U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

73–531 PDF 2012

A REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT’S 

FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST 

FOR THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

(112–79) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 27, 2012 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington, 

Vice Chair 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

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

States Department of the Army .......................................................................... 9 

Major General Merdith W.B. Temple, Acting Chief of Engineers, United 

States Army Corps of Engineers ......................................................................... 9 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Steve Cohen, of Tennessee ............................................................................. 33 

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, of Texas ................................................................... 34 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy ................................................................................................ 36 

Major General Merdith W.B. Temple .................................................................... 46 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

United States Army Corps of Engineers, responses to questions from: 

Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Republican members ................................................................................................................. 53 

Individual Republican members: 

Hon. Gary G. Miller, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California .......................................................................... 76 

Hon. James Lankford, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Oklahoma .......................................................................... 77 

Hon. Reid J. Ribble, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Wisconsin .................................................................................... 79 

Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Democratic members ................................................................................................................. 80 

Individual Democratic members: 

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Texas ........................................................................... 105 

Hon. Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Tennessee .................................................................................... 106 

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of California .................................................................... 108 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 73531.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 73531.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 73531.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 73531.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 73531.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 73531.006
xii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 73531.007
xiii 


Insert offset folio 8 here 73531.008
(1) 

A REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 

2013 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m. in Room 

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

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GIBBS. Good morning. I am going to convene the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure. Welcome. 

I will start here on my opening statement. Today, we are having 

a hearing to review the fiscal year 2013 budget priorities of the 

United States Army Corps of Engineers. 

I am a strong supporter of the efforts by Congress to control Federal spending, but many of the Army Corps of Engineers activities 

that we are examining today are true investments in America because they provide jobs and economic return. 

For too long, this administration has shortchanged and 

misprioritized the projects and programs of this agency. I believe 

we must be supportive of programs that have a proven record of 

providing economic benefits. 

For nearly two centuries, the Civil Works Commission of the 

Corps has contributed to the economic vitality of the Nation and 

improved our quality of life. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget request by the administration for the 

Corps of Engineers is $4.7 billion. This request is almost 5.5 percent less than what Congress enacted in fiscal year 2012. 

In 2011, we had some of the worse flooding on record in this 

country. In 2014, it is likely the expanded Panama Canal will become operational. 

Yet the President proposes to cut approximately $20 million from 

flood damage, reduction activities, and once again, short changes 

the navigation budget. 

While the President is proposing an increase of $28 million out 

of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for fiscal year 2013, this 

will not keep up with the growing demand on our ports to accommodate more and larger ships. 

2 

Dredging is a fuel intensive business, and since the administration seems intent on letting fuel prices rise, this $28 million increase will actually continue to put us further behind in our dredging needs. 

The President is once again proposing to spend only half of the 

money being collected from the Harbor Maintenance Fund. 

Only if our ports and waterways are at their authorized depths 

and widths will products be able to move to the overseas destinations in an efficient and economical manner. 

Once again, only 2 of the Nation’s 10 largest ports are at their 

authorized depths and widths. 

The President’s budget does nothing to ensure the competitiveness of American products in world markets. That hurts businesses 

and costs us jobs. 

Given the fact that the navigation projects and the flood damage 

reduction projects provide economic benefits to the Nation, I would 

like to see the administration place a higher priority on these types 

of water resources investments. 

All the Corps projects put people to work, which is another reason to put these investments on the high priority list. 

Savings can be found by slowing down work in some environmental restoration projects until the economy turns around. 

I would like everyone to take a look on the screens on the wall 

around the Committee hearing room. This is a picture of the 

uncompleted report for the proposed navigation improvements at 

the Savannah, Georgia, project. 

Construction of this project was authorized in 1999 and subject 

to completion of a general re-evaluation report. 

Again, in this picture you will see a size of a report that is still 

not complete. This study has taken 13 years and still is ongoing. 

Yet, in Panama, it will likely only take them 7 years to go from 

a concept to a completed project. 

In addition, more than 40 percent of the project costs will be for 

fish and wildlife mitigation. These were requirements added to the 

project by the United States Department of the Interior and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Sadly, Savannah is not the extreme case. It instead is the new 

normal. 

In some cases, the Corps of Engineers places unnecessary hurdles on its own way it completes studies and projects. We have 

heard the Corps sometimes agrees to conduct additional studies on 

a project for information that they do not really need just to avoid 

a lengthy lawsuit. 

In many other cases, outdated laws written by Congress or ‘‘one 

size fits all’’ regulations from other Federal agencies will delay or 

even kill a project. 

I do not necessarily want to repeal an environmental or coordination requirement, but all of us have to make the whole process 

more efficient. 

In today’s economy, delaying a project is synonymous with killing 

it. Killing a project in this way means loss of economic opportunity 

and lost jobs. 

3 

I look forward to hearing from the Corps of Engineers as to how 

they plan to work with Congress to streamline this costly and broken study process. 

I look forward to the testimony from the witnesses, and I yield 

and recognize the ranking member, Mr. Bishop, for any statement 

he might have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

holding this hearing on the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers. 

The past year has been challenging with the Mississippi and 

Missouri floods, the tropical storm impacts along the eastern seaboard, and the continual challenge to keep our inland waterways 

accessible and our harbors deep enough. 

Over the last several weeks, we have held hearings focused on 

the failing state of our waste and drinking water systems. 

It is clear that we need to reinvest in our country’s water infrastructure in a way that will allow our country to provide for our 

citizens and to protect our investments in our waterways, harbors 

and dams. 

Historically, this committee has provided direct guidance to the 

Corps of Engineers, identifying specific projects that we felt should 

be a priority for the agency. 

Today, with our ability limited, we are dependent upon the Corps 

internal decisionmaking process to determine for us where the priorities are. 

I, for one, am more than a little uncomfortable with this, and I 

hope today that we can get information from our witnesses on how 

priorities and workloads are made. 

Our subcommittee has a fiduciary and administrative responsibility to oversee and review the Federal agencies that are under 

our jurisdiction. 

Without this oversight, the Corps priorities, focus, and resulting 

budgets are not put through the rigorous review that the American 

public expects us to perform. 

Our committee has oversight over all or portions of 7 agencies 

out of 26 that are involved in managing the water resources of 

America. 

The Army Corps of Engineers is the largest water engineering 

agency in the country. In that role, the agency has supported the 

maintenance of our coastal and inland harbors and waterways, constructed and maintained locks and levies that allow our rivers to 

be used for commerce and recreation, maintains coastal barrier islands to protect our coast lines, and certain levies that protect our 

cities and farm lands, operates and maintains 693 dams, 75 of 

them providing renewable hydropower production, and leads the 

way in providing engineering support to our troops and providing 

water security around the world. 

We are going to hear today that once again the budget of the 

Army Corps of Engineers is being reduced. I also am not happy 

about that. 

This Congress has continuously issued the mantra of ‘‘Do more 

with less.’’ In my estimation, we are now at a critical threshold 

where these reductions are jeopardizing the ability to sustain our 

infrastructure and protect our citizens. 

4 

We are either going to have to step up and have a conversation 

about investing for the future or we need to deauthorize certain 

projects and programs or otherwise transfer programs to protect 

beneficiaries. 

The current approach of ‘‘fix it as it fails’’ is costing us more 

money and is very inefficient from an engineering perspective. 

We have a tremendous investment in our country’s water navigation, electrical grids and irrigation systems. As we review the 

Corps budget, we should keep in mind this investment and make 

sure we are not impulsively cutting important and vital programs 

without regard for the impacts, and instead, look to ensure the decisions we are making are focused on protecting these investments 

and being smart with our allocation of funding. 

The President’s 2013 budget concentrates funding in three primary areas, commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction, and environmental programs, while continuing to 

support the responsibility for hydropower generation, water supply 

services, environmental stewardship, and recreation. 

In terms of percentages, 37 percent is going toward navigation; 

30 percent to flood risk reduction, and 33 percent to environmental, 

hydropower, and regulatory programs. 

The proposed fiscal year 2013 budget for the Civil Works Pro- gram is $4.73 billion, which is 5.4 percent below the appropriations 

for fiscal year 2012. 

This continues a disturbing trend. When we compare this budget 

to fiscal year 2010, we see a 13.1-percent reduction and a 3.5-percent reduction from fiscal year 2011. 

This 2013 budget request will see funds reduced yet again in the 

investigation, construction, operations and maintenance of Mississippi River and tributaries, and WRDA accounts. 

I apparently am not understanding this concept of doing more 

with less. In my opinion, we are clearly going in the wrong direction and we are clearly doing less with less. 

As we compare the administration’s budget proposals through 

2017 with the proposed budget from Representative Ryan for the 

Natural Resources and Environment Function 300 Budget Authority, we get an idea of what doing more with less looks like. 

Chairman Ryan’s budget cuts an additional 18.5 percent from the 

administration’s request by 2017. We all get to vote on that proposal this coming Thursday. 

I applaud the Corps for working hard to reduce overlap and increase internal efficiencies, but I am concerned that we are risking 

substantial increased costs to the Federal Government and the 

public by not maintaining critical program assets, including the 

maintenance of the human capacity in water leadership. 

There are two key areas I would like us to focus on. First, addressing the backlog of authorized projects, and second, addressing 

the needs of the Harbor Maintenance and Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund programs. 

The backlog of authorized but unconstructed Corps projects is 

rightly or wrongly restricting our ability to focus on new projects. 

It was used as a pretext for Former President Bush’s veto of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 2007, as well as a reason for 

not moving forward on a new WRDA in the last Congress. 

