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

55–276 PDF 2010

THE WATER RESOURCES 

DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007: 

A REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION 

IN ITS THIRD YEAR 

(111–92) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

March 3, 2010 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

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 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

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 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(II) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

Conrad, David R., Senior Water Resources Specialist, National Wildlife Federation ................................................................................................................... 63 

Darcy, Hon. Jo-Ellen, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army .......................................................................................... 32 

Fitzgerald, Steve, Flood Committee Chair, Harris County Flood Control District, the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies (NAFSMA) ..................................................................................................... 63 

Larson, Esq., Amy, President, National Waterways Conference ......................... 63 

Leone, Michael A., Port Director, Maritime Administration, Massachusetts 

Port Authority (Massport), American Association of Port Authorities ............ 63 

Pallasch, Brian, Co-chair, Water Resources Coalition, American Society of 

Civil Engineers ..................................................................................................... 63 

Van Antwerp, Lt. Gen. Robert L., Commanding General of the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army ................................................... 32 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas .................................................................. 81 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 87 

Richardson, Hon. Laura, of California ................................................................... 88 

Scalise, Hon. Steve, of Louisiana ........................................................................... 92 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Conrad, David R. ..................................................................................................... 94 

Darcy, Hon. Jo-Ellen ............................................................................................... 118 

Fitzgerald, Steve ...................................................................................................... 125 

Larson, Esq., Amy ................................................................................................... 131 

Leone, Michael A. .................................................................................................... 147 

Pallasch, Brian ......................................................................................................... 152 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Majority Staff, ‘‘The Water 

Resources Development Act of 2007 Public Law 110-114 A Report on Implementation in the Third Year,’’ report ................................................................. 5 

Darcy, Hon. Jo-Ellen, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army: .........................................................................................

Response to questions from Hon. Bishop, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of New York ...................................................................... 39 

Response to questions from Hon. Oberstar, a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota ........................................................... 61 

Van Antwerp, Lt. Gen. Robert L., Commanding General of the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, response to questions from 

Hon. Oberstar, a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota ... 57 

ADDITION TO THE RECORD 

American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, written testimony .......... 162 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 55276.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 55276.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 55276.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 55276.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 55276.005
ix 


Insert offset folio 6 here 55276.006
x 


Insert offset folio 7 here 55276.007
xi 


Insert offset folio 8 here 55276.008
xii 


Insert offset folio 9 here 55276.009
(1) 

THE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT 

OF 2007: A REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION IN 

ITS THIRD YEAR 

Wednesday, March 3, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, WASHINGTON, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:28 p.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Oberstar [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will come to order for the second time today. We meet today 

to review implementation of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 2007. 

I will parenthetically note for the record that this is a milestone 

in the Committee’s oversight role. Since I was elected Chairman, 

it is the 50th oversight hearing conducted by the Committee since 

January of 2007. 

My predecessor’s, for whom I was administrative assistant, portrait hangs in the corner of the Committee room. John Blatnik 

served as Chair of this Committee for 4 years. He served in the 

House 28 years and was the first Chairman of the Special Investigative Committee on the Federal Aid Highway Program, established at the direction of Speaker Rayburn 3 years after the interstate highway program was enacted to inquire into allegations of 

fraud, corruption, and abuse in the implementation of the interstate program and the Highway Trust Fund. 

There were just scattered reports of abuse of the right of way acquisitions, of construction practices, of concrete not being poured 

that was not up to engineering standards of bridges that were built 

that were not 16 feet but a lower elevation. And Speaker Rayburn 

said, ‘‘I don’t want this largest public works program in the history 

of the country and maybe in the history of the world to get off to 

a bad start.’’ 

And John Blatnik was a combat paratrooper in World War II, 

served behind Nazi lines in what is today Slovenia, rescuing American airmen shot down by the Nazis hiding in haystacks and barns 

and grottos to stay out of the reach of the Nazi forces. He was a 

tough guy. He was the right guy to select for that responsibility, 

meticulous in his work. 

And the result of the work of the Subcommittee was that, among 

other things, no State had internal audit and review procedures for 

their highway programs. They had never seen as much money as 

was coming out of the Highway Trust Fund, and they didn’t know 

2 

how to handle it and weren’t prepared to handle it. As a result of 

those investigations, every State adopted internal budget review 

management procedures. 

Furthermore, 36 people—contractors, State officials, and Federal 

highway—then Bureau of Public Roads personnel—went to Federal 

and State prison; and lessons were learned in the contractor community. But it was tough oversight by this Committee, meticulous, 

thorough review of the work that kept the Federal highway program on a straight and even path. 

But we are not here to review corruption or fraud or abuse but 

rather the principle of oversight which is to—just as the executive 

is directed by the Constitution to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, so is the legislative branch directed to ensure that 

the executive does its job properly, that laws are implemented as 

intended by Congress, and also to learn lessons from implementation that may result in further legislative changes. 

We enacted the Water Resources Development Act on November 

8, 2007, overriding a Presidential veto. In the history of the Congress, there have been 1,174 vetoes; and only 106 had been overridden. Ours was the 107th. 

