Act in the America's Water Infrastructure Act will make a really good bill even better. The 

bipartisan SRF WIN Act, cosponsored by Senators Boozman, Booker, lnhofe, Feinstein, 

Barrasso, Man chin, Capito, Casey, Cornyn and Baldwin, is a fiscally responsible approach to 

providing States over $10 B annually for critical improvements to our nation's rural and urban 

water infrastmcture. 

The SRF WIN Act utilizes the substantial leveraging of Federal infrastructure funding 

established through the Water Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act (WIFIA) Program PL 

113-121 -to finance the existing Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving 

Funds (CW A and SDW A SRFs). State Finance Authorities have been successfully financing 

wastewater infrastructure projects through the CW A SRF for the past 30 years and drinking 

water infrastructure through the SDWA SRF for the past 20 years. State Finance Authorities 

have solicited and assessed thousands of water infrastructure project proposals submitted by 

large and small communities in every state and Congressional District. States currently have 

thousands of vetted water infrastructure projects awaiting SRF funding. 

State Finance Authorities are in an ideal position to combine new WIFIA leveraged 

funding with existing SRF Funds to expeditiously finance thousands of existing and vetted water 

infrastructure projects. Under current law, State Finance Authorities are eligible recipients of 

WIFIA funding and are able to bundle existing water and wastewater projects into a single 

WIFIA loan proposal. On July 19,2017, EPA gave preliminary "approval" to a $436 M WIFIA 

loan to construct drinking water and wastewater projects across Indiana. The SRF WIN Act 
15 


34176.004

builds upon the Indiana experience to dramatically improve the workability of WIF!A and 

expand the utilization of this innovative water infrastructure financing tool to all states. 

Specifically, the SRF WIN Act amends the existing WIFIA program to: 

Expedite conside1·ation of WIFIA loan applications- requires EPA to approve an 

application from an SRF within 180 days of receipt. The current W!FIA program has 

taken years to approve less than a dozen projects. Sec. 2 (e) Expedited Review of 

Applications 

Enhance leveraging of WIFIA funding- all State SRFs have AAA Bond Ratings 

allowing for a $100M appropriation to yield $10 Bin WIFIA Loans lo states. Sec 2 (f) 

Authorization of Appropriations 

• Remove Application Fees- the elimination of Application Fees will save SRF 

borrowers approximately $250-$500 K per application. Sec. 2 (c) (3) Application Fees 

• Enhance Funding for SRF Administration of New WIFIA .Funding SRFs can use 

WIFIA to cover reasonable costs of administration. Sec. 2 (c) 2 Administrative Costs 

Protect Current SRF and WIFIA Funding No funds are available for the SRF WIN 

Act if appropriations for the SRFs and WIFIA are less than amount appropriated in FY 

2018. Sec. 2 (f) (3) No Impact On Other Federal Funding 

Provide Loan Interests Rates that Encourage Participation in WIFIA by All States 

funds are available to states in the form of low interest loans at or below the Treasury 

Rate. Sec. 2 (d) (C) Distribution of Loans 

• Provide WIFIA Funding for Potentially Thousands of Water Projects- removing 

barriers to SRF participation in WIFIA and providing incentives to SRF participation in 

WIFIA will enable Stales to bundle all of their priority drinking water and wastewater 

projects, both large and small projects, into a single State project for EPA approval. A 

single State SRF WIFIA project could include over 100 individual water and wastewater 

projects. Sec. 2 (b) Financial Assistance to State Loan Funds 

Providing State Finance Authorities WIFIA loans is the most effective and efficient means 

for the Federal govenunent to support water and wastewater construction projects across the 

nation. The SRF WIN Act enjoys broad bipartisan support in the Senate and advances 

significant, fiscally responsible, investments in our nation's water infrastructure. This legislation 

merits inclusion in the America's Water Infrastructure Act. 
16 


34176.005

The WIFIA program was initially authorized in the Water Resources Development Act 

(WRDA) and we believe the significant improvements to WIFIA contained in the SRF WIN Act 

should be addressed in WRDA '18 the America's Water Infrastructure Act. We greatly 

appreciate your commitment to improving our nation's water infrastructure and look forward to 

working with you in the coming days to secure broad bipartisan support for passage of the 

American's Water Infrastructure Act. 

Sincerely, 

• American Council of Engineering Companies- ACEC 

• American Composite Manufacturers Association - ACMA 

• American Public Works Association- APWA 

• American Society of Civil Engineers - ASCE 

• Arkansas Natural Resources Commission - ANRC 

• Arkansas Rural Water 

• Associated General Contractors of America- AGC 

• U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

• Council of Infrastructure Finance Authorities- CIFA 

• Ducks Unlimited- DU 

• Grasslands Water District-- GWD 

• Hydraulic Institute - HI 

• International Union of Operating Engineers- IUOE 

• Laborers International Union of North America- LIUNA 

• Land Trust of Arkansas - L T A 

• Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewer District- MMSD 

• National Association of Clean Water Agencies- NACWA 
17 


34176.006

• National Electrical Contractors Association- NECA 

• National Rural Water Association- NRWA 

• North America's Building Trades Unions - NABTU 

• NEWWater 

• Riceland Foods 

• Rural Community Assistance Partnership- RCAP 

• United Association of Plumbers and Pipetitters- The United 

• Vinyl Institute- VI 

• Water Reuse Association- WRA 

• Water Infrastructure Network- WIN 

• Water Systems Council- WSC 

• Water Well Trust- WWT 
18 

Senator BARRASSO. What assurances can you give me that you 

are working with local entities, as well as the Bureau of Reclamation, to minimize flooding in this area? 

Mr. JAMES. Senator, it is my understanding that the Corps is 

working hand-in-hand with the Bureau of Rec and local sponsors 

in that area to prevent flooding in the future or reduce the risk of 

flooding in the future. 

Senator BARRASSO. I appreciate that very much and we will continue in close communication to make sure that that is able to be 

accomplished. Thank you. 

One of the things that you mentioned is move dirt faster and 

cheaper, in your comments. I think that was your phrase. You 

know, an adequate and affordable water supply is crucial to so 

many rural communities, farms, cities alike, and what we have 

seen is reservoirs, such as the Big Horn Reservoir in Wyoming, has 

lost significant water storage capacity due to sediment buildup. So, 

when we talk about moving dirt faster and cheaper, it is not just 

aboveground; it is also in our reservoirs. 

The America’s Water Infrastructure Act increases water supply 

in existing reservoirs by developing programs, sediment management plans, for these reservoirs through partnerships, partnerships 

between the Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation. 

So, if signed into law, will you make it also a priority to fully implement this provision so that rural and western communities in 

need can have the benefits of that full water storage capacity of the 

reservoirs by moving that dirt faster and cheaper? 

Mr. JAMES. Sir, absolutely I will. In the West, as I have realized 

from talking to you in the past, the water resource itself is what 

you are after and what you are losing by sediment. In other parts 

of the Country we are losing flood control storage due to the same 

type sediment. This has to be addressed on a nationwide basis. 