5 

The Corps calculates that prior to WRDA 2007, there was an 

unconstructed backlog of $60 billion worth of previously authorized 

projects, some of them dating back to the 1960s and earlier. This 

backlog needs to be carefully reviewed and appropriate actions implemented. 

With respect to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, we need to 

work together with industry and the administration to fix the problem of fully funding the Trust Fund to make our harbors and waterways competitive. 

We have to get not only the largest harbors ready for the future 

of shipping but also provide critical dredging to the medium and 

small harbors that support our local and tribal fishing communities, provide for cost effective local commerce, and support the 

ability of the Coast Guard and other law enforcement entities to 

launch and protect our coast lines and waterways. 

Similarly, for projects funded out of the Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund, I recognize the efforts of the administration to prioritize the 

highest use projects within the constraints of available funding 

from the Trust Fund. 

However, in my view, this subcommittee should not be complacent when the greatest limiting factor on how much can be spent 

on inland waterways projects is the available revenues from a 20- 

year-old user fee. 

Voices from both sides of the aisle have said that the current inland waterways model is broken. It is time for this subcommittee 

to lead on renewing investment in these critical projects while ensuring that this increased investment does not come at the expense 

of other Corps mission areas. 

Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee has a responsibility to ask the 

tough questions of the leaders of the agencies we oversee. 

We are here to ensure that our investments are being properly 

managed and appropriately with an eye to the future. 

We do have concerns that many of the cuts being made will reduce the Corps effectiveness. 

In my opinion, many of the cuts proposed in the President’s 

budget are taking the Nation down a path that will ultimately result in increased costs and the loss of critical infrastructure capacity. 

This concern is amplified by several orders of magnitude if we go 

the route of the massive additional cuts proposed by Chairman 

Ryan. 

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

would like to take a moment to congratulate General Temple. My 

understanding, General, is you have announced your retirement 

after 37 years of phenomenal service to this country. 

Thank you, sir, very much for your service. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. Any other Members? Yes, go ahead. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and 

Ranking Member Bishop for holding this hearing. 

To Secretary Darcy and General Temple, thank you for the outstanding staff you have in the Los Angeles District. We meet regularly with Colonel Toy, your District Commander. 

6 

It is a great partner for my communities, and I want to pay very 

special attention to your Deputy District Engineer who is retiring 

this summer, who has worked with my staff since I came to Congress in 1999, always returns phone calls, and is responsive and 

collaborative with my office, the cities and the water agencies I represent, and has managed the major projects in our region, the restoration of the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers, and that is 

Brian Moore, your Deputy District Engineer. 

The flood control environmental restoration and water replenishment projects that he has worked on will benefit several million 

people in southern California for many, many years to come. 

I do agree with my ranking member about the budget cuts that 

are going to not allow us to do the work that protects a lot of people in California and the rest of the Nation. 

Whittier Narrows and the Santa Fe Dam continue to be concerned with the slow pace at which the Corps is funding and implementing the Whittier Narrows and the Santa Fe Dam water conservation projects. That means the ability for us to store more 

water and be able to have protection for the communities, the millions of people that both of them serve. 

The finalization of the Whittier Narrows Dam’s safety study is 

funded in the Army Corps budget. Hopefully, the Corps will finish 

the study quickly and make any changes that need to be made to 

increase the conservation pool. 

The Corps has not budgeted funds to perform the dam safety 

study on the upstream Santa Fe Dam, and it is similar to Whittier 

Narrows, and would increase the water capacity by 1,100 acre-feet 

annually, much needed water, especially with drought cycles. This 

water is currently going to the ocean and is being lost to us. 

I do urge the Corps to quickly work on the Santa Fe Dam study 

in order to save that water and replenish our groundwater aquifer. 

On the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, the Corps budget continues to be unfair to those ports. I cannot find another program 

in the entire Federal Government that has as an equitable Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund as the ports of Los Angeles and Long 

Beach. 

It provides $265,000 to both ports for harbor maintenance while 

the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund took in $220 million from 

both ports. 

This means the Port of Los Angeles will receive less than .01, I 

repeat, not 1 percent, not 10 percent, .01 percent of the funds they 

put into the system. They receive $1 for every $1,000 they put into 

the system. 

The further tragedy is that they are diverted to competitor ports 

and shippers of Los Angeles and Long Beach. 

Mr. Chairman, this is as if the Government taxed McDonald’s to 

build bigger Burger Kings. We must correct and fix this inequity. 

There should be a minimum amount appropriated to the ports 

where the shippers pay into that fund and expand the inwater uses 

of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

The Fund should pay 100 percent of the cost of harbors over 45 

feet in depth, and should pay for the construction in dredging the 

harbor. 

7 

There are issues that I certainly would want to go over, but I do 

want to ensure that we continue to work with the Army Corps so 

that we can not only fund it properly so they can do their job, but 

also be able to ensure that it protects and continues to provide 

safety for the areas with Mother Nature coming in and throwing 

us all kinds of different weather throughout the United States. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Any other Members? Go ahead, Representative Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, 

Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member Bishop, and members of the 

subcommittee. 

I want to thank you for convening this hearing today to discuss 

the administration’s fiscal year 2013 budget priorities for the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. 

I would also like to thank our witnesses for being here today to 

highlight the priorities of the Army Corps in this fiscal year. 

The Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers plays 

a critical role in developing, maintaining, and restoring important 

water infrastructure projects in the U.S. and abroad. 

Even in this difficult fiscal climate, as my colleagues have already alluded to, it is critical that the Army Corps is provided the 

adequate resources to protect our Nation’s investments in water infrastructure projects and to keep America safe. 

In the full year 2013 budget proposal, the administration has 

made tough choices to the program to ensure that the Government 

is living within its means. We just need to make sure that is in 

the right area. 

I want to start off by thanking Assistant Secretary Darcy and 

her staff for meeting with me to discuss some of the Corps projects 

in and around my District. 

Los Angeles and the Corps are fortunate to have Colonel Toy 

heading our Los Angeles District Office and the entire staff, some 

of which are here today. 

Three issues I would like to put before the Committee that have 

been great interests of mine, and I look forward to working with 

my colleagues as this budget goes forward. 

One, to make the Committee aware that in November 2011, we 

had an ocean bluff collapse in the Paseo del Mar area. The city of 

Los Angeles is currently conducting a study to determine the cause 

of the landslide. However, initially, the reports are saying that it 

has to do with beach erosion. 

The study is expected to be completed, and I am looking forward 

to working with the Corps and their expertise to assist us through 

programs like Continuing Authorities Project Section 103, that 

could help in this particular area. 

I would like to discuss with the chairman and the ranking member how we might fund the Continuing Authorities Project Section 

103. 

Second of all, we have a situation with the Corps dating back to 

2006, looking at the Los Angeles River, and for those of you who 

had an opportunity to go there, although it is not as grand as some 

of the rivers in your community, it is about as big as it gets in 

mine. 

8 

The Corps has been looking, needs $1.6 million to complete that 

study, which would have an essential element of restoration. 

While no funding is currently included in the President’s fiscal 

year budget, it is important that the study have an opportunity to 

move forward, and it is my understanding they would be eligible 

out of the Statement of Managers that accompanies H.R. 2055, the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 2012. 

In addition to the restoration of the Los Angeles River, it is critical to the continued economic development of our city. 

One last point about that. We are also very concerned about the 

Los Angeles River ecosystem restoration feasibility study that I will 

be asking further questions on in this hearing. 

Last but not least, in the community I represent, we have the 

Long Beach Breakwater, which was established to enable the vessels to come in, particularly in time of war. Now, the Corps has 

looked at that initially and considered the possibility of a reconfiguration. 

I would like to discuss with the Corps how the projects are selected and how we might move forward on some of these ideas, 

which would certainly promote navigation, preserve coastal zones, 

and protect property and human life. 

Once again, I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I 

look forward to hearing your testimonies. I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Crawford, do you have a statement? 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I 

real quickly want to thank you, Secretary and General, for being 

here. 

The Mississippi River, of course, runs along the eastern border 

of my District. The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project employs a variety of engineering techniques including an expansion 

levy system to provide flood protection coverage for my District and 

the entire population along the Mississippi River and its tributaries. 

The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project has proven to be 

one of the wisest investments by our Federal Government, preventing over $350 billion in flood damages on an investment of 

under $14 billion. Never has the value of this investment been 

more evident than last year during the historic flooding along the 

Mississippi River. 

The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project performed as designed, despite rainfall exceeding 600 to 1,000 percent of the normal average rainfall in a 2-week period between April and May. 

As a result, the MRT Project protected over 10 million acres of 

land and prevented more than $110 billion in damages in 2011 

alone. 

This success can be attributed to decades worth of lessons 

learned along the Mississippi. 

Last year under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 

Congress funded the MRT Project at $375 million. The President 

has requested $234 million for this project in his fiscal 2013 budget. 

I am concerned that the level of funding in the President’s budget for the MRT Project will not adequately fund and maintain this 

9 

program so that it can continue to protect communities along the 

Mississippi from devastating floods. 

Rather than take the success of this project for granted, we 

should look to last year’s flooding as another testament to just how 

important this project has been. 

I am committed to working with the Army Corps of Engineers to 

ensure that the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project is adequately funded. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. At this time, I want to ask unanimous 

consent that Mr. Fleischmann from Tennessee be allowed to join 

the subcommittee today. So ordered. 

At this time, I would like to welcome our two witnesses. Our first 

witness is The Honorable Assistant Secretary of Army Civil Works, 

Ms. Jo-Ellen Darcy, and our second witness is Major General Temple. 