I must give credit to Mr. Mica, who led the charge on the House 

floor; Ms. Johnson, who is Chair of the Water Resources Subcommittee. I was in the hospital having my neck operated on, installing titanium rods to overcome the adverse effects of a bicycling 

accident 20 years earlier that is now starting to cut off use of 

hands and feet. 

So, without my presence on the floor, the House overrode that 

veto by a vote of 361 to 54. The Senate followed suit two days later, 

79-14. That is a really strong affirmation of the principles of that 

bill. 

I go into some detail because this wasn’t just an afterthought of 

action. That bill was the culmination of 7 years of pent-up demand 

for projects, for authorization of funding of the needs of navigation, 

flood control, water resource—water protection, levees, restoring 

the Everglades, and a whole host of other issues. 

The bill had such enormous support because Mr. Mica and I 

worked together right at the outset of the session to scrub all of 

the projects that had passed this Committee in the three previous 

Congresses but had never been acted on, at least in one session, 

never acted on by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and never passed by the Senate. We never got to conference 

on those issues. But they had passed the House. 

So let us start there with the projects that we know, and let us 

have a new process by which every Member must sign a document 

that he has no personal, family, or financial interest in the project 

and put all of the projects on our Committee web so we have complete transparency and openness. 

Among those 900 projects were new authorities for the Florida 

Everglades, the restoration of the coastal wetlands of Louisiana 

and Mississippi following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the modernization of the water transportation system, upgrading the five 

principal locks on the Mississippi and two on the Illinois River respectively from 600 to 1,200 feet. 

3 

It is intolerable that barge traffic takes 820 hours round trip 

from Clinton, Iowa, to New Orleans, the world’s most important export facility because the locks on the Mississippi and one each on 

the Ohio and Illinois were built in the 1930s. The 600 foot lengths 

in tows—the barge tows are 1,200 feet, and our competitors in 

Brazil have a 2,500-mile advantage and a 3-day sailing advantage 

over our grain production in the upper Midwest. And the port in 

New Orleans can’t be as efficient as it is designed to be because 

it takes so long for product to get there. So we included the modernization of those locks in that legislation. 

We also adopted reforms for the Corps of Engineers. The old paradigm of dam it, ditch it, drain it, which the Corps had been accused of, was going to change. 

We had hearings over many years to review how it would do 

mitigation, for example; and, in fact, we had an amendment in 

1978 that my Minnesota colleague, Republican colleague from Minnesota, Al Quie, from southeastern Minnesota, and I cosponsored 

to require mitigation to be done concurrently with the construction. 

Because it was so often the case that the Corps got to the end of 

the process and, oh, we would love to do that mitigation, but we 

ran out of money. And we completed the process, so we don’t have 

time to do this, and we just throw the dredge spoils over the levee 

on the other side and damn the consequences. 

That has got to change, and we enacted—we had an amendment 

in the WRDA bill that would require mitigation to be done in advance or concurrently with the construction and the funding. Well, 

it hasn’t been done. We reinforced that language in WRDA in 2007. 

Larger, more controversial projects have been the subject of numerous court cases and review by outside groups and controversy 

and the focus of a three-part series by the Washington Post, the 

New York Times, and many other newspapers saying the Corps 

was not doing its job properly. 

So we required, in that legislation, the Corps to submit larger, 

more controversial projects to outside independent review, to improve the quality of modeling and analysis, resulting in sound conclusions based on data, based on sound analysis. We directed the 

Corps to update how it plans and implements the projects. 

The principles of 1983, developed before the Corps had an environmental mission or before the no net loss of wetlands policy was 

adopted, those principles had to be updated and was directed to be 

done in WRDA 2007 to reflect sustainable development, rather 

than exploitive economic development such as the Mississippi River 

Gulf Outlet, to avoid unwise development of or, in fact, destruction 

of floodplains. 

But rather than swiftly and quickly embracing the reforms of 

WRDA 2007, the Corps has been slow to implement; and it has not 

followed the direct language of the statute and congressional intent. 

Today, we release a report that highlights several of the Corps’ 

shortcomings on improved mitigation, independent review, and the 

planning principles guidelines. These were major subjects of our 

discussions over a period of years. They were the point of agreement between the House and the Senate that resulted in WRDA 

4 

2007 and in this enormous vote that we had on both sides of the 

aisle. 

[Information follows:] 

5 


Insert offset folio 10 here 55276.010
6 


Insert offset folio 11 here 55276.011
7 


Insert offset folio 12 here 55276.012
8 


Insert offset folio 13 here 55276.013
9 


Insert offset folio 14 here 55276.014
10 


Insert offset folio 15 here 55276.015
11 


Insert offset folio 16 here 55276.016
12 


Insert offset folio 17 here 55276.017
13 


Insert offset folio 18 here 55276.018
14 


Insert offset folio 19 here 55276.019
15 


Insert offset folio 20 here 55276.020
16 


Insert offset folio 21 here 55276.021
17 


Insert offset folio 22 here 55276.022
18 


Insert offset folio 23 here 55276.023
19 


Insert offset folio 24 here 55276.024
20 


Insert offset folio 25 here 55276.025
21 


Insert offset folio 26 here 55276.026
22 


Insert offset folio 27 here 55276.027
23 


Insert offset folio 28 here 55276.028
24 


Insert offset folio 29 here 55276.029
25 


Insert offset folio 30 here 55276.030
26 

The Corps’ guidance for implementing mitigation was not issued 

until August 31 last year, 21 months after enactment. The Corps’ 

field offices during the interim were trying to implement the statute without clear direction. Without the direction on formulating 

adequate mitigation plans, consultation with State and Federal resource agencies was not happening. 