One of the issues I think we will run into on that is the disposal 

of the sediment. We know how to get it out, but what do we do 

with it? And we may need to talk about that in the future and have 

some leadership from your Committee. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much, and thanks for 

that national commitment to deal with that. I am very grateful. 

As you know, the President has made rebuilding America’s infrastructure a top priority in this Administration. The President has 

talked about leveraging Federal dollars to maximize investments 

being made in water infrastructure, and I believe this bill does that 

through programs like the WIFIA program, Water Infrastructure 

Finance and Innovation Act, that you are very familiar with. 

My question is, from your perspective, will this legislation really 

help fulfill some of the key principles outlined by President Trump 

on rebuilding America’s water infrastructure in a timely and an effective manner, with more of the focus on rural America, as well 

as more local control in decisionmaking? 

Mr. JAMES. Sir, in my opinion, it will. It addresses several 

things, including more work with the local sponsors, direct work 

with local sponsors, input from local sponsors. We have been lacking that for many years now. 

The other thing is I noticed in the bill that, instead of addressing 

individual harbors and individual dredging needs along the East 

19 

Coast, that they be looked at as a system so we know where the 

sediment is going after we dredge it. And then the work you have 

put into this bill as far as helping move obstacles away from the 

Corps so we can do the job better as you direct it. 

Senator BARRASSO. My final question before turning to Senator 

Carper is several critical water resource development projects are 

currently in review at the Corps but not ready for authorization by 

Congress because a signed chief’s report or other decisions documents have not yet been completed. 

Can you talk to me a little bit about what steps the Corps is taking to accelerate these project reviews so that projects are ready for 

authorization in America’s Water Infrastructure Act before the bill 

is actually signed into law? 

Mr. JAMES. Well, sir, that is actually one of my complaints, is 

that we are not getting from day one to day X soon enough as a 

Corps of Engineers; and then, oh, by the way, once we get to authorization and get some appropriations, I don’t think we are getting to day one on moving dirt as soon as I would like to see us 

as a Corps of Engineers. 

I look forward to working with this Committee. I have some 

ideas on that as we move forward today and I want to share them 

with you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, we look forward to that. Thanks so 

much for your being here today. 

Senator CARPER. Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

The first question I have today for you, Secretary James, deals 

with the structure of the Corps. As you may recall, our legislation 

currently includes a U.S. GAO study on benefit-cost analysis. Our 

bill also asks the National Academy of Sciences to study several 

things, including, one, how the Corps can increase transparency; 

two, if we should use a system-wide, rather than project-based, authorization process for water projects; and the third thing we are 

asking the National Academy of Sciences to study and give us their 

thoughts on is whether the Corps’ structure and organization 

should be modified. 

There has been a fair amount of public discussion, as you know, 

about this last topic, and that is whether the Corps of Engineers 

is appropriately housed within the Department of Defense. In 

March of this year, Representative Bill Shuster, Republican, Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in the 

House, publicly announced that he was working on legislation to 

move the Army Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works program from the 

Department of Defense and potentially place it within the U.S. Department of Transportation. At that time, Interior Secretary Ryan 

Zinke voiced that he wanted the Civil Works program moved to his 

department, the Department of the Interior. 

We understand informally that Representative Shuster has decided he is not going to run for reelection and may not be pushing 

for that movement right now, of the Army Corps to the Department 

of Transportation, but we would be interested in knowing your 

views on this topic. Do you anticipate that the studies that are envisioned in our Senate bill will better position the Corps to tackle 

our Nation’s tough infrastructure challenge? Your thoughts, please. 

20 

Mr. JAMES. Senator, I haven’t seen what the President has 

planned yet in his agency review. I understand that it is not just 

the Corps; it is the other agencies as well he is wanting to look at 

and see how we can all do a better job for this Nation. I haven’t 

seen that; I think that is coming soon. 

Without having seen that, I still have ideas of my own. It is obvious that this Committee has ideas from looking through the bill or 

reading the bill more than once, and I can’t tell you the outcome 

of what is going to happen. I can tell you that I think your new 

bill postures the Congress for a good discussion with the President 

on what should happen. 

I really don’t think I should reply as to what I think should happen because it really is not going to matter; it is what this Committee and the President decides. But I do think this bill puts a 

good posture on current thinking by the Senate as it deals with, 

particularly, the Corps of Engineers, if not some of the other agencies as well. 

We all know, I know and I can State, that the expeditious nature 

in which we move forward in the Corps of Engineers does not suit 

me, I will tell you. I think it is a combination of both laws of the 

past and rules and regulations and engineering circulars of the 

past. Inside the Corps, the director of Civil Works, who is here with 

me, Mr. James Dalton, has been working very hard over the last 

10 months looking at themselves, trying to streamline themselves, 

trying to make themselves more effective. 

Since I have been on the job, I have attacked the same problem. 

We have made headway. Now, whether it is enough to suit the 

Senate and the President, we will see. 

Senator CARPER. I have another question, but if we have a second round I will followup with that question at that time. Thank 

you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me, first of all, make a comment from our experiences here. 

We have been on this Committee a long period of time. We have 

gone through several of the WRDA bills and other legislation, and 

one of the problems we have had is just the overabundance of redundancy. You have an application out there, then you go through 

and you have all the different bureaucracies to work with. 

The President has said that, in talking about infrastructure 

plans, he has highlighted several areas that can help get our 

projects constructed faster. He is talking about such as you don’t 

really need a 404 and 408, you could do that with one application. 

Or in areas where you have a Federal decision, one bureaucracy to 

work with. 

Is there anything that you could share with us that you have 

shared with the President that is going to try to take away the burdensome over-regulations? 

Mr. JAMES. I will do my best, sir. You mentioned the 404 and the 

408. Those processes have both been moved down to the district 

level. They have both been combined as one permitting process. 

They are somewhat different. The 404 basically deals with the wetlands; the 408 deals with protecting Federal structures from enVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:34 Feb 08, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\34176.TXT VERNE
21 

croachment or adverse effects from close-by infrastructure. But we 

have put those together hopefully to speed up that process. 

The other thing that I had begun to notice in the permitting 

process of the Corps, it was becoming punitive rather than just a 

permit that you come to seek to do a project. Now, that is not in 

all cases at all, but I have seen it. 

Senator INHOFE. And I have seen it too, and I am glad you mentioned that because that gets to my other question that I am very 

much concerned about, and that is that over the past year we have 

talked about the abuses of the Clean Water Act. It is 401 State certification process. Now, under the law, the 401 process gives States 

the option to evaluate with a maximum of 1 year, but they are supposed to be evaluating as to the compliance with the Clean Air Act. 

So, if there is a State who just doesn’t like something, an application that has been made, they can stall it for the year, and then 

they hold the applicant over a barrel by saying we will either deny 

it or you withdraw it. And what has happened is there are a lot 

of them, to just give you an example, on the pipelines trying to 

reach in the eastern part of the United States, they have been unable to do it because of this bureaucracy that is out there in the 

efforts to stop that type of legislation from going through, so they 

hold up a permit under 401 and, as a result of that, the people are 

the ones who are being punished. 

A good example is, in Boston they are importing their natural 

gas from Russia. Now, we are producing more here than Russia is. 