I, too, want to congratulate you and commend you on your 37 

years of military experience, and wish you many, many years in 

the future of a well-rounded retirement and enjoyment. 

At this time, Ms. Darcy, the floor is yours. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS), UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; AND MAJOR GENERAL MERDITH 

W.B. TEMPLE, ACTING CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, UNITED 

STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

Ms. DARCY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the President’s fiscal 

year 2013 budget for the Civil Works Program of the Army Corps 

of Engineers. 

I am Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 

Works, and I will summarize my statement and ask that my complete statement be entered into the record of the hearing. 

The President’s 2013 budget provides $4.7 billion for the Civil 

Works Program. This is $100 million above the President’s 2012 

budget for Civil Works. 

The budget reflects the administration’s priorities through targeted investments in the Nation’s water resources infrastructure, 

including dams and levies, to address flood risks, navigation 

projects and support of both domestic and global trade, especially 

at coastal ports that support the greatest national economic activity, restoration of major ecosystems affected by past water resources development and support of administration initiatives such 

as America’s Great Outdoors and the Clean Water Framework. 

The budget also supports programs that contribute to the protection of the Nation’s waters and wetlands, the generation of low-cost 

renewable hydropower, the restoration of certain sites contaminated as a result of the Nation’s early atomic weapons development 

program, emergency preparedness and training to respond to natural disasters, and recreation, environmental stewardship and 

water supply storage at existing projects that are owned or operated by the Corps of Engineers. 

10 

The budget funds a number of activities to completion, including 

5 flood risk management projects, 3 navigation projects, 1 hydropower mitigation project, and 18 studies. 

The Civil Works budget includes funding for three high-performing construction new starts, six study new starts, and a new 

activity in the operations and maintenance account to reduce the 

vulnerability of Civil Works projects to extreme natural events. 

The budget also includes funding to evaluate the potential for as 

well as encourage the use of nonstructural alternatives during 

post-disaster recovery decisionmaking while also leveraging the expertise of intergovernmental teams known as ‘‘Silver Jackets’’ to 

support States and communities as they develop and implement actions to reduce flood risks. 

The budget includes the highest amount ever budgeted for use of 

receipts from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to maintain 

coastal channels and harbors. 

Inland waterway capital investments and the construction account are funded at the maximum amount that is affordable within 

the projected Trust Fund revenue under existing law. 

Last September, President Obama transmitted to Congress a 

proposal to modernize financing of capital investments on the inland waterways through establishing a new vessel user fee to supplement the existing fuel tax. 

The administration will continue to work with Congress and 

stakeholders to enact a mechanism to increase revenues for this 

Trust Fund. 

The 2013 budget provides $532 million for dam and levy safety activities, including $491 million for dam safety activities in both 

the flood risk management and the navigation programs, as well as 

$41 million to continue the comprehensive levy safety initiative. 

The Army continues to work to modernize the Civil Works planning program. Proposed changes are aimed at dramatically shortening the time and costs for completion of preauthorization studies 

while retaining the quality of the analyses. 

The budget again includes $3 million for the Veterans Curation 

Project, which provides vocational rehabilitation and innovative 

training for wounded and disabled veterans, while achieving historical preservation responsibilities for archeological collections administered by the Corps of Engineers. 

This program will contribute to the goals of the President’s recently announced Veterans Job Corps. 

In summary, the 2013 budget for the Army Civil Works Program 

is a fiscally prudent, appropriate level of investment that will generate jobs, contribute to a stronger economy, and continue progress 

on important water resources investments that will yield long-term 

returns for the Nation and its citizens. 

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

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

Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

General Temple, welcome. The floor is yours. 

General TEMPLE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the subcommittee. 

Mr. GIBBS. General, make sure your mic is on. 

11 

General TEMPLE. Can you hear me now? 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. 

I am Major General Bo Temple, Acting Chief of Engineers, and I 

am honored to be here with Ms. Darcy to testify regarding the 

President’s fiscal year 2013 budget for the Civil Works Program. 

The Corps is wrapping up an unprecedented period of construc- tion and project execution. Over the past 5 years, we provided $12 

billion in BRAC-related construction, $7 billion of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act work, in both our Military and Civil 

Works Programs combined, and about $14 billion of Gulf Coast recovery work. 

In 2011, over 2,000 Corps employees deployed in response to 

multiple disasters, including Midwest tornadoes and flooding in the 

Missouri, Mississippi, and Suarez River Basins, and also throughout the Northeast due to Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee. 

Our systems performed in saving lives and preventing billions in 

damages. However, as you are aware, many of our projects were 

damaged, and we are currently working to address these systems, 

utilizing the $1.7 billion Congress appropriated for this purpose. The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $4.7 billion to fund Civil 

Works activities within the Corps three main water resources missions, commercial navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, 

and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The budget includes $102 million for these and related activities in the Investigations Account and $1 million in the Mississippi 

River and Tributaries Account. 

It funds 81 continuing studies and 6 new studies. It also includes over $10 million for work on proposals to deepen seven U.S. ports. The budget includes $1.47 billion in the Construction Account and $99 million in the MR&T Account, funding 101 construction 

projects including 57 flood and coastal storm damage reduction 

projects, 5 of which are budgeted for completion, 23 commercial 

navigation projects, 19 aquatic ecosystem restoration projects, and 

mitigation associated with 2 of our hydropower projects. 

The Operation and Maintenance Program includes $2.53 billion 

and an additional $134 million under the MR&T Program with a 

focus on the maintenance of key commercial navigation, flood and 

storm damage reduction, hydropower, and other facilities. 

The Corps will continue to implement actions to improve its 

planning program performance through planning modernization efforts focusing on how best to modernize the planning program to 

more effectively address water resources challenges. 

The Corps always strives to improve its efficiency and effectiveness. In fiscal year 2013, the Corps will further expand the implementation of a modern asset management program, using the larger portion of its funds for the more important maintenance work, 

while implementing an energy sustainability program that pursues 

major efficiencies in the acquisition and operations of its information technology assets, as well as finalizing the reorganization of 

the Corps acquisition workforce. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget provides $30 million for preparedness for floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters, including 

about $3 million in support of the Corps participation in levy safety 

and other flood mitigation initiatives, such as the Silver Jackets 

12 

program, to provide unified Federal assistance in implementing 

flood and coastal storm damage reduction solutions. 

Internationally, the Corps of Engineers continues to support the 

mission to help Iraq and Afghanistan build foundations for democracy, freedom and prosperity. 

In Iraq and Afghanistan, we completed or closed out hundreds of 

projects in support of the host nations and coalition forces. This 

critical infrastructure and our capacity building efforts will play a 

key role in ensuring stability and security for these nations. 

The Corps remains committed to change that ensures an open 

transparent and performance based Civil Works Program while remaining focused on consistently delivering innovative, resilient risk 

informed solutions to the Armed Forces of the Nation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. 

This concludes my statement, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. I will start off the first round of questions. 

Secretary Darcy, I just want to start off by asking about the Keystone Pipeline that has been in the news a lot. Can you tell me 

when TransCanada applied to the Corps of Engineers for their Section 404 permit to construct the pipeline? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, Congressman. TransCanada did apply for Section 404 permits for that pipeline. However, when the decision was 

made that the pipeline was not going forward, when the State Department made that decision, we suspended consideration of those 

permits. 

However, we are anticipating new permits for a portion of that 

project that would go from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Port Arthur, I 

think, in Texas. We have yet to receive those new applications. 

Mr. GIBBS. The status of all the 404 permits are kind of on hold 

right now for the pipeline across the country? 

Ms. DARCY. For those 404 permits that the Corps of Engineers 

got for the larger pipeline, they are suspended because it is no 

longer under consideration. 

However, this new portion that goes from—a portion of the 

project that goes from Cushing to Texas, we are anticipating—we 

have three districts that are involved and anticipating receiving 

those applications. 

Mr. GIBBS. Can you be more specific on the time period when 

they applied for the first 404 permit? Was that several years ago? 

Ms. DARCY. I do not know. I can look in my notes and see if I 

have the exact date they applied for it. 

Mr. GIBBS. Any idea? Was it 2 years ago, 3 years ago? 

Ms. DARCY. I would be guessing. Let me ask. 

Mr. GIBBS. Can you get that for the record for us? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. I am trying to think, when the Corps 

completes its field work on these permits, during a typical 404 permit process, how long after the field work has been completed is 

the permit issued normally? 

Ms. DARCY. What would be our average time? 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. 

Ms. DARCY. From application to actual granting the permit? 

13 

Mr. GIBBS. When you do the field work, the work you have to do 

when they apply for the permit, the field work is completed, how 

long is it normally before you issue the permit? 

Ms. DARCY. General Temple is telling me 60 to 120 days, but I 

would want to ask staff about what the average is and what statutory obligations we have to meet a certain timeline. I think we do 

have a statutory requirement to turn around some permits from 

the day we receive them until we grant or disapprove them. 

I do not think it is for all 404s, but I would like to clarify that 

for you. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. What does the President mean when he said he 

asked the Corps of Engineers to expedite the process? I think he 

just referred to that recently. 

Ms. DARCY. That is correct. When he was in Oklahoma talking 

about this project, I think what he wants us to do is take a look 

at those as soon as we receive them, and we have all three districts 

standing ready, and we are getting daily reports from our districts 

as to what permits are coming in. 

As I say, we have not gotten new applications for this portion of 

the project, but we are anticipating them, and have had some 

preapplication meetings with the local sponsor. 

Mr. GIBBS. He is not referring to the permits that were already 

applied for earlier? 

Ms. DARCY. No, sir, because those were part of the larger project. 