Independent review, the Corps still has not supplied a definitive 

list of projects subject to the mandatory requirements. The reviews 

that have been undertaken were done without public notice, without public input. Even completed reviews are not routinely released 

publicly, way behind schedule. 

The President’s budget, I was appalled to find the revisions 

would be 4 years late. That is in part due to the Council on Environmental Quality, part due to the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

The Corps has known and the Assistant Secretary prior to Ms. 

Darcy have known that this was the intent of Congress, this is a 

requirement of Congress, and it should have been leading the 

charge. 

The Corps has, in fact, implemented its programs beyond the authority, beyond the intent of Congress. An example, St. John’s 

Bayou New Madrid Floodway. A court ruled that the Corps violated the Administrative Procedures Act, that it violated the Clean 

Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act in its justification of building the project and ordered the Corps to halt the 

project and restore work already undertaken. 

Yazoo Backwater Area Pumps, a project I have been familiar 

with for many, many years, EPA ruled that the proposed project 

would have an unacceptable adverse effect on the fishery areas and 

the wildlife, adversely affecting 67,000 acres of wetland and other 

areas of United States and denied the permit. 

The Buford Dam-Lake Sidney Lanier, the court ruled again—the 

court—the determination that the Corps had unlawfully changed 

the operating purposes of Buford Dam to supply water to Atlanta 

without authorization of Congress. The court gave the Corps 3 

years to change its operation or get new authority from Congress. 

There are other shortcomings from the emphasis of WRDA 2007 

on transparency, accountability, and modernization. If the Corps is 

going to win the trust of the public, particularly the environmental 

community, and win rather than lose court cases, then it has to 

comply with the provisions of 2007. And that is where we are going 

to take this—that is why we have this review today and why we 

are going to review revisions to the planning principles, guidelines, 

application of the Davis-Bacon Act, streamlining project formulation. That is very important for people. Delivery process, sediment 

management, flexibility in financing projects, all of those are going 

to be the subject; and this is going to be the beginning of a dialogue 

between the legislative and executive branch to ensure that we together achieve our responsibility of serving the public, especially 

the water-dependent public and economy. 

Mr. Boozman? 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today, we are examining the progress the Army Corps of Engineers is making in implementing the provisions of the Water ReVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:50 Sep 23, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\55276.TXT KAYLA
27 

sources Development Act of 2007. By the Corps’ count, there are 

726 individual sections in WRDA 2007 to be implemented. Most of 

these are projects that Congress has authorized the Corps to carry 

out. 

Some are policy provisions related to changes in how the Corps 

conducts its planning process. These provisions were very controversial as WRDA 2007 was being developed. We had a good debate on these issues; and, in the end, not all Members were content 

with the final outcome. Nevertheless, WRDA 2007 is now the law 

of the land; and we all support it being implemented as written. 

I will say that I support the Corps’ carrying out the provisions 

of WRDA 2007, including the required schedules; and if the administration finds that some provision law is unworkable, it is their responsibility to come to the Committee and ask for a legislative fix. 

I am not going to get into the weeds on the implementation guidance decisions that the Corps is making. I know the Corps and the 

Assistant Secretary’s Office have been working closely with the 

Chairman’s oversight staff to see that the letter of the law is followed. I am sure the Chairman will press that point, as he has just 

done. 

I am more interested and concerned about the direction the administration is heading as it carries out some of the policy issues 

of WRDA 2007. I will mention just a couple. 

Section 2003 includes a generic credit provision that allows nonFederal partners to receive credit for in-kind work done on projects. 

It is both interesting and frustrating that an administration that 

takes great liberty with its interpretation of statutory language 

under the principles and guidelines provision chooses to interpret 

this credit provision very rigidly, making the provision completely 

unworkable. 

I am currently most concerned about the implementation of section 2031 of WRDA 2007. It directed the Secretary of the Army to 

revise the water resources planning principles and guidelines as 

they relate to the Corps of Engineers. The administration has ignored congressional direction and assigned the task of revising 

principles and guidelines to the Council on Environmental Quality, 

not to the Secretary of the Army. 

In addition, the administration has invited agencies not typically 

responsible for water project planning to actively participate in interpreting the statute. 

This Committee, the Congress, and the Corps of Engineers itself 

has worked hard for decades to better understand the environmental impacts of water resources development and to minimize 

and to mitigate for them. There is a balance of contributing to the 

national economic development consistent with protecting the environment. 