We could be doing that here. Why is that? Because they can’t get 

it because of the pipeline situation and the obstruction that is out 

there. 

Now, there should be a good legislative fix to that, and I would 

think that hopefully you have had some time to look at that, and 

it could be that we could define that so that they can’t use the 401 

as a stall tactic unless it is something that actually does violate the 

Clean Water Act or in some way is consistent, so it can’t just be 

used for an obstacle. 

Have you thought about that? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir. I am personally aware of the 401 water 

quality certification of States. I have seen exactly what you said 

happen in the past. I think it could be addressed legislatively without stepping on the priorities and the needs of a State simply by 

saying if it is not addressed within a year, that the Federal Government would assume that they have nothing to say about it. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, I like your idea better. 

Mr. JAMES. You said it hurt those people with the gas line. 

Where I have seen it is in flood control projects. Back then we 

would go through the recon, the feasibility, pre-engineering and design, the EIS, and get ready to go to build a project, and couldn’t 

get water quality certification from the State. So that not only cost 

the local people money, because it was all cost-shared; it cost the 

Federal Government. And ultimately, on some of those projects, it 

actually killed those projects, so that money that was spent was 

just down the rat hole. 

Senator INHOFE. I think you and I both have great examples of 

that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

22 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator CARDIN. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank you 

and Senator Carper for continuing the tradition of our Committee 

on this legislation. I very much appreciate the manner in which we 

have all been engaged in trying to advance a bipartisan WRDA bill, 

so thank you very much. I am proud to work with you on this bill. 

Secretary James, I want to first thank you. During your confirmation hearings, I made a suggestion, would you be willing to 

visit our Poplar Island environmental restorationsite. The next 

thing I know, I got a call from your office telling me that you had 

planned to visit. The problem was I couldn’t make it the day that 

you scheduled, so your office called back and rescheduled it so we 

could be together, so I just thank you very much for the courtesies 

that were extended. On April 5th the weather was a lot better than 

the weather today, and we were fortunate that we had at least decent weather. It was cold, but it was at least clear and we could 

see, firsthand, Poplar Island. 

Poplar Island was started by the work of Senator Sarbanes before I came to the Senate and it is an environmental restorationsite 

for disposal of materials coming out from dredging. As I have explained previously, finding sites for disposal material is not always 

easy. 

In this case it is easy because we took an island that had eroded 

to about 5 acres and restored it to 1,000 acres, and it is restored 

through the use of disposal materials, but done in a way that it is 

an environmental restorationsite, which is critically important in 

the Chesapeake Bay for the environmental reasons of the Chesapeake Bay and preserving the historic nature of that Bay. 

So, we are very proud of how that has transpired. We have challenges, and I am going to followup with Senator Inhofe’s point because I agree with him completely. There are a lot of well-intended 

rules, but sometimes those rules can block the ability to keep 

projects on schedule, on time; and that is of a particular concern 

to me on our locations for dredge material. 

Poplar Island still has several years remaining to be able to receive dredge material, but we need to get planned on our next site, 

which is Mid-Bay, which is not too far away from Poplar Island, 

and everyone is in agreement. The Army Corps has done their 

work on it, they are in agreement, and we are now proceeding with 

completing Poplar Island and then transitioning to Mid-Bay. Everyone is in agreement; all the work has been done. 

We had hurdles in this year’s appropriation bill, and one of the 

problems was that the President’s budget reclassified Poplar Island 

from an environmental restoration project to a navigation project. 

The economics of that would not work at Poplar Island. It won’t 

have a major impact on Poplar Island because Poplar Island is finished, but if that philosophy were to be continued to Mid-Bay, it 

would make it almost impossible for Mid-Bay to be done. 

We had a great discussion, and I think that was pretty clear. I 

am pleased to see, Mr. Chairman, it looks like in the House appropriation bills they have already taken care of this particular problem. But I just mention that because these are hurdles. 

23 

In your response to I think it was Senator Carper’s point or Senator Barrasso’s point about you don’t make the decisions, I agree 

with you on the way you said this, but this Committee, working 

with the appropriators, working with you, want to make sure that 

we don’t have any unintended consequences and we keep on schedule, so we are going to need your help. 

One of the things we need to do is design the engineering of MidBay, and we believe we need to do that in this budget cycle. It 

could be done next budget cycle, but it is better if it is done in this 

budget cycle, and we may be looking to you for help as to how we 

can make sure we stay on schedule to complete Poplar Island and 

transition to Mid-Bay. 

You told me during this meeting that you will be fully cooperative, and I appreciate that. My reason for bringing it up now is 

mainly to thank you for your personal attention and ask that we 

continue to work together with this Committee, with the appropriators, with OMB and the other agencies to make sure that we keep 

these two projects on schedule; critically important to the economy 

of Maryland and the entire region, with the Port of Baltimore and 

the other ports that are connected hereto with the deeper harbors, 

as well as the restoration of our environment and the Chesapeake 

Bay. So, I thank you and just ask that you continue to work with 

us so that we can make sure that we are together moving these 

projects forward. 

Mr. JAMES. Sir, I also enjoyed our visit. It was sunny that day 

and I didn’t have a cap, so I got a slight burn on top, but I got over 

it. 

Senator CARDIN. I had a cap. 

Mr. JAMES. But thank you for the kind words, and I will continue 

to work with this entire Committee to try to move forward water 

resources in this Country. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Senator FISCHER. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. As I have 

discussed with you before, Nebraska utilizes a unique system of 23 

natural resource districts governed by locally elected boards to 

manage our State’s waters resources, and often these NRDs are the 

local sponsors of water infrastructure projects with the Corps and 

are on the front lines to protect our communities. 

Building off of Senator Inhofe’s comments regarding the 408 permitting process, I appreciate that the Corps is taking a look at this 

cumbersome project that we have to go through; however, it is the 

Omaha district that has caused the problem, and, as Senator 

Inhofe said, it is the people, the taxpayers that are being punished. 

The Omaha district held up this permit for 5 years, at the cost 

of nearly $8 million. Are you aware of what is going on there and, 

if so, how do you plan to address that? 

Mr. JAMES. No, ma’am, the only way I can address that is that 

I think that 408 is to be completed by the end of May this year. 

I am not fully aware of all the circumstances in that. I will share 

24 

with the Committee, later, my thoughts on what should happen 

when that happens. 

Senator FISCHER. OK. I do understand that the Omaha district 

office has indicated that that permit will be issued to the NRD by 

the end of this month, but I still remain astounded at the time and 

the money that has been spent on a single permit. 

I am encouraged, sir, by your expressed commitment to improve 

the Army Corps’ decisionmaking process for permitting issues like 

this example. 

Mr. Chairman, I do ask unanimous consent to place into the 

record a letter that Secretary James sent on April 20, 2018 to levee 

district operators. In this letter, Secretary James, you specifically 

point to improving the Army Corps’ Section 408 permitting process 

as a priority. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, sir. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

25 


34176.007

Hello Corps team mates. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

CIVIL WORKS 

108 ARMY PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON DC 20310-0108 

.APR 2 o ·zo 18 

I am proud to serve as the 121

h Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. I have 

worked closely with the U S Army Corps as a Civil Engineer Member of the Mississippi River 

Commission for 36 years. My life's work has been as a farmer and businessman in Southeast 

Missouri. While I have tremendous respect for the Corps, one of the driving forces in accepting 

this position is a desire to improve the Corps decision-making processes, as well as that of 

other federal agencies, so as to advance the Civil Works needs of the nation. 