Because it is part of a new project and has a new purpose and 

need, which has to be demonstrated in the application, we have to 

look at these new permits from that standpoint. 

Mr. GIBBS. Even under an expedited process, what would the 

timeline be then? 

Ms. DARCY. Again, I would be guessing. Well, it would all depend 

on the scope of the project, whether we would have to do an individual permit or a nationwide permit. 

Often times, a nationwide permit takes less time than an individual permit. That will all depend on the scope of the application, 

which authority we can use. 

Mr. GIBBS. I will move on to another area. The Corps of Engineers is involved in major permitting actions in the phosphate mining underway in Florida, along with an area wide phosphate mining environmental impact statement that is being conducted by the 

Corps. 

While I understand and agree with the need to protect the environment, other parts of the world such as Morocco, China, and 

Saudi Arabia are becoming more competitive as domestic producers 

of phosphate. 

While the United States is blessed with its natural resources of 

phosphate, because of the bureaucracy involved with mining permitting processing in the United States, many companies are being 

forced to import raw materials from other places. 

Why does the administration not think it would be easier for 

American companies to do business overseas for what they could do 

right here in America, particularly when facing such a difficult, 

pressing economic and trade concerns? 

14 

Should we not expedite these types of environmental studies and 

permit processes so they can keep their businesses here in this 

country where it belongs? 

What I am asking is why permit delays in Florida have taken 

so long. They have to actually bring in the raw materials to process, to produce fertilizer, from offshore. 

Why can we not move that process further, faster, expedite it, so 

they do not have to do that? 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman, I am assuming that they are needing 

to get 404 permits under the Clean Water Act for the phosphate 

mining in Florida. 

Mr. GIBBS. Correct. 

Ms. DARCY. I am not familiar with these permits in particular, 

but any kind of expedited process, we would have to always consider what the requirements of the law are as far as what kind of 

review is needed for that activity. 

Mr. GIBBS. I am just concerned we are going to lose our infrastructure to produce this valuable fertilizer for American agriculture and be more dependent offshore like we are for some other 

things, and we need to take that into account. 

My time has ran out. I yield to Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Secretary 

Darcy, General Temple, thank you for being here. 

Let me just start by saying more than one word of praise for the 

Army Corps. I represent a district that has water on three sides, 

several hundred miles of coast land, four navigatable inlets that 

are maintained by the Army Corps, and I will say that each of my 

interactions with every single person from the Army Corps that we 

have encountered has been at the highest possible level of professionalism. 

I think that is a tribute to the Corps, it is a tribute to your leadership, and I thank you for that. 

I want to take a somewhat broader view right now. The mantra 

of this committee has been ‘‘Do more with less.’’ I think that looks 

great on a bumper sticker. When you translate it into action, I 

think it becomes a little more difficult. 

I have not, for example, been able to figure out how you do more 

dredging with less money. I have not been able to figure out, and 

perhaps if you have, tell us, how you put more sand on beaches 

with less money. 

I am concerned about the President’s budget request, very frankly. I am even more concerned about the budget proposal that we 

are going to vote on later this week, which in many ways will drive 

the conversation going forward, and I am referring to Chairman 

Ryan’s proposal, which as I said, cuts Function 300 by 18.5 percent 

over the next 4 years. 

I guess my question—this calls for conjecture, obviously, but my 

own view is that the Corps, and I will come back to this in a 

minute with some specificity, is struggling to accommodate the 

President’s budget request. 

My question is how would the Corps respond or to what level 

would you be able to—to what extent would you be able to accommodate an 18.5 percent cut over a multiyear period, if that were 

to ever become the budget of the Corps? 

15 

Ms. DARCY. It would certainly be a challenge, Congressman 

Bishop. As you noted, the ‘‘Do more with less’’ bumper sticker is 

something, but we are challenged to do the best we can with the 

resources we have, and I think going forward, we would have to be 

even more efficient than we are now. 

We are looking to efficiencies in order to accommodate the budget 

that we have. 

Mr. BISHOP. If I may, is it not reasonable to assume that this backlog of projects that we have now that is some $60 billion—is 

it not reasonable to assume that backlog is only going to grow if 

we are cutting available funding by 18.5 percent? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Let me go to a specific which I hope all of my 

colleagues find troubling, although I say I recognize it is with the 

fact that this is not an action that I think is imposed upon you by 

reality. 

My understanding is the Corps has identified 16 recreation areas 

that will be closed entirely, and another 135 recreation areas in 23 

States that will be partially closed. This is because the Corps simply does not have the funds available to keep them open. 

Is this correct? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. This is a priority decision that the Corps is making, 

that is in effect imposed upon the Corps by the fiscal realities that 

we are imposing on you? Is that about right? 

Ms. DARCY. About right. 

Mr. BISHOP. General? 

General TEMPLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. This is alarming. Let me go to the backlog of projects. As I said, we have a backlog of some $60 billion worth of 

projects. This is pre-WRDA, 2007. 

My question is—we all know the fiscal reality that we are in. 

There is no indication it is going to get any better. In fact, there 

is a pretty substantial indication it is going to get worse. 

What do we do with those? Do we begin to take projects off the 

list and say we were only kidding, we did the reconnaissance study, 

we did the feasibility study, but we are now not going to proceed 

to construction? 

How do we prioritize those? How is Congress involved in that 

prioritization or individual Members? 

A lot of questions. 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman, I think we need to look at the backlog 

with a view toward the future, and that is does that project that 

was authorized—several of these projects were authorized a long 

time ago, do not have local support any longer. 

Since 1986, we have had to have a local sponsor to cost share a 

project. Some of these projects were authorized before cost sharing. 

Do they still meet the needs of the community? Do they still have 

a project purpose that is supportable, and if not, we need to come 

up with a system to deauthorize them. 

We have a current system of deauthorization that you are familiar with, if a project has not gotten any funding for 5 to 7 years, 

I think it is still 5 years, that it goes on a list for deauthorization 

that is approved by the Congress. 

16 

I think we need to look beyond that, quite frankly, because we 

have projects out there that just not only would not work any more 

but do not have the support. If we can get those off the books and 

look toward the future and look at the assets that we have and 

that we still have to fund. 

Mr. BISHOP. This is my last question, Mr. Chairman. Do you 

have an internal process in place that is working through this 

backlog, and if the answer is no, can I urge you to put in place an 

internal process? 

Ms. DARCY. We are beginning to look at that, Congressman. We 

have started to evaluate just the whole universe that is out there. 

We are looking at all of our existing authorities that we have, not 

only for authorizations for deauthorizations, and how we might be 

able to use that. 

We are also trying to get a handle on just what that universe is, 

not only for the $60 billion that you talked about, but what else 

is out there, ones that are partially constructed, all of that. 

We are doing that. I think we are going to need to work with this 

committee and the Congress in order to come up with a way to implement a deauthorization process that gets us to where we need 

to be, which is not having a $60 billion backlog. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Shuster? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Darcy and 

General Temple, welcome. General, wish you the best in your retirement. 

General TEMPLE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thanks for your service to our Nation. 

My question deals with TransCanada and their permits. I wanted to know when did they apply for the 401 permits to construct 

the Keystone Pipeline, and can you share with the Committee the 

status of all the 401 permits related to that pipeline? 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman Shuster, the permits that were requested by TransCanada for the Keystone Pipeline were—I am 

asking staff to get the exact date they were requested—once the 

project was determined to not go forward, when the State Department made that determination, we suspended consideration of 

those permits. 

We also, however, are anticipating new permit applications for a 

portion of that project, from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Texas. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Speaking of that pipeline, what does it mean to expedite, when the President said he is going to ask the Corps to expedite the permit? What does that entail? 

Ms. DARCY. He is going to ask us to consider them as soon as 

we receive them. As I said, we have not received them yet, but once 

we do, depending on the scope of the permit, what exactly the purpose and need of the permit is, we will determine which kind of 

permit is being applied for, either a nationwide permit or an individual permit. 

A nationwide permit in many instances is a faster process for 

processing than an individual permit. 

Once we get those applications, we will be able to make—— 

17 

Mr. SHUSTER. What is the typical timeline for permitting those 

two types? 

Ms. DARCY. I cannot give you an exact—I will get you an exact 

answer. What is called the ‘‘nationwide general permits’’ are usually more expeditious than individual permits, because it is a 

smaller scope usually. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Can you give me the numbers compared to a typical expedited permit? What is the timing difference? Can you put 

a percentage on it? Thirty percent faster? Sixty percent faster? 

Is that something you can get back to me? 

Ms. DARCY. I can. I do not want to guess. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I know I have seen the numbers out there. If you 

take all the permits out there that are in review or going to review, 

there is $240 billion worth of investment out there. 

My question would be to the President and to the Corps, why do 

we not expedite everything and get $240 billion worth of work to 

create jobs and get the economy moving. 

Again, I would ask you to get those numbers for me. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Typical versus expedited, I appreciate that. 

Also, under the WRDA, 2007 WRDA bill, Congress authorized 

the Corps to utilize the independent peer review for some of its 

projects. 

A couple of those projects, Savannah; Freeport, Texas, specifically, it was supposed to be a 45-month feasibility study. It is now 

at 115 months. 

Also, when you read through it, there has been almost a dozen 

changes, major policy changes to order the port to do. 

I understand also the Mobile, Alabama District reviewed it and 

said one thing and then the Jacksonville District came in and not 

understanding the economics of the Gulf Coast, gave a very different assessment of the projects. 

When you see that, it frustrates not only us in Congress but the 

American people. 