Section 2031 of WRDA 2007 established a national policy that 

water resources projects should encourage economic development 

and protect the environment by, number one, seeking to maximize 

sustainable economic development; seeking to avoid the unwise use 

of floodplains; and, thirdly, protecting and restoring the functions 

of the natural systems. But in December of 2009, the Council on 

Environmental Quality released its draft provision—draft revision, 

rather, to the first part of the P&G and clearly ignored the WRDA 

28 

2007 objectives. CEQ stated that the projects must protect and restore natural ecosystems while encouraging sustainable economic 

development. 

Clearly, the administration is headed towards a new P&G that 

has a bias in favor of environmental projects or a no-action alternative and against economic projects. This approach is contrary to 

the objectives stated in section 2031 of WRDA 2007. The project 

should maximize sustainable economic development. 

There are other aspects of the P&G revision that I find troubling, 

and perhaps the Chairman may want to have a hearing only on 

this provision and how it is being implemented. 

Through WRDA 2007 and other statutes, we in Congress have 

heaped a lot of extra planning process on the Corps, including 

added layers of peer review. These things cost time and money, but 

our hope is that the extra process results in better projects. I hope 

that that is true. But I will add that no other Federal agency has 

to go through so much scrutiny and process to bring its public 

works projects to the Nation. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. [Continuing.] I think the most common complaint 

Members of Congress hear about the Corps of Engineers is not that 

their planning principles have been wrong but that they are so 

mired in process that it takes too long to get a decision out of them, 

and I think all of us here on the Transportation and Infrastructure 

Committee and in Congress could provide many, many real-life examples of that. 

I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that the way this administration is 

interpreting the WRDA 2007 provision to revise the P&G together 

with the additional well-intentioned burdens we have put on the 

Corps, the future Corps of Engineers may simply be capable of delivering the water resources projects that the nation needs for economic development and environmental sustainability. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank you for those comments and especially on 

the point of credit, in WRDA 2007 we wanted to make it easier for 

local interests to do work largely in the planning phase and the 

land acquisition and others, and have it count toward the non-Federal share. Instead, the result has been less help for communities 

and what we have seen in the past, prior to WRDA 2007, is one 

after another, the community comes to the Committee or to their 

individual Member of Congress for ad hoc help on making up that 

local share. 

We didn’t want this to be done by earmarks and water appropriations bills, but rather on a policy basis. So we are going to further explore the point the gentleman has raised plus the others. 

Now the Chair of our Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, Ms. Johnson. 

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

and thank you for holding this hearing. I commend and welcome 

your ongoing efforts to return to the legislation originated in this 

Committee to ensure that the law is being implemented as written 

and intended. I am and will continue to be a strong supporter of 

increased investments in our Nation’s infrastructure. 

As I said on the House floor during the debate on the conference 

Committee report for the 2007 Water Resources Development Act, 

29 

we do right by this country when we invest in its infrastructure, 

including our critical water infrastructure. It took us many years 

to reach agreement, pass and overcome a veto to produce the 2007 

act, and I remain proud that the agreements were reached. 

We are here today to review the Corps’ implementation of what 

came to be known in the years preceding 2007 as the Corps reform. 

This included strengthening the effectiveness of the Corps’ mitigation program, establishing requirements for independent review of 

the proposed projects that were large or controversial and revisiting, revising the planning principles and guidelines that the 

Corps uses to develop its project recommendations. I was recently 

disappointed to learn that based on research conducted by our 

Committee staff, many of the reforms that this Committee and ultimately Congress approved have not been implemented. 

I hope this hearing will shed light on why many of the mandates 

in the bill still await action 28 months later and after the water 

resources bill’s enactment. 

The Corps was required to implement revised principles and 

guidelines within 1 year of enactment. We still have not seen them. 

To encourage consistency in recordkeeping, we mandated that 

the Corps assign a unique tracking number for each water resource 

project and, again, our research shows that this has not yet been 

implemented. 

Congress also included language to help improve and strengthen 

the Corps’ mitigation program. I was deeply disappointed to learn 

that the Corps ignored congressional direction to implement mitigation in advance of project construction. The Corps’ guidelines 

document on this issue makes no mention of undertaking the mitigation before construction on a project. 

There are other examples that I could cite, but I am eager to 

hear what our witnesses have to say in response to these lapses. 

I also want to hear from them on what this Committee can do to 

help them achieve the problematic changes of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2007. 

Again, our Nation’s infrastructure is in critical need. I stand 

ready to do all I can to get us back on the right track and look forward to continuing to work with this Committee and the Corps to 

the end. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Again, thank you very much for those remarks 

and for your splendid leadership on the water resources bill during 

the years we were in the minority and during the 110th Congress. 

You did a splendid job, and thank you for leading the charge on 

the floor while I was having my neck replaced. 

Mr. Cao. 

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

I just want to reiterate your concern with respect to the Army 

Corps’ efficiency and credibility. I believe that this is an extremely 

important hearing, especially for the people of Louisiana who live 

along the Gulf Coast region. 

I just want to point the Army Corps to a number of projects that 

we have in the district that the Army Corps has virtually missed 

all of the deadlines. Specifically one is the Violet Diversion. Section 

3083 required the Corps to design and construct the Violet DiverVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:50 Sep 23, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\55276.TXT KAYLA
30 

sion and the law requires the Corps to complete design on the 

project by November of 2009. This has been rolled—based on my 

understanding—into a larger MRTO restoration under section 7013 

but has not been designed. 