As you are all aware, the President has a distinct interest in rebuilding infrastructure in our 

nation. The Army Corps has and will play a vital role in the planning, engineering and 

implementation of water resources projects. The Administration began work to shape the 

infrastructure agenda immediately following the inauguration and we have been directly 

engaged in the White House led process since its inception. Our proactive engagement has 

enabled the formulation of legislative, policy and administrative actions required to substantially 

and comprehensively modernize both the permitting and civil works programs. The areas 

requiring legislation are reflected in the Legislative Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in 

America that was released by the White House on January 30'h. 

Our direct engagement, as well as feedback from the Administration's outreach efforts, has 

heightened the President's interest in modernizing the Corps to improve execution of its 

responsibilities. I view the President's interests in the Corps as a tremendous opportunity to 

address long standing challenges and more importantly, shape the future of infrastructure in this 

country. 

At the request of the President, the National Economic Council is leading an interagency 

policy process to modernize Corps decision-making processes and involves all pertinent federal 

agencies and executive offices of the President. The initial focus of the policy process is on 

improving our permitting (Section 404/10) and permissions (Section 408) processes. Work to 

modernize civil works decision-making processes is expected to begin shortly. 

As legislative action is considered by Congress, our efforts in support of the Administration's 

Infrastructure Initiative are now focused on actions we can advance through updated policy 

and/or rulernaking for permitting and civil works programs. My intent is to advance actions in a 

prioritized fashion and through executive interaction with other federal agency officials. 

I fully recognize the value of our collective work. I expect our team to prioritize efforts on 

many fronts to ensure we seize on this great opportunity and deliver for our nation. My intent is 

to work with the Corps and the Administration to remove roadblocks and streamline processes 

to ensure success. We can no longer accept the inefficiencies that arise from such roadblocks 

which delay the implementation of projects and increase project costs unnecessarily. 

Let us all focus on results, not the process; the end goal is to save money, reduce time, and 

"move dirt". Thanks in advance for all of your support and hard work, it is appreciated and 

noticed!! 

RD. J m s 

Assist Secretary of the Army 

(Civil Works) 
26 

Senator FISCHER. Secretary, can you explain what improvements 

to the permitting process that you are looking at implementing in 

the future and how these actions are going to be reinforced? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, ma’am, I will, the ones I can remember. We 

have made several on 404s and 408s. I guess one of the most significant is we pushed those back down, those permit decisions to 

the district level; out of headquarters, out of the divisions. They are 

closer to the actual job site, they are closer to the sponsors, so that 

should help that situation. 

We have also reduced the requirement of the project requirement 

before it receives the 408 permit as far as the timing of the permit 

release, the amount of information the Corps needs before they will 

release a permit. 

There are several more. If I may, ma’am, I would like to send 

you a note or come see you about them. There is a nice list of 

things we have done; I just can’t recall all of them right now. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. I would appreciate that. 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator FISCHER. I would also like to draw your attention to another issue that is facing our NRDs, this time related to the Army 

Corps’ transparency and accountability in the cost-sharing for 

water resource projects. As partner with the Corps on water resource projects, our NRDs work with the Corps to share in the 

planning and the construction costs; however, our NRDs have experienced issues with the Corps after project completion related to 

closing out the account and the issuance of reimbursement. 

For example, an environmental restoration and flood reduction 

project that boasts additional recreational benefits was completed 

in 2013. The local NRD is still waiting for the Omaha district to 

close out that account and reimburse the NRD to the tune of nearly 

$800,000. 

Mr. Secretary, can you please share with us the action you will 

take to break through this systemic red tape and facilitate project 

closeout projects, while also ensuring that non-Federal partners are 

reimbursed in a timely manner for their contributions to these 

projects? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, ma’am. I noticed in the Committee’s bill that 

you all have addressed this same topic pretty well, but, as the ASA, 

I definitely intend to address it. There is absolutely no reason that 

a closeout should take over 6 months. I assume the Corps would 

probably want a year, but absolutely no more than a year. It is not 

that big a deal. I mean, even with projects that don’t have reimbursements coming, just the normal everyday process of closing out 

a project, I have read, since I have been here, several times a 

project was completed in X year and closeout will be completed in 

X year. 

I will have to get more information on that. There may be a lot 

that I don’t know, but I don’t think so. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. Our local taxpayers that provide the revenue for our NRDs also appreciate you 

looking into it. Five years is not acceptable. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Fischer. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. 

27 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Welcome back, Mr. James. It is good to have you here. As you 

can imagine, we all work here on this Committee pretty hard to try 

to get our priorities into the WRDA bills, so, when they pass into 

law, it can be a little bit frustrating when nothing seems to happen 

in response to the law that we have passed. 

I would like to flag two things for you from the 2016 WRDA bill 

and ask you to give a little shake to the machinery to see if we can 

get some action. 

The 2016 WRDA bill, in Section 1173, directed the Corps to undertake a National Academy of Sciences study on the use and performance of innovative materials. By law, that report was due this 

December. To date, we don’t believe the Corps has even started it. 

Can you give that a little shake and see if we can get some attention to that? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir, I will. I am not familiar with that, but I will 

find out. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. That is why I brought it up here. 

And more generally, if you could followup with me a little bit on 

what steps might be undertaken to get the Army Corps engineering 

manuals and other guidance to a place where they reflect the fact 

of these innovative materials that are being developed. 

It is important to us in coastal States, because some of the more 

traditional materials don’t survive well in salt water, and salt 

water is increasingly intruding, so these innovative materials matter; and if the engineering manuals that set the standards for them 

don’t exist, they are left out of the equation in ways that are not 

fair and are not efficient. 

You will help on that? 

Mr. JAMES. I understand that, sir, and I will get with the Corps 

to see what it looks like now and make improvements along this 

line, if we don’t have it, and I assume we don’t. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I appreciate it. We will followup. 

The other WRDA thing from 2016 was the Corps’ authority to remove debris like derelict pilings from waterways. The Army Corps 

had taken the position that they weren’t obstacles to navigation because you could navigate around them. To me, that is the definition 

of an obstacle to navigate, is that you have to navigate around it, 

but, never mind, we got that solved by putting it in the law; and 

yet, to date, it doesn’t appear that the Corps has ever utilized this 

authority nor even developed its implementation guidelines. I 

would really like to have this not be ignored, so if you could followup with that as well, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir, I read that in the law. I was not familiar 

with it, but I will check with the Corps on that particular problem. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You can appreciate my sense of 

bemusement. 

Mr. JAMES. I am just going to say this. I am not sure if it is an 

appropriation problem or actually not doing the job problem. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, let’s solve it, whatever it is. 

Mr. JAMES. Well said. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And I have spoken to your local commander, as well, about this. 