What is the Corps doing to streamline this? It was supposed to 

help, using these peer reviews to help the process along. It seems 

like in this one, and in Savannah, which I saw, it is has caused 

great upheaval and slowed the process down and costing millions 

of dollars more than it should have. 

If either one of you could take that. 

General TEMPLE. Yes, sir. There is no question that studies have 

taken longer than anyone desires. We have already instituted some 

measures to address this issue by reforming our planning process, 

and in fact, transforming our Civil Works process as well. 

With respect to Freeport itself, using an independent technical 

review, actually it helped us refine the model that will allow this 

project to move forward reasonably expeditiously here in the future, sir. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I think you understand and we all understand 

time is money. It seems the longer these projects go, the more expensive they get. 

Finally, just a quick question on design/build. What is your view 

of design/build projects? I have seen a couple of them. Just last 

18 

week, I was in Tennessee, and they did a design/build on a roadway. 

I know there are some in Congress that do not want to move to 

that model, but it seems to me time is money and a design/build 

is a positive way to do. 

If I could get quickly your response as to your view on design/ 

build projects. 

General TEMPLE. Sir, we use a number of acquisition techniques 

to provide construction and related services, and design/build is 

definitely in our portfolio. 

You may recall, sir, the hurricane storm sewage barrier nearly 

2 miles long down in New Orleans was the largest design/build 

project ever built by the Corps, and it was a Civil Works project. 

We do use it, sir. 

Mr. SHUSTER. That methodology, design/build, are you increasing 

that in your portfolio? 

General TEMPLE. Yes, sir. We have used it quite frequently here 

lately. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Secretary Darcy, as you heard my opening statement, I talked 

about the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund inequity in ports at 

Long Beach and Los Angeles, and that 1 percent out of every 

$1,000 they pay into the system goes back, in order words, 

$265,000. 

How or what can be done to address this inequity? 

Ms. DARCY. Congresswoman, the money that comes in, as you 

know, comes in from the tax on exports. The spending out from the 

Trust Fund goes to those harbors that are in need of the most 

dredging and maintenance money. 

The priorities are based on that high performance of those ports. 

There is not a one-for-one, dollar-for-dollar—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Understood, but .01-percent return is so unfair. It just does not make sense. These are the ones that bring in 

40 to 50 percent of the Nation’s goods through those ports. We need 

to be able to keep them maintained so we can continue to compete 

against other ports. 

Ms. DARCY. The allocations from the Trust Fund, as I say, are 

based on the greatest need, but I think what we can do is just be 

able to allocate the resources that we have to the greatest need. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I can understand that, but for how long can 

this keep going on? 

Ms. DARCY. I guess we will just have to evaluate with each year 

as to how we are going to—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would appreciate that, Ms. Darcy. We will 

talk about this. 

The second issue on this particular Trust Fund is that the law 

only allows 50 percent of those funds for harbor maintenance, 

dredging of ports deeper than 45, but could we not propose to expand 100 percent for ports of any depth, and allow for construction 

dredging and berth dredging? 

Expanding the use of these funds would allow the ports that pay 

the most in the system to use the funds. 

19 

Is it possible we should expand the use of this Fund? 

Ms. DARCY. I was checking to see. I am sure there is the possibility of expanding uses of the Fund. I was checking to see at what 

depth do those people pay into the Fund, whether it is all users or 

if it is a port at a certain depth. 

That question, I would like to be able to answer for you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would you just send the subcommittee the answers? It would be important. 

Going over to the two dams I mentioned previously, the Whittier 

Narrows and the Santa Fe in my area, if the study is positive in 

the Whittier Narrows Dam, which has been probably in 8 years or 

more under consideration, they found some leak, so they are having 

to do the re-study to be able to increase the capacity. 

If the study is positive and no major construction or repair is required, how long would it take to increase the water conservation 

level to store more water that can be captured for the settling 

ponds and recharge of the aquifers, if no repair is required? 

General TEMPLE. As you know, ma’am, the study, the dam safety 

study, is funded in the—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And it is underway. 

General TEMPLE. We intend to finish that as expeditiously as we 

can. Once we finish that, we will know what actions we need to 

take with respect to dam safety and public safety first, and then 

we can assist in addressing the water supply issues in an appropriate way. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right. My question is the timeframe after the 

studies are complete to be able to proceed to build up the levies to 

capture more water and be able to put into settling ponds to the 

aquifer. 

General TEMPLE. I would have to get back with you on that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. I really appreciate that. 

Secretary, when will the Corps begin the dam safety study on the 

Santa Fe Dam so we can conserve more water? This is above the 

Whittier Narrows Dam. 

It does have a lot of dredging, not a lot, but it does require dredging, so it will be able to conserve more water, and that is above 

the Whittier Narrows. 

Ms. DARCY. I do not have the exact date, Congresswoman, but we 

can get it for you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would you, please? I would be really very, 

very thankful. 

Again, I did not realize you were retiring, sir, so my congratulations for all the work you do, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, 

a tremendous amount of work with Colonel Magnus. Thank you so 

much for your service, sir. 

General TEMPLE. Thank you, ma’am. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Fleischmann? 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gibbs, 

Ranking Member Bishop, I appreciate the opportunity to participate today. I am a member of the Full Transportation Committee 

but I am not on this subcommittee. 

Secretary Darcy and General, thank you for being here today. 

I wanted to speak about Chickamauga Lock. Just last week, 

Chairman Shuster was kind enough to visit the Chickamauga Lock 

20 

with me. This is my second physical visit to the Lock since I was 

elected to Congress. It is not a pretty sight. 

It is my understanding, Secretary Darcy, that in fiscal 2013, the 

President has zero dollars set for maintenance for the Lock. There 

is another lock that actually is being constructed next to it. There 

is no ancillary lock, which has basically had construction stopped 

on it. 

As you all know, under the Trust Fund, there is a priority of lock 

systems, and there is just no dollars for the future construction. 

Right now, there are about 300 monitoring devices on this lock. 

The indigenous materials are expanding. 

By the way, General, I want to thank Colonel Dunlap. He was 

most kind, has done an excellent job, and has met with me, and 

I appreciate his hospitality. 

Secretary Darcy, in terms of the maintenance phase, is there 

anything we can do? We have gone from $3 billion to zero on maintenance with a lock that is in tremendous disrepair. Your 

thoughts? 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman, I believe we still will be performing 

maintenance on the lock, it is just the enhanced maintenance that 

was not budgeted for. I think that is what you are referring to, the 

increased maintenance. 

We will continue to be able to operate the lock, however, as you 

know, it did not compete within that ranking, in the Waterways 

Trust Fund, as what we can afford as enhanced maintenance at 

this time. 

Do I have that right, General? 

General TEMPLE. That is correct, ma’am. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. A followup question. In terms of ultimately 

getting the new lock completed, the work that has been done is 

about half completed. It is going to take approximately $500 to 

$600 million in projected costs to complete the new lock. 

What are your thoughts in terms of the way it is set? Right now, 

all the funds appear to be going to the Olmsted Lock in Kentucky, 

which has cost overruns. It is out there in terms of when it is going 

to be completed. 

This lock is literally getting starved out. What are your thoughts 

in terms of getting this funded? 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman, as I said in my opening statement, the 

President has proposed an user fee for the Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund, in order to increase the revenues coming into that Trust 

Fund. 

There is just not enough money there for all the outstanding 

needs, including the lock you are referring to. 

Hopefully, in being able to adopt an user fee soon, we will be able 

to get increased revenues into the Trust Fund and be able to fund 

more of the pressing needs in the inland waterways system. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Secretary Darcy, I understand there is a desire to get more funds into the Trust Fund. 

Secretary Darcy, is it not fundamentally flawed the way that it 

is set up now, so that even with more funds in there these funds 

would just go to Olmsted without any reformation of the existing 

Trust Fund? 

21 

I think that appears to be the fundamental problem if I’m correct, and I’m solicitous of your thoughts. 

Ms. DARCY. Well, within the revenues that have come into the 

fund, we do have to make choices and prioritize, but we do work 

with the Inland Waterway users to help to advise us on what those 

priorities should be with the limited funding that we have. 

I do not know if you want to add. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. General, do you have any thoughts on this 

issue? 

General TEMPLE. Well, I certainly agree with the Secretary in 

that with limited funds we have had to make some difficult choices. 

With additional income, it may give us the opportunity to expand 

the number of choices that we are able to apply these limited dollars to, sir. 

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

Mr. GIBBS. Would you yield your time to me? 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. I would be glad to. 

Mr. GIBBS. I just wanted to follow up a little bit on his time. 

When you are talking about the President’s, say, user fee, do you 

have any details of that? Because there is a question if it is for operation and maintenance versus construction, for the first part of 

that, and what the details of that proposal are. 

Ms. DARCY. It would be used for the same purposes as the current tax is used for. So it would be for construction, and that is 

what the additional fee would be used for. 

In the President’s proposal, it is a vessel fee. We have not 

worked out the details of what exactly that would be, and our hope 

is that we can work with this committee and others to help to fashion what that should look like, but any sort of fee change or restructure will also need the concurrence of the Ways and Means 

Committee, I would think. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. So the proposal right now is just conceptual basically. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Thank you. 

Representative Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Several questions: first of all, according to our committee memo, 

recreational areas managed by the Corps may see a cut of approximately $7 million. Can you share with the Committee which parks 

potentially would be closed and services reduced? 

Ms. DARCY. Congresswoman, I would have to get back to you on 

the list of which ones, but what we are trying to do is with the resources that we have, continue to operate as best we can and operating maybe reducing hours as opposed to actually closing a facility 

or closing some of the campsites at a facility, not all of them. 