The second project is the IHNC lock replacement. Section 5083 

required the Corps to submit supplemental EIS for project by July 

1, 2008. The EIS was finally submitted but that deadline was 

missed. 

The comprehensive study, section 7002, required the Corps to develop a comprehensive plan for coastal Louisiana by November 

2008. Based on my understanding, this comprehensive study was 

never started. The U.S. Army Corps claims that funds were not 

specifically appropriated for initiating. However, a specific appropriation was not necessary. 

The fourth project, or at least a number of projects, concerns four 

LCA additional projects. Section 7006 required four feasibility studies be submitted by December 31, 2009, and these studies were 

never submitted. 

Section 7006(e)(3) required six feasibility studies to be submitted 

by December 31 of 2008. These studies were never completed, even 

though, based on my understanding, the district personnel are 

moving forward and the report was supposed to be, is supposed to 

be due by December 31 of 2010. 

MRGO restoration plan. Section 7013 required a restoration plan 

for MRGO by 2008. Plans and/or reports were scheduled to be completed by 2012. 

So, again, Mr. Chairman, this points to your concern directly 

questioning the efficiency and credibility of the Army Corps. They 

have a number of major projects in my district and the deadlines 

are either missed or some of the projects were—or at least some 

of the requirements were never submitted. 

I am also concerned about the Corps’ excessive delays in deepening and maintaining a portion of the Mississippi channel adjacent to the Napoleon Avenue Container Terminal at the Port of 

New Orleans. A small navigation project to deepen and maintain 

the berthing area near that terminal was specifically authorized by 

WRDA 2007. That was 2 years ago and the Corps has not even 

begun a routine study to examine the significant transportation 

and related economic benefits that the navigation project will 

produce that are vital to the competitiveness of the Port of New Orleans. 

Mr. Chairman, the waterways are an integral part of Louisiana’s 

way of life as well as an indispensable component of our economy. 

If we don’t keep the Army Corps up to task with a number of these 

projects, it will affect our ability to recover as well as it will affect 

our ability to provide our people with jobs. 

I thank you for holding this hearing, and I hope that we can both 

continue to work together to address the needs of the people along 

the Gulf Coast, especially for the people of New Orleans, of which 

I believe your wife is a native of the city. 

So, thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Cao. Yes, indeed, we have 

visited those sites that you referenced, several times, in fact, over 

the course of the years. I am glad you raised those issues. 

31 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have a formal opening statement. I just want to thank you for holding this hearing. Given the 

nature of my district, the efficient and timely performance of the 

Corps is absolutely vital to both the environment of my district and 

to the economic stability of my district, and so these are important 

issues that need to be raised. 

I thank you for having this hearing. I yield back. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Kagen. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you for holding these hearings and thank you 

to the Army Corps for stepping up and improving your function in 

a more efficient way. I would like to align myself with the remarks 

from the gentleman from New Orleans. We all understand here on 

this Committee that nearly a third of our energy comes through 

that Port of New Orleans, and we want to make sure that not only 

they recover but that our Nation recovers as well in this economic 

downturn. I look forward to your comments. 

I yield back. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. Now, whether Members have comments, we will begin with our first panel, the Honorable Jo-Ellen 

Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army, accompanied by the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lieutenant 

General Van Antwerp. You have done a superb job at the Corps, 

subject to these questions that we are going to be raising here. 

Thank you for your great service, long-time service of the Corps. 

I would just like to make an observation. The Panama Canal, the 

second system, is nearing completion. We open in 2014 on the 

100th year anniversary of the opening of the first Panama Canal. 

But the reason that the second system is being built is that the 

first one wasn’t done according to the recommendation of the Corps 

of Engineers. When President Teddy Roosevelt, as Senator Hayakawa said, stole the Panama fair and square, he directed the Corps 

of Engineers to undertake an engineering scheme for building the 

Panama Canal where the French had failed. The assignment was 

given to a major, an engineering major, a civil engineer, a major 

in the Corps of Engineers, who spent a year traveling the isthmus, 

documenting, writing his report, 40 pages, which I have seen, and 

it is a fascinating report. 

It went up to the Chief of Engineers and all the way up to President Roosevelt who looked at it and said, ‘‘oh, what’s this going to 

cost?’’ When told, he said, ‘‘Can we make it smaller? Congress will 

never approve that amount of money.’’ 

That report recommended locks of 150-foot beam and 1,500-foot 

length. Had that original plan been built, they wouldn’t be doing 

a second one now. 

So, in many ways, there are other stories about the Corps being 

the forerunner of the National Park Service, taking over Yellowstone, reestablishing it, Yosemite, reestablishing it. I often remind 

people that when they see our Park Service rangers, that uniform 

is the uniform of the Corps of Engineers in the 1880s. 

You have done enormously good work, but there are some things 

that we have to upgrade and uptick here. 

Ms. Darcy, proceed. 

32 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS, DEPARTMENT OF 

THE ARMY; AND LT. GEN. ROBERT L. VAN ANTWERP, COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Ms. DARCY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished Members of the Committee. I am honored to testify before you today on 

the implementation the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. 