28 

The last issue is the continuing one that I raised when we first 

met before your confirmation, about the disparity between coastal 

and inland funding under the Corps Flood and Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Account. When I first raised it with you, we were 

looking at the Fiscal Year 2018 budget, and the ratio was $30 inland for every $1 coastal. The Corps’ Fiscal Year 2019 budget proposal, which is $1.49 billion for this account, has $40 million 

marked for coastal projects, so the ratio has actually gotten worse 

since you and I first spoke about it. It used to be 30 inland dollars 

for every 1 coastal dollar; now it is 37 inland dollars for every 

coastal dollar. 

For coastal States, particularly ones that are facing sea level rise 

and a whole lot of new hazards that weren’t anticipated a half century ago, we would really like to find a way to adjust that. So, 

again, I call this problem to your and to my colleagues’ attention, 

and we will continue to try to find ways to make sure that there 

is a little bit more balance here between the upland and inland 

side of this. When it is called the Coastal Storm Damage Reduction 

Account, you would like to have coastal have more than a 1 out of 

38 ratio for dollars spent. 

Mr. JAMES. I understand that. I do recall our discussion last 

time. I would like to have the opportunity to get with the Corps, 

see what their budget priorities are on inland versus coastal, the 

reasoning and all that goes with preparing a budget, and get back 

with you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. May I come and visit with you and your 

folks and be a part of that discussion? 

Mr. JAMES. Absolutely. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Great. We will set that up. 

Mr. JAMES. OK. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. James. Appreciate your leadership at the organization. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WICKER. Senator WICKER. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us. One 

recurring problem that we have are the delays which take place 

when multiple agencies have conflicting regulations and differing 

policies on what is required for approval of a project, so let me, 

first of all, applaud the Administration goals to streamline NEPA 

and the regulations at multiple agencies to achieve NEPA compliance, and hope that projects can be built in a timely manner. 

As it relates to NEPA compliance for large infrastructure 

projects, how can the Corps take a more active leadership role in 

streamlining decisionmaking and uniform application of requirements? 

Mr. JAMES. Sir, if that can happen, it is going to happen. I will 

have to tell you that on those type projects we deal with at least 

three other agencies. A lot of the times those agencies drag their 

feet; they wait until the end of an EIS process to protest where everybody stands and, therefore, extends the process. I understand 

this inside and out. One thing about the President, I think he has 

realized this himself, and, through one Federal decision, I think all 

of that is going to be better. I think it will require that the agencies 

29 

have to coordinate throughout the process of NEPA and come out 

with one decision at the end. That has not been happening; we 

have been having multiple agencies, multiple decisions, as you 

know, sir. 

Senator WICKER. OK. Well, you know, I am going to be nice and 

not ask you to name these particular agencies, but I think I know 

what you are talking about. Clearly, we are all one Country and 

you are part of one Administration, so I hope that your optimism 

there about getting that fixed can actually come to reality. 

Let me ask about cost-benefit analyses. When considering the viability of projects, there are two different standards used to determine a favorable cost-benefit ratio. One is the Corps of Engineers’ 

approach; the other is Office of Management and Budget. The 

Corps considers a project to have a favorable cost-benefit ratio at 

one level, but then OMB has a much higher threshold. For example, when calculating the cost-benefit, the Corps will use the cost 

of money, the actual interest rate, when determining the true cost 

of the project; OMB considers projects with an automatic 7 percent 

interest rate. 

Do you agree that all agencies should settle on a single cost-benefit ratio that is required for Federal approval? 

Mr. JAMES. I can’t say that I agree, sir. All I can say is to reiterate what you just said. For authorization, the Corps does submit 

projects that have a benefit-cost ratio greater than one at the going 

rate, I think, on Treasury bonds, which right now is like 2.75. That 

is not to say that the Administration doesn’t appropriate funds at 

a completely different and unrelated benefit-cost ratio. That is the 

Administration’s prerogative and that is where we are with it right 

now, and I don’t think I just told you anything you don’t already 

know. 

Senator WICKER. OK. Well, I will simply voice this to everyone 

listening, including my colleagues. It would seem that we ought to 

be able, as Federal legislators, to get all of the agencies to agree 

on a single way to do the cost-benefit ratio, rather than have conflicting standards. 

With that, I thank you for your service and I yield back my time. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Wicker. 

Senator MORAN. Senator MORAN. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Secretary James, thank you for your presence here. I told you the 

last time that you were here that when I hear your voice, I am 

comforted, and it is still true today, and I hope that the answers 

to my questions, in addition to the way you speak, will be comforting as well. 

I am here on what I think is a significant and important issue 

for about 300 farmers in Kansas. The topic starts in Nebraska, 

with the Harlan County Lake. It is a Corps lake. The Bureau of 

Reclamation then contracts with the Corps to provide water to 

irrigators. In this case, the Bureau of Reclamation is the administrator of the irrigation contracts with the Bostwick Irrigation District and has the responsibility for collecting the costs associated 

with that irrigation annually. 

The Corps allocates between certain accounts the expense of 

maintaining and improving that lake structure and the irrigation 

30 

district in Kansas then, their members, have to pay a portion of 

those costs. The key is how the Corps of Engineers determines 

whether the cost is in one pot or in another. In this case, after the 

rebuilding of 18 gates at the lake, the determination was made— 

incidentally, it was announced that this was necessary for a design 

flaw in the gates—but the determination was made to allocate 

those costs in a way that then caused them necessarily to be paid 

for by the irrigators. 

We are certainly thankful that the dam safety project has been 

completed, but the way the costs are allocating is going to put my 

farmers in very dire circumstances. The design flaw of the flood 

gates at Harlan County Dam were replaced because of the design 

flaw, and the Corps of Engineers incorrectly categorized that as 

normal O&M project. 

The Corps stated, ‘‘The gates were designed for no friction, but 

there was a lot of friction in the gate bearings, so the project was 

very necessary to prevent the failure of the gates.’’ All 18 of those 

gates were repaired and the Corps described this as a complex dam 

project. 

It sure sounds to me like this project is a safety of a dams 

project, and the 2015 GAO report agrees with that. But, as a result 

of determining that this is normal O&M by the Corps, less than 

300 farmers are on the hook for roughly $9.5 million bill, or about 

$220 per acre. 

We calculated the average farm income in Kansas has been about $37,000 a year. The cost of this project for them is about 

$35,000 for every 160-acre quarter. Those numbers don’t compute 

and, as you can imagine, my irrigators are fearful for their livelihoods. 

So, Mr. Secretary, I don’t know the calculation that went through 

the Corps of Engineers in determining whether they considered 

this an O&M project or a dam safety project, but the result is dramatic upon people who earn a living as a result of having access 

to the water from Harlan County Reservoir, and I need your help 

in fixing it. How can you help me? 

Mr. JAMES. I will advise the chief of engineers to look directly 

into it and get me an answer, at which time I will relate to you. 

If the answer is not satisfactory, we will go further from there. 

Let me address, if I can have a moment, water supply in reservoirs. They are completely different out West than they are in 

the Midwest and South. In the Midwest and South, most of those 

reservoirs we call flood control reservoirs because that is what they 

are. During heavy rain events, January through April, they hold 

water back that we don’t have to introduce into the rivers and flood 

people. 