Also we are trying to do a lot with our partners. We have a lot 

of partnerships at our core facilities with a lot of local either NGOs 

or education organizations that have been helping us leverage, you 

know, the kinds of time we have. We have more volunteers who 

have helped us with our recreation program, over 1.4 million hours 

of volunteers last year. So it helped us to keep our program vibrant. 

So I will get you the list of what will actually be closed this year. 

22 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I doubt that any of them are in my District in 

particular, but I can tell you as Members of Congress have to vote 

on these issues, it would be helpful for them to know, and then 

that way they could advocate. And I am sure my interest is on behalf of the entire American public obviously that can benefit. 

My second question is if you could share with the Committee a 

little bit about the importance of the Continuing Authorities 

Project, Section 103, and the planning assistance to States. I plan 

on coming to the chairman, Mr. Gibbs, and Ranking Member 

Bishop to seek their assistance as we go through this process, but 

there are existing programs that do exist that have the ability to 

fulfill the mission of the Corps, which is to work with State and 

local governments to insure that we can have appropriate restoration, and so on. But unfortunately, these programs are not adequately funded. 

So could you share on my behalf for the chairman and the ranking member why these are so vitally important and we consider 

funding them? 

Ms. DARCY. Congresswoman, planning assistance to States is an 

important program that we have within the Corps, and I know that 

we have worked in your District on some of that, and that is funded in the President’s 2013 budget request. 

However, Section 103, which is a Continuing Authorities Program, is not. In looking at priorities, some of our Continuing Authorities Programs were ones that decided were not budgetable this 

year because of competing needs. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. A couple of questions. I am sorry. Specifically 

I am asking can you explain what can be done with the Continuing 

Authorities Projects, Section 103. What are some of the typical 

projects or programs that you could work with local governments 

to assist with? Why is it important? 

Ms. DARCY. Well, I guess I am confusing 103 and Planning Assistance to States. Planning Assistance to States is each State gets 

a portion of the funding, and we are able to work with States as 

the local sponsor for developing projects, as well as being cost share 

partners with them. 

The 103 Continuing Authorities Program is specific to, I believe, 

shoreline protection, and those are smaller projects that are part 

of a larger program that do not require individual authorization or 

study. And for that particular Continuing Authorities Program we 

did not budget for it this year because of, as I say, the competing 

needs within the programs. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So, Mr. Chairman, what I would like to share 

for the record, it is my understanding that the planning assistance 

to States was only funded for $4 million, and what that equates to 

to individual States is what, less than 500,000 or something? At 

least in California that is what is received. 

So if you can imagine in, you know, the second largest State in 

the Union, 500,000 clearly is not adequate to deal with the problems that we are facing in the area, and I really appreciated your 

comments, Mr. Chairman, when you talked about the concern of, 

yes, we need to be fiscally prudent, but we also have to make sure 

that we are not penny wise and pound foolish down the road. 

23 

So, for example, the Continuing Authorities Project, Section 103, 

gives us the ability, for example, in my District where you have got 

literally roads that are falling into the ocean, I mean, eventually 

it is going further. The cracks are going further and further and 

further, and finally you are going to have homes and everything 

else. 

So I would like to follow up with you about these two particular 

programs to see how they might be adequately funded for the future. 

My last question has to do with Urban Waters Federal Partnership. It is my understanding that that might be on the board of 

funding for the EPA, however not at this time with the Army 

Corps. Do you have anything you would like to share with us about 

that program? 

Ms. DARCY. We are in partnership with EPA on some of those 

projects, but as you say, the Urban Water Partnership Programs 

we are just becoming actually involve in in some areas, including, 

I believe, we are in L.A. River. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. OK. All right. With that I will yield back the 

balance of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Cravaack, do you have questions? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do. 

Thank you very much. I appreciate your being here today, General. Good seeing you. I would like to give a good shout-out to Colonel Mike Price of St. Paul District. A great officer, fantastic; represents the Corps well. 

Ms. Darcy, I have a question for you in regards to how much is 

in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

Ms. DARCY. The balance, sir? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. DARCY. The balance, I believe it is about $6 million. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. OK. Does 100 percent of that go directly to Harbor Trust Fund, Harbor Maintenance? 

Ms. DARCY. It does not. The amount that goes to harbor maintenance, dredging, is an appropriated amount from that Trust Fund. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. About 80 percent, I would assume, or something 

around there. Let me ask you a question though. All of the money 

that is in that Trust Fund right now, is there actually money in 

the fund? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. So it is sitting there. It cannot be touched by anybody else? It is not an IOU or anything? 

Ms. DARCY. It has to be appropriated. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. OK. It has to be. So it is sitting there in an account ready to be used at any time. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. OK. Then why are only—and, General, you might 

be able to help me out with this—why are we having such difficulty 

in getting our harbors into the widths and depths that are needed 

or they are supposed to be? Why are we having such trouble doing 

that then? 

The number I have is we have about 7.1 in the account. Why is 

that? Because every inch of silt in the harbor in Duluth, for example, that is taconite that is left on the shore. So why is it 10? 

24 

General TEMPLE. Sir, we work the dimensions of each of the harbors based on a system of prioritization first, and then work within 

the appropriated amount second, and there is no question that that 

constrains us in most cases from providing the authorized dimensions of the channels. But it is our purpose to insure that the channels are sufficient dimensions to insure the safety and economic 

success of that particular harbor, sir. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. With all due respect, sir, who is the person or 

who makes the decision on the safety of that? 

Correct me if I am wrong, but is there not a specified direction 

of certain harbors, the depth and width that they should be? Is 

that a correct statement? 

General TEMPLE. Oh, there is, sir, but in cooperation with the 

Coast Guard and the local Port Authority, we are able through collaboration to determine what we believe the minimum safe dimensions are for that harbor under certain operating conditions. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. OK. Then why do we have minimums already 

specified? I mean, Duluth Harbor is supposed to be a certain width, 

a certain depth, and I am hearing from my District that it is not 

good enough. What is the issue? Why are we not making sure that 

all the harbors, at least specifically Duluth, why are they not 

dredged to the proper depths and widths so we can get more taconite on the ships and get them off the port? 

General TEMPLE. Sir, because we are operating within the appropriated amount that we are given to support the entire Nation. So 

that means there is virtually no harbor that is getting the full dimensions under those constraints. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. OK. An you are saying that all the monies, all 

of the fees that are collected, because it is fee based, that are collected for this Harbor Trust Fund are used specifically for harbor 

maintenance only and what it was intended to be used for; is that 

correct? 

Ms. DARCY. The amount that is used for dredging is what is appropriated from the account, and the request for this year from the 

President is $848 million. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. I see my time has expired. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Cravaack, may I ask you to yield to me the balance of your time? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. I would be happy to, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. And, Mr. Chairman, indulge me for a few minutes 

because this is really important, and I think we have some real bipartisan both agreement here and concern here. 

Let me state my understanding of how the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund operates, and please correct me if I’m wrong. It operates essentially the way the Social Security Trust Fund does, and 

in years in which we collect more than we use, the balance that 

is not being used is used to fund other areas of the budget, just 

like Social Security, and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is, in 

effect, repaid with U.S. Government bonds in the same way that 

the Social Security Trust Fund is. 

This is a problem of longstanding and bipartisan causation, if 

you will. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, as I understand it, 

was established under President Reagan in 1980. Not a single 

President from 1980 to now has requested that the full amount of 

25 

the annual proceeds be spent exclusively on harbor maintenance, 

dredging and so on. So we have built up this balance over the 

course of the years. 

I am right so far, am I not? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. So here is the problem. We take in, and I am 

round numbering it, we take in roughly $1.4 billion a year. We 

spend roughly $700 million a year. If we were to fully expend that 

$1.4 billion, which you would want and I would want and I think 

Chairman Gibbs would want, then either we are going to have to 

increase our expenditures as a country so instead of spending $3.7 

trillion we are going to spend $3.77 trillion, or we are going to have 

to cut $700 million somewhere else. 

So part of the problem is us. Part of the problem is the Appropriations Committee. So we have this thing called the RAMP Act, 

which we are trying to get passed, although even the RAMP Act 

does not fully address the problem because it deals with a point of 

order, does not increase the 302(b) allocations, and so on. 

So collectively we are onto something here. We want to spend 

more money, but it is not the Army Corps. It is the combination 

of OMB and the appropriators because if we went to the appropriators right now and said, ‘‘Do you know what? This is not fair. We 

need to spend this fully on harbor maintenance dredging or harbor 

dredging,’’ they would say, ‘‘Do you know what? That is fabulous, 

but where are we going to cut the other $700 million that we are 

now going to spend on dredging that right now we are spending on’’ 

fill in the blank? 

So that is the problem, and I mean, I am 100 percent behind the 

idea of fully spending down the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

We have got needs all over this country, but all I am suggesting 

is that it is not fair to have the Army Corps be the entity that is 

responsible for the fix. We are the ones responsible for the fix. On 

a bipartisan basis we have got to just step up to the plate and tackle this one. 

Mr. GIBBS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. BISHOP. Pardon the mixed metaphors of two different sports. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

I wanted to follow with my question. We are starting the next 

round of questions, and my next questions were starting to address 

this. 

But I wanted to, first of all, clear something up that my ranking 

member said in his first round of questions about doing more with 

less. This committee is always about that, and I have been a strong 

proponent of the RAMP Act, and we are trying to get the RAMP 

Act in the Highway Surface Transportation bill because I realize 

the need to get this dredging done, especially when the President 

has put a challenge out there to double our exports or whatever it 

is in the time period, whatever it was. 