As you know, I have a deep personal interest and a keen appreciation of the importance of the Water Resources Development Act 

for the Army Civil Works Program. I will focus my oral statement 

on the implementation of the national policy provisions contained 

in Title II and would ask that my full statement be included in the 

record. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. DARCY. I would especially like to focus on the four specific 

provisions in Title II, Section 2031, which is the Principles and 

Guidelines; Section 2034, Independent Peer Review; Section 2035, 

Safety Assurance Review; and Section 2036, which is Mitigation for 

Fish and Wildlife and Wetlands losses. 

Section 2031 of the Water Resources Development Act directed 

the Secretary of the Army to revise the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies, which are referred to as the P&G. 

The Council on Environmental Quality took the lead in this effort 

to apply the revised P&G to all Federal agencies involved in water 

resources project development, a process that is expected to last at 

least another year. 

On December 3 of 2009, the Council on Environmental Quality 

submitted to the National Academy of Sciences for peer review new 

proposed revisions to the Principles, as well as to Chapter 1 of the 

Guidelines of the 1983 P&G, which are called the Proposed National Objectives, Principles and Standards for Water and Land Related Resources Implementation Studies. 

A Water Science Technology Board review will take about 11 

months to complete. This draft was concurrently made available for 

public review for 90 days and CEQ has extended that for an additional 30 days. CEQ has also formed an interagency working group 

in January of this year to develop interagency procedures across 

the Federal agencies, and we are participating in this group. 

The Administration plans to issue the Principles and Standards 

in final form in the spring of 2011 after consideration and resolution of comments received from the general public and from the 

National Academy. 

The Corps implemented a comprehensive peer review process in 

May of 2005 with the publication of an Engineering Circular for 

peer review of decision documents, which established a rigorous 

peer-review process adopting most of the recommendations of the 

National Resource Council study under section 216 of WRDA 2000 

and implementing the 2004 Office of Management and Budget Information Quality Bulletin for peer review. 

Provisions in the Water Resource Development Act of 2007 reinforce and further define for the Corps this review process. We recently published an Engineering Circular which provides a more 

33 

comprehensive and a more robust review policy for civil works 

planning, design, and construction. The guidance contained in this 

Engineering Circular lays out a standard seamless process for review of all civil works projects from initial planning through design, construction, operation and maintenance, repair, replacement, 

and rehabilitation. 

Mitigation planning is an integral part of the Corps’ overall planning process. The Corps issued supplemental guidance for mitigation plans as well as for monitoring adaptive management in May 

of 2005. 

With the passage of WRDA 2007 and Section 2036(a), we have 

strengthened the requirements for developing and reporting monitoring and adaptive management activities. 

Monitoring of project mitigation features will continue until the 

Corps demonstrates that identified ecological success criteria have 

been met. Corps Division Commanders are establishing an annual 

consultation process with States and agencies, and we will include 

these consultation reports in the annual status report on mitigation 

required by Section 2036(b). 

In addition, the Corps is establishing a database to track the 

mitigation performance. 

I would be remiss if I did not mention the work we have accomplished under Title IX of WRDA 2007, the National Levee Safety 

Program. Title IX, specifically Section 9003, established the National Committee on Levee Safety and directed the Committee to 

develop recommendations for a national safety program. The National Committee on Levee Safety completed a draft report in January of 2009 and put forward 20 recommendations for creating a 

national levee safety program. 

Although the Corps of Engineers chairs this Committee, the 

Committee’s recommendations do not, and were not intended to, 

represent those of the administration. 

The final draft report was provided to Congress by the Army in 

May of 2009. 

Section 9004 requires that the Secretary establish and maintain 

a database with an inventory on the Nation’s levees. The Corps will 

complete data collection and inventory of the approximately 2,000 

levee systems, which comprise about 14,000 miles of levees, within 

current authorities and funds during fiscal year 2010. 

Activities planned in fiscal year 2011 include the expansion of 

the National Levee Database to other Federal agencies and to incorporate non-Federal levee data on a nationwide basis. We are 

going to work with stakeholders to facilitate their use of the database for local levee safety programs, and we are going to develop 

a levee screening and classification process to rank and prioritize 

levees based upon risk. 

With the allocation of $90 million from the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act for periodic inspections, the Corps will complete inspections for those levees which the Corps operates and 

maintains and those levees for which the Corps performed the initial design and construction and for those levees which have been 

incorporated by law into the Corps’ program as a federally authorized levee system. 

34 

Mr. Chairman, implementation of this very important legislation 

has been and remains a priority for the Corps and the Army. This 

concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you have. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I understand by prior agreement you speak for 

the Corps and General Van Antwerp does not have a separate 

statement but is available to answer questions. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Alright. The first issue that strikes me, through 

all of our review and the statement that I made at the opening, is 

the agency interaction with the National Academy of Sciences, Office of Management and Budget, Council on Environmental Quality, and other entities that are engaged in this. First of all, with 

the National Academy of Sciences, we thought this was going to be 

very straightforward, quick acting, but it seems not to have been. 