Then, later, after the rainfall stops, we draw them down. Well, 

right now, in my part of the world, we draw them down to a recreation pool. And then later, like in September, October, November, 

we draw them down to a winter pool, which you draw the water 

out of them so they can hold more water during the wet season. 

Now, OK, so there is recreation on them and there is flood control on them, and now, then, across this Nation we are seeing the 

need for water supply out of these reservoirs, whether they be like 

your reservoir or like the South and Midwest reservoirs. My conVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:34 Feb 08, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\34176.TXT VERNE
31 

cern is two or threefold. No. 1, we all have sediment in our reservoirs, so we are losing it there. We have recreation in most of 

them; therefore, we are losing flood control there. Not during the 

summer months, but all the recreators want us to extend the 

length of time in both directions that we hold that recreation pool. 

And then you come along with water supply; same difference. 

Now, as far as I am concerned, and I have to think more about 

this, but right now I am not sure water supply should be a charge. 

That pool is going to be there. That reservoir is there. Now, I know 

in the 1944 and the 1952 Acts of this Congress, that is when this 

basically started, but if you have a reservoir for flood control or for 

droughts out West holding water for that, it doesn’t take any more 

maintenance for water supply than it does without water supply. 

I don’t think we, as the Corps, maintain water supply intakes. 

So, I want to look into this and see where it came from, see what 

the law says and address it, because it is beginning to affect this 

whole Country, not just what you are talking about, sir. And I intend to be doing that over the next whenever I can, and I would 

be glad to get back with you on it. But as far as your particular 

problem, I will talk to the chief. 

Senator MORAN. My understanding of what you are describing, 

which I appreciate your knowledge, but I also appreciate your understanding of the experience, in most of our lakes, the problem for 

irrigators is in most years there is not enough water for them to 

access to irrigate. They still have costs associated with their irrigation district they have to pay even when they are not receiving 

water; and in this case the Corps made a decision that when they 

are receiving water, to some degree, at least, but they are going to 

pay for the cost of replacing all those gates as if it was normal 

maintenance of that dam and gate structure, and that defies reality 

and the consequences are dramatic. 

I appreciate the sympathy that you expressed and your understanding of, in arid, dry country, or, in our case, we are in a 

drought again, that water is very expensive when we get it. It is 

even more expensive when we can’t get it, and we are still paying 

for things that are unassociated with our use of that water. 

Mr. JAMES. Is that a Corps reservoir? 

Senator MORAN. It is a Corps reservoir, yes, sir. 

Mr. JAMES. What was it built for at the time? 

Senator MORAN. Flood control. 

Mr. JAMES. That is what I thought. 

Senator MORAN. Just what you described. 

Mr. JAMES. That is what most of them are built for, is flood control. 

Senator MORAN. I had to ask because it is in Nebraska. 

Mr. JAMES. I understand, sir. I am sorry, I didn’t mean to put 

you on the spot, but it would have made a difference in what I am 

going to do. 

Senator MORAN. No, you have inspired me because you have said 

several times today I don’t know the answer, so I was willing to 

admit that as well. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MORAN. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Moran. 

32 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to followup on what Senator Moran has been talking 

about here a little bit with regard to what I think is a similar 

issue. I appreciated the time that you spent with me in my office 

yesterday concerning the flood issues on the Missouri River and the 

possibilities of future floods, and the amount of attention that I 

think we have to do with regard to focusing on flood control as 

being the primary responsibility under the 1944 Flood Act and the 

mainstem dams of the Missouri River. I appreciated your comments. 

Along that same line, we talked about a number of different 

issues, and one of them had to do with the surplus water rule 

which is being proposed right now and is due for final action in 

September of this year. I would ask, and I think part of what Senator Moran has been talking about is along a similar line, and that 

is that you have an opportunity over the next several months to fix 

something which started under the previous Administration and I 

believe was a wrong move, and that is for the Corps of Engineers 

to actually demand that individuals in the upper mainstem dams 

of the Missouri River actually be required to pay for water that is 

coming out of the Missouri River where we have States rights, 

which clearly take precedence to the water flowing through. 

I am just going to lay out a couple of examples, and I would like 

your thoughts on them because I would like the rest of the Committee to see the challenge that you face, coming in at this point, 

with the impact of what this surplus water rule has done and what 

it would look like in terms of trying to enforce. 

We spoke about the Corps of Engineers most recently denying a 

contractor who was putting in a boat ramp on the Owyhee Reservoir, and they requested to take 90,000 gallons out of the Reservoir, which right now runs through at the rate of about almost 

39,000 cubic feet per second—that is about four-tenths of 1 seconds 

worth of flow release coming through—and it was denied because 

of the surplus water rule. They wouldn’t give access, they wouldn’t 

give right-of-way to go on down and take the water out to put in 

a boat dock, a recreational thing on the Reservoir. They made them 

go elsewhere to get the water. 

In addition to that, we have a case where we have the Randall 

Community Water District, which has been negotiating for upgrading their water intake on the Missouri River, and, in doing so, the 

Corps of Engineers has required that they sign a surplus water 

agreement to get access to the water, where they already have a 

line in the water but they wanted to make upgrades. I know that 

this apparently is on your desk today and you shared with us a little bit about the frustration, the concern yesterday that you had 

with why these folks should be signing a surplus water agreement 

on something like this in the first place. 

My question is could you share with the Committee what your 

finding with regard to the guidelines that you find yourself walking 

into as to the surplus water rule that is being proposed and the 

limitation that the Corps is currently using to stop users along the 

river from accessing their legally entitled water permits issued by 

the State of South Dakota and other States by simply saying they 

33 

are not going to give them access across Corps take lines as a negotiating position? 

Can you share a little bit about some of things you found out 

there and the direction that you would like to go with regard to fixing these issues? 

Mr. JAMES. Sir, as you know, I haven’t had full discovery of the 

problems. We have talked. I understand the basic problem in that 

part of the world, but I go back to my statement a moment ago. 

I am not sure why we charge for water. If we have a reservoir that 

we built for flood control, and we have to mow the grass and fix 

slides on that reservoir and gates and overflow structures, what 

has that got to do with anybody taking water out of that reservoir? 

Senator ROUNDS. Well, with all due respect, every State up and 

down the Missouri River has a legal access to the water flowing 

through. Now, there is a limitation because you have to respect the 

rights of other States down the line, but to suggest that the Corps 

would restrict access to an entity up and down the river from getting access, getting a legal right-of-way to get to the water that 

they are entitled to seems to me to be a terrible overreach of federalism. 

Mr. JAMES. Well, I think that is. Surely, what that was was a 

408 permit. It should be about a 24-to 36-hour turnaround. 

Senator ROUNDS. Rather than a 36-month turnaround? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir. Absolutely. I mean, look at the equipment 

they are going to bring in. Look at the condition of the land that 

they are going to traverse on. Look at where they are going with 

the equipment. You and I could make the determination. 

Senator ROUNDS. It seems to me that a moratorium since 2007– 

2008 would seem to be inappropriate to me. Would you agree? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir. 