So that goes to my questions, Secretary. Why does the administration not just go ahead and say, we are going to fully recommend 

to spend the full amount, the $1.4 billion per year, instead of 50 

percent of it, especially knowing that the circumstances of our infrastructure and trying to get our exports up? 

26 

Ms. DARCY. The amount that is requested in the President’s budget is as I said $848 million, the highest any President has ever 

requested from this fund, and it is also a 12-percent increase over 

last year’s request. So at that level we believe that we can meet 

the President’s initiative of doubling exports by 2015. 

Mr. GIBBS. I will respectfully disagree on that one, but I think 

we ought to go for the full amount, and that is what my ranking 

member is saying, too, I believe. 

Mr. BISHOP. I am with you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. We have got bipartisan support there. 

I have not really been able to figure out where the rest of the $700 million goes, but that seems to be somewhere out there. 

General Temple talked a little bit about Olmsted because that is 

taking so much of our capital budget, and I did visit there last August. I see in the President’s budget justification sheets he has requested change so that the project will increase approximately over 

$3 billion. How much of that would be spent on salaries and administrative costs at the district level? Do you know? 

General TEMPLE. Approximately 7 percent, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. Seven percent. OK. Due to the schedule delays of getting Olmsted done, as we all know, that Locks 52 and 53 that 

Olmsted would be replacing, what funding increases in schedule 

are we going to have to do to those locks to keep them in service 

for the next 5 to 8 years? Is that part of this $3 billion or is there additional money that 

will go for 52 and 53? 

General TEMPLE. Sir, the $3 billion is focused on finishing construction of Olmsted. With respect to 52 and 53, we will continue 

to use O&M funds to sustain those locks and continue to monitor 

them as we do all of our inland waterway infrastructure, and if we 

see indications of continued deterioration there, we will enter into 

a study to determine what additional O&M dollars may be needed 

to keep 52 and 53 open until Olmsted becomes operational. 

Mr. GIBBS. Negating another study right now, how many expenditures do you anticipate will have to be spent before you have to 

do another study on 52 and 53? 

General TEMPLE. Sir, I would have to get back with you on the 

exact amount. 

Mr. GIBBS. I appreciate that. Another question following up on 

the Olmsted. Is there any consideration of finishing the dam using 

the cofferdam instead of doing it in the wet since that was kind of 

a new deal? 

General TEMPLE. Right, sir. We have asked the Division and District to take a look at the full venue of possibilities with respect to 

construction techniques, contracting techniques, plans and specs, to 

see what other options we may have with respect to finishing this 

important project, and we expect that report back a little later this 

spring, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. Because the wicker part of the dam, that has not 

even started yet. You are on the other part of the dam, right, the 

conventional type? 

General TEMPLE. Yes, sir. I am talking about Olmsted. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes, Olmsted is what I am talking about, yes. 

General TEMPLE. Yes, sir. 

27 

Mr. GIBBS. I heard a little bit of General Walsh’s comments to 

a group that I spoke to afterwards a few weeks ago, and he mentioned about establishing the 3–3–3 proposal. Because I am really 

concerned about these studies and additional studies and the protraction and lengthening of the projects. What can you tell me? 

You had an 18-month pilot program, I believe. Where are we 

with the 18-month pilot program versus the 3–3–3, which is 3 

years to complete the study—and I like this—in a three-ring notebook, and it should cost no more than $3 million, correct? 

General TEMPLE. That is correct, sir, and at less than 100 pages 

ideally. 

Mr. GIBBS. So are we moving forward there pretty well on this? 

General TEMPLE. Well, as you know, sir, we have six pilot 

projects ongoing, and one of the first that we expect to address is 

Central Everglades in Florida, which should be available in the 

January 13 timeframe, sir. So we think we may be onto a technique that will help us and the Nation compress these studies and 

move forward with projects in a more rapid fashion. 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, I want to compliment you on this concept because as you heard my opening statement, I am really concerned 

about the studies and studies on top of studies. We are studying 

things to death, and we are losing our global competitiveness because of it. I think sometimes we know what the end result is going 

to be anyway. 

Anything we can do to work with you, I know some of it is because of legality reasons, but we need to do as much as we can. 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Quickly, I have a couple of things that I want to go over. First, 

on Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, just to try to close the loop, 

Congressman Landry and I sent a letter. We got over 80 signatures, bipartisan, to Chairman Ryan asking him in his budget proposal to fully spend down at least the annual proceeds of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as it comes in. 

I will say to my friend from Minnesota and to the chairman, I 

would be happy to join you in sending a letter to the appropriators 

urging them to spend the full amount. If that is something that you 

are interested in, let’s talk and we can do that because I think it 

is very important. And, again, it is something that I think we agree 

on. 

Just with respect to the comments that Representative Shuster 

was making on process and how long it is taking, my understanding of the budget includes a $9 million increase in the regulatory portion of the budget. Is it reasonable for me to assume that 

that will allow you to add to the resources that are necessary to 

go through the review process? 

Ms. DARCY. The increase is welcome because we have seen an increase in our permits over the years, over the last couple of years, 

and anticipate even more. 

Mr. BISHOP. But it will give you the staff to handle these reviews 

in a somewhat more expeditious fashion; is that correct? 

Ms. DARCY. That is our expectation. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Great. Thank you. 

28 

I have a district specific thing that I would like to raise with you. 

I represent, as I have said, the eastern end of Long Island, and 

there is a project there. It is the Mattituck Inlet Section 111 

Project, and as I understand the status of the project, the New 

York District and, Madam Secretary, your office are currently discussing language for a proposed partnership agreement that would 

be executed with the Town of Southold. It is my understanding 

that given the limited number of Section 111 projects in the Nation, the New York District is required to get the sign-off of the 

Secretary in order to move forward, and so my questions are, and 

I will understand if you do not have the answers at your fingertips, 

but if you do not, if you could get them to me as quickly as possible 

because this is a big, big priority for me and for my District; can 

you (a) please update me on the status of the project? 

(b) Can you give me a sense of when the project is ready to move 

to the next phase? 

And (c) can you give me a sense of what the next phase of the 

project is? 

As I say, of the big areas in my District, this is now the top of 

the list in terms of getting that done. So as I say, if you cannot 

answer now, I understand, but if you could, get it to us quickly. 

Ms. DARCY. What I can tell you, Congressman, about this project 

is that the draft Project Partnership Agreement is being developed, 

and it will probably be in my office before the end of the year. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Before the end of the? 

Ms. DARCY. The year. 

Mr. BISHOP. Before the end of the year? 

Ms. DARCY. And if you want more specifics, I can get those for 

you. 

Mr. BISHOP. I would also like it a little quicker than that because 

it is only March. I thought you had said the end of the week. 

Ms. DARCY. Oh, no. 

Mr. BISHOP. Which I was going to say that is fabulous. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. DARCY. They would kill me. 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes, yes. How about by the end of the month? 

Ms. DARCY. End of the month? No. 

Mr. BISHOP. If you could accelerate it and give it some priority, 

I would appreciate it greatly, and I know the people that are the 

residents of the North Fork of the island would appreciate it as 

well. 

One last thing. Mr. Fleischmann raised some very important 

points, as did the chairman a second ago. It is very clear we have 

a broken system here. We have a proposal from the President. We 

have pushback and, in effect, a counterproposal from the industry 

and the stakeholders. Can we please, and whether Congress is involved or not, but can we please sit down and try to figure out how 

to go forward here? 

Because we have needs all over this country. I mean, I was at 

the lock in I guess it is the Industrial Canal. 

Ms. DARCY. In New Orleans? 

Mr. BISHOP. In New Orleans. I mean, the thing has been functioning for 90 years, and if it were not for the professionalism of 

29 

the Corps employees who maintain it, I think we would be in big, 

big trouble, and we are inviting a disaster here. 

We have a system that is outdated, needs to be fixed, and I think 

we all agree we have got to fix it. 

And lastly, let me just say one last thing, Mr. Chairman, and 

that is that we have water needs all over this country. I hope that 

we can take on as a challenge that we would undertake on a bipartisan basis working on award of 2012 or award of 2013 because we 

definitely need to impose, if you will, the perspective of the Congress on the needs that we have. 

With that I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Do any other Members have any questions? Yes, go 

ahead. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And this is regarding the Corps vegetation policy. I have been 

contacted by the California Water Resources and the L.A. County 

Flood Control, and they are concerned about the Corps proposed 

levy vegetation policy that would remove a lot of that vegetation 

from the levies, and it requires the State and the county to remove 

that vegetation. 

The concerns that they have outlined have included the extremely high cost of levy construction and mitigation resulting from 

the policy will divert limited resources from the remediation of critical risk factors with little or no improvement to public safety. For 

many years the vegetation has encouraged and protected, all introduced by the Corps on levies in California. 

Now, the Corps should make a clear distinction between existing 

levy systems and new Federal project improvements. They accept 

the concept that the new levies should be constructed and maintained in full compliance with Corps vegetation policies, but a reasonably adaptable approach that recognizes the integration of 

woody vegetation is imperative for those existing levies. 

The Corps policy guidance is so stringent, according to these two 

agencies, it is burdensome and it is expensive; that the variances 

are unlikely to be sought or issued except under specialized local 

circumstances. 

Would you care to give us some information as to how this is 

going to work out? Any comments? 

Ms. DARCY. We do have a levy vegetation policy and we have 

been working with the State of California on it and trying to be 

flexible in not only the implementation, but also the variances that 

would be granted for that, recognizing that the levies, especially 

the existing ones with some woody vegetation may in some instances be able to get a waiver. 

So we have been working with the local Districts on that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, it just says that the variances are unlikely to be sought or issued except on very specialized circumstances. 