How is this process working? Take us through step by step what 

happens when you work with the Academy. 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman, when the initial draft of the revision 

of the Principles and Standards was done by the Corps of Engineers, it was put out for public comment. Then the Council on Environmental Quality decided that the Principles and Guidelines, because they originally applied to other agencies, that they should be 

developed with other agencies as well. 

So after that, the interagency working group, including the Corps 

of Engineers and the other agencies, worked on a draft of the Principles and Standards part of the Guidelines. We wanted to have 

this independently peer reviewed so we submitted it to the National Academy of Sciences on December 3. They estimated their 

review of this would take about 11 months. 

We are going to have our first meeting with the Academy in 

March, and our public comment period on the Principles and 

Guidelines has been extended to mid-April 7. Within this timeframe, the Academy and the Corps will be hearing from the public, 

on their comments and feedback on how these Principles and 

Standards would actually work. The next step is the interagency 

development of the actual guidelines, which will begin while the 

Academy is reviewing the Principles and Standards. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. What comes back to our Committee staff and 

back to me are indications that the Academy operates in a very 

slow, deliberative, almost academic fashion on a time frame that is 

more linked to eternity than to the day-to-day urgency needs of the 

Corps. 

I suppose if you respond to that you will alienate somebody over 

at the NAS, but I need to get a sense. General Antwerp, you are 

out in the field, you have got a mission to do for the Army. You 

have got to build a causeway, a bridge or a passageway. You 

haven’t got time to diddle around with it for months and months. 

What was your experience working with the Academy? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Well, first of all, I would like to say, Mr. 

Chairman, that part of our external review process is to get somebody that is totally independent, which the National Academy of 

Sciences is. Then they have a means of touching other groups. Our 

other element that we used for these are 501(c)3 nonprofit elements, because we want this to be totally external. 

35 

My experience with the National Academy of Sciences is that 

they start as we do and lay down the milestone schedule for whatever project or review they are going to do. This is a very complicated review because of all of the elements, plus it applies really 

to four agencies besides the Corps, the Bureau of Reclamation, the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Tennessee Valley 

Authority. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. So you are saying that the substance and the procedure itself, review, is complex in and of itself. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Right. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Rather than the National Academy making it 

complex? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I think that is exactly right. One of the 

guidelines behind external review is that it should be scalable, and 

it is scalable based on the complexity of the issue and also the importance of it. Both of those, you have to get those right. It is very 

complex plus the importance of it is hugely significant here, because it hasn’t been updated since 1983. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The National Academy of Sciences, both we and 

our counterparts in the Senate thought this is a very good idea, 

bringing in an external, objective group, with an academic approach to issues, it doesn’t have a stake in the outcome, that is, a 

financial stake in the outcome, but seeking good public policy. 

But then it appears that this has become a very cumbersome 

process. Maybe it is just because we appear in the House any way, 

operate on 2-year terms, and we would like to see, we would like 

to see results sooner rather than later, sometime in the next lifetime. We want them sort of in our lifetime, maybe even in our tenure in the House. 

Then you have OMB and CEQ. They also get their fingers in the 

pie here. Each has a different role, and I have a sense that the office spends more time on the M of the issues than on the B of the 

issues, more on management. 

Just parenthetically, it is not for you to answer or respond to, but 

Congress never should have created an office of management over 

and above the existing agencies. That was done in 1974, and I 

know the historical precedence for it, 1973 actually, but it has 

caused us in the House and the Senate endless headaches and you 

and the agencies. They overstep their bounds. They really should 

be looking only at the budget implications and give you their view 

and their impressions. 

Then CEQ has a different role. That is a more substantive role. 

That is one that looks at the environmental consequences of what 

you are proposing to do. 

So tell me about your interaction with these two agencies and 

how long a turnaround time do you get with them? 

Ms. DARCY. We have been working with CEQ on a number of 

issues in addition to the development of the Principles and Guidelines and other ecosystem restoration efforts that are being led by 

the Council on Environmental Quality. We, as an agency, are in 

constant communication with the Council, as well as OMB, not 

only in creating our budgets, but also in looking the way forward 

on some of the priorities within the budget, including ecosystem 

restoration. 

36 

What my experience has been so far—and I have been in this job 

7 months - we have been collaborating with CEQ more than this 

agency ever has in the past. Not only because of the priorities of 

this Administration, but because I think the recognition of what 

the role the Corps of Engineers plays in every water resources development decision that is made in this country. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, that is a very good, very cautious, careful 

answer, and you have not offended anybody over there at OMB, 

and I understand that. 

When we set forth in this legislation, mandatory independent reviews for larger projects that may have some elements of controversy surrounding them, we wanted those reviews done, but we 

were also concerned about timing. We didn’t want that outside review to delay or make an already deliberative process cumbersome. 

But it seems that the reviews undertaken so far are coming at the 

end of the process, raising issues that should have been addressed 

earlier, and thereby creating a delay that we didn’t want to happen, Boston Harbor deepening, an example of it. 

What have you learned in these 2 years now, and what steps are 

you taking? You have got a fresh set of eyes since WRDA 2007 was 

enacted, and what have you learned from this process? What steps 

are you taking to move it along more expeditiously? 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman, I think what we have learned is to 

start the review process earlier. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes, that is what we wanted you to do. 