Senator ROUNDS. Would you just commit that you will fix something before this proposed rule, which I think would be found inappropriate by the courts finally, but this proposed rule that is coming up in September, would you agree that you will get something 

done before it is finalized? 

Mr. JAMES. I am absolutely going to try. 

Senator ROUNDS. Can you do a little better? Can we get some 

kind of either you are agreeing with it so we can get this thing resolved in the courts or agree that maybe there is a better way to 

do it? Can we get that far, anyway? 

Mr. JAMES. I will tell you what I will do. I will put a hold on 

it until I have time to find out all the truth. 

Senator ROUNDS. In the meantime, would that mean that we still 

have people having a tough time getting access across Corps rightof-way? Would you do something about that as well, rather than 

making them wait on these right-of-way permits until that rule is 

eliminated? 

Mr. JAMES. No, sir, I can’t do anything about that. I can, through 

the Director of Civil Works, contact all the districts to try to—you 

know, a lot of this stuff is just do what is right. 

Senator ROUNDS. Absolutely. Why should a rural water system 

or a water system in South Dakota that already has access to this, 

when they want to make an upgrade, have to be held up and be 

held hostage to signing a new water storage agreement to get addiVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:34 Feb 08, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\34176.TXT VERNE
34 

tional access rights to the same water that they have a current 

legal right to have with a Federal agency saying, I am sorry, but 

we are not going to upgrade your access to the water? That seems 

to me to be something that we should be able to fix, and it should 

not take an act of Congress to do it. 

Mr. JAMES. Well, sir, I hope you are right. I hope it doesn’t. I 

hope I can fix it. 

Senator ROUNDS. I think the new Administration, with your help, 

and I think you understand it, I think you guys can resolve this 

thing. I am not going to put you on the spot any more than what 

I already have, except to say that I hope that this Administration 

is different than the last one when it comes to federalism and the 

attitude that the Federal Government should be controlling access 

to water which is legally available to citizens in the States up and 

down the Missouri River. I hope we can come to an agreement on 

that fairly quickly, sir. 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. And I do appreciate your interest 

in trying to resolve it. Thank you. 

Mr. JAMES. Thank you, sir. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Welcome, Mr. James. It is our obligation to assist those communities adversely impacted by sea level rise and climate change to 

adapt to the new reality and protect their properties and livelihood. 

But when the town of Sandwich, Massachusetts attempted to use 

sand from the Federal Cape Code Canal that otherwise would be 

dumped into the ocean to protect their town, Federal requirements 

became a major obstacle. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers required the homeowners to provide easements ceding away their 

coastal property line forever, even though the sand from the Beneficial Use Project would only remain on the beach for 5 years, and, 

ultimately, the town was unable to use Federal funding for this essential shoreline protection project. 

Mr. James, do you believe that it is reasonable for the Army 

Corps of Engineers to require property owners to provide easements in perpetuity for Beneficial Use Projects if the sand is only 

going to last for a few years, say 5 years, as was the case in Sandwich, Massachusetts? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate for the easements to last as long as the sand remains on the beach? 

Mr. JAMES. Neither one, sir. I think the landowner, the homeowner, the town, whatever, should pay them a dollar to allow them 

to put the sand on the beach, and you wouldn’t get into any easements. You may have to do $100, but you shouldn’t have to do that. 

The same exact thing happened in Grand Isle, Louisiana, exactly 

the same thing. 

Senator MARKEY. I am going to work, if I may, with you and the 

Committee. I plan on filing an amendment on this subject, because 

I think we have to find some way of working reasonably here with 

these communities. 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir. 

35 

Senator MARKEY. We need to strike an appropriate balance. And 

you are from Louisiana? 

Mr. JAMES. No, sir, Missouri. 

Senator MARKEY. Oh, Missouri. 

Mr. JAMES. Well, I am actually from Kentucky, but I live in Missouri. 

Senator MARKEY. I see. 

So the Town of Sandwich, again, on Cape Cod, has suffered from 

coastal erosion over several years, which may be a result of the 

Federal Cape Cod Canal interrupting the natural flow of sediment, 

that is, the sand flows into the channel rather than onto the beach 

because of the Federal Cape Cod Canal; and the town is currently 

seeking assistance from the Corps to nourish, that is, to place sand 

on the beach using a special program that was established to mitigate the damage caused by other Federal projects, for example, the 

channels and the sea walls. 

Under this program, the Corps typically pays for the entire cost 

of the restoration, and the reason why is simple: if Federal infrastructure is causing harm to our communities, it is the Federal 

Government’s obligation to make those communities whole. Yet, 

the Corps may require communities to pay half of the cost of maintaining those beaches after they are restored, that is, placing more 

sand on them once the sand has eroded. 

But that is not in the spirit of the law. In the last Congress, my 

provision in the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation 

Act required the Corps to pay the full cost of feasibility studies conducted under this program, and I think we should do the same for 

future renourishment of these projects. 

Do you agree with that approach, Mr. Secretary? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir, I do, in this instance. I read that in the bill 

and I didn’t have any problem with that. You know, it is a different 

story, but all over this Country, again, like the reservoirs and the 

water supply, but a challenge over this entire Country has to do 

with sediment. 

Now, whether in your case you need some or whether in the case 

of the flood control reservoirs they need to get rid of some, the case 

of the Lower Mississippi River, which needs to get rid of a lot; and 

the trouble that we are running into at this point in time is disposal areas for the sediment. It has become a major problem; it is 

keeping dredging done—it is going to be interesting to see how we 

get sediment out of flood control reservoirs and what we are going 

to do with it. 

Senator MARKEY. I have one more quick question, if I may. 

Mr. JAMES. Oh, I am sorry. 

Senator MARKEY. No, I thank you. We are operating under time 

constraints here and there is a roll call, but I thank you for that. 

While New England has tremendous shoreline protection needs, 

we do not have a lot of sand, making it more challenging for Federal, State, and local partners to nourish our shorelines, so we have 

to find more efficient uses of this scarce resource to preserve our 

ability to fortify our communities against the detrimental impacts 

of climate change. 

Secretary James, would it be helpful if we established an intergovernmental task force comprised of various Federal, State, and 

36 

local partners with jurisdiction over sediment to make recommendations for more efficient use of sediment across the Country? 

Mr. JAMES. Sir, I am not a believer in task force or committees. 

I noticed in this bill we had several things that we are going to 

have people do this or do that as far as the Corps projects and the 

Corps goes. I consider them a waste of time. Now, if you want to 

get some experts out of the agencies you are dealing with and 

make them accountable, then that is a different story. 

Senator MARKEY. I appreciate that. So maybe we can work together on that. 

Mr. JAMES. I hope to, yes, sir. 

Senator MARKEY. We need an integrated way of viewing this 

issue, so maybe it is an interagency task force to accomplish that. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. We appreciate 

your frankness and, again, your willingness to work with Congress. 

I would like to talk to you quickly, because we have votes in a 

few minutes, about the backlog of operations on the McClellan-Kerr 

Arkansas River Navigation System, which I know you are very, 

very familiar with. Currently, we have an estimated $153 million 

backlog; $140 million of that is classified as critical by the Corps. 