Ms. DARCY. The variances would be issued on a case-by-case 

basis, depending on the condition of the levy and, you know, the 

main concern, of course, with any vegetation on a levy is does it 

impair the integrity of the levy. Does it impede with flood fighting? 

And does it in any other way impede the effectiveness of the levy? 

30 

So those things will have to be considered before we would be 

able to even grant a variance. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Since the Corps did actually include levy 

vegetation in the past, am I assuming that any new construction 

will then seriously consider what effect this might have in the future on those levies? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, in any future construction, yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

I would appreciate any information so I can get it back to these 

agencies that have inquired. 

Ms. DARCY. We can do that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Cravaack. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I just want to continue on with the Harbor Trust Fund to make 

sure I am perfectly clear on that. Now, General, you said that the 

widths and depths of the harbors are not to the specified specifications, and yet do I understand that there is an overage from the 

ranking member saying that money is being taken from the Harbor 

Trust Fund and given back into the general revenue? Is that correct, Ms. Darcy? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. The entire balance that is collected is not expended for dredging. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. OK. Because I thought pretty much I asked that 

question. I said was all of the money out of the Harbor Trust Fund 

being used for the harbors, and you said, yes, it was. 

Ms. DARCY. It is the amount that is appropriated that is used for 

dredging. I did not want to confuse construction with dredging. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. OK. So as I understand it, in the Harbor Trust 

Fund Maintenance Fund, there is an overage, and that overage is 

given at times back to the general revenue; is that correct? 

Ms. DARCY. That is correct. Only a portion of it historically has 

been used for dredging. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. OK, and that is because of the specifications 

within the appropriations process that only a certain amount is 

being used for harbor dredging. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. It is appropriated out of the Trust Fund. That 

is correct. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. OK. And as I understand, General, 100 percent 

of that money that is appropriated for harbor dredging is being 

used for that; is that correct? 

General TEMPLE. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. So every dime. 

General TEMPLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Excellent. So you need more money to dredge, to 

get the appropriated amount of money so that harbors can be 

dredged to their specific widths and depths. 

General TEMPLE. Yes, sir. As I said earlier, if we had more dollars available, we would be able to more closely achieve the authorized dimensions. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. OK. So what we need to do is change the appropriations aspect of it to make sure you get the money you need to 

do it. 

31 

OK. Thank you very much. I appreciate that clarification. It was 

very educational, and I will yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Just to follow up on Representative Cravaack’s to the 

General, every dime that is used is supposed to go for dredging, but 

what percent of the HMT goes for staffing administrative costs? 

General TEMPLE. I would have to get back with you on the exact 

costs there, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. You know, I am hearing things out there that 

maybe we are getting too much on personnel costs and we are not 

adjusting that the way we should be. I do not know. That is why 

I asked the question. 

I have a question for Secretary Darcy. Last October, there was 

a court decision in National Mining v. Jackson. It ruled on enhanced coordination procedures, including the use of multicriteria 

resource assessment developed by the EPA and the Army Corps 

was unlawfully changed in permitting the process for Section 404 

coal mine permits under the Clean Water Act. 

What steps are being taken by the Corps to ensure, as it is stated in the decision, that if the responsibility involving the permitting process has not been delegated to the EPA by Congress, that 

function is vested in the Corps as the permitting authority? 

So where are we with that? 

Ms. DARCY. As a result of that court decision, we are processing 

the permits as we had done before. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. In light of that decision, the permits that were 

caught up during the illegal enhanced coordination process, what 

is the status of those permits? 

Ms. DARCY. Those permits, as I say, will just go into the regular 

process that we had done before the Enhanced Coordination Program. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, and I have a followup question from the ranking 

member of the full T&I, Mr. Rahall. He says there is some confusion about the 404 permits that are now illegal, as I just said. In 

your estimation how many of these Section 404 permits have been 

issued for mining activities in Appalachia? 

Ms. DARCY. I believe the number is 80. 

Mr. GIBBS. Eighty? OK. How many of these permits involve Valley Fill activities of the 80, I guess? 

Ms. DARCY. That I would have to get back to you on. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Can you also share with the Committee when 

these permits were issued? 

Ms. DARCY. We can get that information for you. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. I appreciate that. 

Does anyone else have anything? 

Mr. BISHOP. Just real quickly. 

Mr. GIBBS. Go ahead. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Darcy, I understand the National Academy of Sciences 

is conducting a review of the Army Corps. Can you give us a sense 

of what the Army Corps plans to do with that review once it is 

completed? 

Ms. DARCY. Whenever the National Academy of Sciences takes a 

look at our agency or our program, we take it very seriously. So 

I am awaiting their review, and I am not sure when that is coming. 

32 

Mr. BISHOP. And one other question on the River Basin Commissions’ award of 2007 directed the Corps to fund the three River 

Basin Commissions, but that has not happened since 2009. Can 

you tell us why the Corps budget does not include funding for the 

three River Basin Commissions? 

General Temple. 

General TEMPLE. As a former Commissioner, sir, for the Susquehanna, Potomac, and Delaware River Commissions, the Federal 

participation has never been funded as far as I know. It was not 

funded when I was a Commissioner from 2002 to 2005. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. I want to thank the witnesses for coming today. 

Just a parting thought. I am a little bit disturbed when we were 

talking about the Keystone Pipeline and the permits and the President’s request to expedite the process, but then I hear from the 

Secretary about they have to re-apply. They have already got permits pending. You know, either amend them or move forward and 

maybe truly expedite the process. I just make that as a closing 

comment. I am concerned about if this is not a more political way 

to say, well, we are moving forward, but in reality since we are 

making them re-apply and go through that entire process that it 

drags it on. I question the definition of ‘‘expedite’’ then. 

So thank you, again, for coming today. 

Ms. DARCY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. And this concludes this hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

33 


Insert offset folio 9 here 73531.009
34 


Insert offset folio 10 here 73531.010
35 


Insert offset folio 11 here 73531.011
36 


Insert offset folio 12 here 73531.012
37 


Insert offset folio 13 here 73531.013
38 


Insert offset folio 14 here 73531.014
39 


Insert offset folio 15 here 73531.015
40 


Insert offset folio 16 here 73531.016
41 


Insert offset folio 17 here 73531.017
42 


Insert offset folio 18 here 73531.018
43 


Insert offset folio 19 here 73531.019
44 


Insert offset folio 20 here 73531.020
45 


Insert offset folio 21 here 73531.021
46 


Insert offset folio 22 here 73531.022
47 


Insert offset folio 23 here 73531.023
48 


Insert offset folio 24 here 73531.024
49 


Insert offset folio 25 here 73531.025
50 


Insert offset folio 26 here 73531.026
51 


Insert offset folio 27 here 73531.027
52 


Insert offset folio 28 here 73531.028
53 


Insert offset folio 29 here 73531.029
54 


Insert offset folio 30 here 73531.030
55 


Insert offset folio 31 here 73531.031
56 


Insert offset folio 32 here 73531.032
57 


Insert offset folio 33 here 73531.033
58 


Insert offset folio 34 here 73531.034
59 


Insert offset folio 35 here 73531.035
60 


Insert offset folio 36 here 73531.036
61 


Insert offset folio 37 here 73531.037
62 


Insert offset folio 38 here 73531.038
63 


Insert offset folio 39 here 73531.039
64 


Insert offset folio 40 here 73531.040
65 


Insert offset folio 41 here 73531.041
66 


Insert offset folio 42 here 73531.042
67 


Insert offset folio 43 here 73531.043
68 


Insert offset folio 44 here 73531.044
69 


Insert offset folio 45 here 73531.045
70 


Insert offset folio 46 here 73531.046
71 


Insert offset folio 47 here 73531.047
72 


Insert offset folio 48 here 73531.048
73 


Insert offset folio 49 here 73531.049
74 


Insert offset folio 50 here 73531.050
75 


Insert offset folio 51 here 73531.051
76 


Insert offset folio 52 here 73531.052
77 


Insert offset folio 53 here 73531.053
78 


Insert offset folio 54 here 73531.054
79 


Insert offset folio 55 here 73531.055
80 


Insert offset folio 56 here 73531.056
81 


Insert offset folio 57 here 73531.057
82 


Insert offset folio 58 here 73531.058
83 


Insert offset folio 59 here 73531.059
84 


Insert offset folio 60 here 73531.060
85 


Insert offset folio 61 here 73531.061
86 


Insert offset folio 62 here 73531.062
87 


Insert offset folio 63 here 73531.063
88 


Insert offset folio 64 here 73531.064
89 


Insert offset folio 65 here 73531.065
90 


Insert offset folio 66 here 73531.066
91 


Insert offset folio 67 here 73531.067
92 


Insert offset folio 68 here 73531.068
93 


Insert offset folio 69 here 73531.069
94 


Insert offset folio 70 here 73531.070
95 


Insert offset folio 71 here 73531.071
96 


Insert offset folio 72 here 73531.072
97 


Insert offset folio 73 here 73531.073
98 


Insert offset folio 74 here 73531.074
99 


Insert offset folio 75 here 73531.075
100 


Insert offset folio 76 here 73531.076
101 


Insert offset folio 77 here 73531.077
102 


Insert offset folio 78 here 73531.078
103 


Insert offset folio 79 here 73531.079
104 


Insert offset folio 80 here 73531.080
105 


Insert offset folio 81 here 73531.081
106 


Insert offset folio 82 here 73531.082
107 


Insert offset folio 83 here 73531.083
108 


Insert offset folio 84 here 73531.084
109 


Insert offset folio 85 here 73531.085
110 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 86 here 73531.086