As you know, failure of any one of these components could severely 

impact the system and even cause it to shut down, which would be 

devastating to our farmers and the people that depend so much on 

that. 

So, I guess what I would like to do is see if you could look closely. 

We would like to work with you, perhaps have a meeting, visit with 

you or whoever you feel like is appropriate of your staff, and see 

if we could, again, for those that are so, so very critical—I think 

there is 20 critical maintenance needs that there is a 50 percent 

chance of failure in the next 5 years—visit with you and see if we 

can somehow get those included in your workplans that are coming 

up in the next year or two. 

Mr. JAMES. Senator Boozman, I would be glad to get with you, 

get some members of my team together that knows what they are 

talking about. My biggest concern right now on the McClellan-Kerr 

is the Three Rivers. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Yes. 

Mr. JAMES. Now, I was down there probably 6 years ago, and 

that is a crucial, critical point in that navigation system. 

Senator BOOZMAN. And that is a failure of not if, but when that 

is going to happen. 

Mr. JAMES. Absolutely, sir. May I suggest something to you? May 

I suggest that you, before we meet, may I suggest that you have 

that colonel, that district engineer come up and either brief you or 

be at our meeting? 

Senator BOOZMAN. No, for sure. He is really, again, your team is 

good about the colonel, his staff, about helping us with that; and 

I understand exactly what you are saying, that is a critical area 

also. Another area that we would like to work on is going to a 12- 

37 

foot channel, which would make it such that you could haul 40 percent more product. We talk a lot about the environment, trying to 

be efficient and not use as much fuel, so that makes all the sense 

in the world. 

Hopefully, we can get together in the not too distant future and, 

again, talk about some of these things that really are critical. I 

have great interest, I know Senator Inhofe has great interest in the 

project that you mentioned, Three Rivers. The other, just the maintenance on things that are likely to fail in the next 5 years, and 

then this 12-foot channel that we have been together fighting the 

delegations for many years. 

Mr. JAMES. I would be happy to meet with you, sir, anytime, just 

let me know. 

Senator BOOZMAN. No, we appreciate that, and I really do appreciate that attitude which you have exhibited not only for the Committee, but for Congress, that is very refreshing. 

Something else that has come up is the discussion about reorganizing the Corps of Engineers. Can you talk a little bit about that? 

The Administration, I believe, is preparing to release a report to 

satisfy Executive Order 13781, recommending restructure of the 

Corps of Engineers. Can you take just a minute or two and talk 

a little bit about what is going on with that? 

Mr. JAMES. Senator, I don’t think it would do any good for me 

to take a minute or two of your time because I haven’t seen any 

preamble on that or anything yet, and for me to sit here and talk 

about it would be guessing. Hopefully, it will, when it does come 

out, it will be similar to the one Federal decision that it will be a 

direction for all the agencies, hopefully some of this is, but as far 

as what he intends to do with individual agencies—and this order, 

by the way, I do know this, is for all the agencies, it is not just 

for the Corps. He and his team are looking at all the agencies that 

serve him. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. Well, we appreciate you and your 

staff, your willingness to serve. 

Mr. JAMES. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

Final question, Senator Carper? 

Senator CARPER. Again, thanks so much for being here today, for 

working with us and serving our Country. As you know, the OMB 

budget process is one that is internal to the White House and to 

the Administration, and there is a separation of powers issue with 

budgeting. By this I mean we don’t tell, legislative branches, we 

don’t tell this President or any President how to write his or her 

budget. That said, this Committee does have some concerns, as you 

know, over how the Corps budgets and implements the Fiscal Year 

budgets that are passed by Congress. 

My question is a fairly straightforward one. Do you feel that the 

provisions of this legislation, of America’s Water Infrastructure Act, 

are sufficient to increase transparency and local stakeholder involvement? Do you feel the provisions in this legislation are sufficient to increase transparency and local stakeholder involvement? 

Mr. JAMES. Senator, it is apparent to me that you all spend a lot 

of time on those two issues and, yes, I do feel like it does. 

38 

Senator CARPER. All right, that is my last question. We will have 

some questions for the record. 

Thank you again for working with us and the leadership that you 

are providing. Thanks so much. 

Mr. JAMES. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

No more questions for today, but as you know, Mr. Secretary, 

members may submit followup questions for the record, so we are 

going to hold the hearing record open for the next 2 weeks. I just 

really want to thank you for your time, your testimony, and for 

your honesty with the Committee and forthright approach. Thank 

you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. JAMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m. the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

39 


34176.001

c. 

conserving natural resources f/Jr ,J;rr (u: !1··, 

Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts 

517 E. 19th Street- Cheyenne, WY 82001 -Phone: 307-632-5716- Fax: 307-638-4099 

w_ww .con~~Y-~..YVJ'_,G.Q-'1! 

July 20,2018 

The Honorable John Barrasso. Chair 

Environment & Public Works Committee 

U.S. Senate 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper, Ranking Member 

Environment & Public Works Committee 

U.S. Senate 

5 I 3 Hm1 Senate Office Bui !ding 

Washington, DC 205 I 0 

Re: Wyoming Association (}{Conservation Districts Support of /egislatirm "America's Water Infrastructure 

Act of20/8" substitute 

Dear Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper and Members of the Committee, 

On behalf of the Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts, representing Wyoming's 34 local Conservation 

Districts. I write to you to express our strong support for the floor substitute of the "America Water Infrastructure 

Act of2018". 

Wyoming's Conservation Districts are local political subdivisions of state government authorized under§§ I I -16-

10 I et. seq., and governed by I 70 elected district officials. The Districts are charged with the responsibility of 

providing for the conservation of Wyoming's natural resources through the delivery of technical and program 

assistance to private landowners and as cooperating agencies with state and federal land management agencies. 

These responsibilities include, but are not limited to, water development, utilization and conservation. 

The Conservation Districts, working in conjunction with private landowners, irrigation districts, watershed 

improvement districts and state and federal agencies are participants in the development of water resources as 

well as maintenance and improvement of water resource infrastructure. 

Water, its development, utilization and conservation is paramount to all act1v1ty in the state of Wyoming. 

Regardless of the use, agriculture. recreation, municipality, industry, etc., it is the number one priority for all 

quality of life and economic stability. 
40 

Æ 


34176.002

WACD;7/Z0/1812 

America Water Infrastructure Act 2018; US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee 

The "America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018" substitute contains imp01tant to Wyoming, along 

with numerous other states. The authorization and work to fU11her ensure the use of Wyoming's water 

resources by for Fontenelle Dam and Reservoir, provisions to address the agency's ability to be responsive to 

flooding impacts, such as the significant ice jams experienced in Wyoming and impacting our local communities, 

as well the establishment of the Board of Appeals for administrative review of "purpose and need determinations' 

are just a few of the important provisions contained in the legislation. 

Overall the Act is important to the maintenance, development and management of our water resources and we 

thank you for your work in advancing this important Act and the amendments. 

Respectfully, 

~nj__ 

Shaun Sims 

President 

cc: WACO Board of Directors 

Wyoming's Conservation Districts