Ms. DARCY. And also have the process be throughout the life 

cycle of the project, not just at the beginning or not once an alternative is selected. Unfortunately, as you know this was not done 

in the case of Boston Harbor; the review process came late in the 

process. 

I think an example we can point to as a success of the independent external peer review is the Mississippi Coastal project; we 

have just sent that chief’s report to the Congress. 

We had an external independent peer review on this project that 

lasted about 3-1/2 months. It did not delay the project, it did not 

delay the study, and it came in at about $212,000 for the external 

independent peer review, and I think we have a better project because of it. 

I think the local sponsor would agree, too, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Alright. We will leave it there for the moment. 

Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to have you, 

Secretary Darcy, and I think we get to have you again tomorrow, 

so we are looking forward to that, and I say that with, you know, 

in the right spirit, very much. We appreciate your all’s hard work. 

One of the national objectives proposed by CEQ, not Congress, is 

avoiding adverse impacts to natural ecosystems whenever possible. 

Since a no-action alternative is always possible, this could preclude 

the Corps of Engineers or any other Federal water resources agency from ever constructing a project with economic benefits. 

How does the Corps intend to carry out this proposal? 

Ms. DARCY. I think that what we are going to consider with the 

new P&G is a range of alternatives. I know that we will be looking 

at the other provisions in a more careful way, also in a more delibVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:50 Sep 23, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\55276.TXT KAYLA
37 

erative way. I don’t think that the Principles and Guidelines as 

drafted and out for public comment would preclude us from going 

forward with what the best project alternative would be. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. The 1983 principles and guidelines had a special 

emphasis that all effective alternatives for solving a set of water 

resources problems ought to get unbiased consideration evaluation 

in making a decision on what is recommended to Congress for authorization. 

Again, can you explain the administration’s position on this fundamental idea of considering all the alternatives without bias and 

making a recommendation? 

I guess kind of the impasse we have is we appreciate the Council 

on Environmental Quality—and maybe we should get them to come 

over and testify since they are having so much influence, but I 

guess, you know, they are a body that is there to give, you know, 

give guidance, give advice. But the ultimate, the ultimate advice 

giver and the ultimate whatever is Congress, and what we are seeing is a difference in advice versus the intent of the law. 

And so, again, can you comment on—— 

Ms. DARCY. On the role of CEQ, is that your question, sir? 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Well, that, and then what I was alluding to on the 

alternatives, effective alternatives, you know, for involving water 

resources problems, getting unbiased consideration, evaluation, 

make the decision on what is recommended to Congress for authorization. So, yes, tell us what you see the role is and—— 

Ms. DARCY. I think that the Principles and Guidelines that have 

been drafted and are out for public comment will be able to provide 

for those alternatives to be considered. 

What P&G revisions are intended to do is to be able to look at 

not only the net economic benefits but also the environmental benefits and to be able to look at both of those in all alternatives; in 

making the final decision for the project alternative selection both 

of those would be weighed. 

I don’t think any alternative is going to be off the table. I think 

that looking at them both through the eyes of the total national 

economic benefit as well as the environmental benefit is the way 

that we are hoping that they will be looked at in the future. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I understand. I guess our concern is that it doesn’t 

have that effect, that, you know, the language is different with the 

intent of what Congress was trying to do, you know, with WRDA. 

So with that, I yield back my time. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We will have additional rounds. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very 

much for your testimony. I want to talk a little bit about the issue 

of cost share. I am very concerned about cost share, particularly in 

this economic environment. We have State and local governments 

with really no capacity or very limited capacity to contribute their 

share of Army Corps projects. 

My understanding of the intent of language in WRDA 2007 was 

that local government should be able to use other Federal dollars 

for their cost share and my further understanding is that that is 

not happening, that is not being allowed. 

So my question is what tools or authority does the Corps possess 

to assist communities with the local cost share? 

38 

For example, is there not language, existing language, dating 

back pre-WRDA 2007 that gives the Secretary the right to waive 

local cost share? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, there is. 

Mr. BISHOP. So, I guess, more specifically, then my question is 

what are the set of circumstances that would need to be present 

for such a judgment to be made, and my further question is aren’t 

they already present? 

Ms. DARCY. Congressman, I would have to say that I don’t know 

the specifics of what the particular criteria would be in order to get 

that waiver, under which authority. But I would be happy to get 

back to you. 

[The information follows:] 

39 


Insert offset folio 31 here 55276.031
40 


Insert offset folio 32 here 55276.032
41 


Insert offset folio 33 here 55276.033
42 


Insert offset folio 34 here 55276.034
43 


Insert offset folio 35 here 55276.035
44 


Insert offset folio 36 here 55276.036
45 


Insert offset folio 37 here 55276.037
46 

Mr. BISHOP. I would appreciate that, because it is a particularly 

difficult issue right now. I know in my own State there are a lot 

of Army Corps projects that are ready to go that are not going for 

lack of a local cost share. And not only are the projects important 

to do, but these are projects that would put people to work. 

So I would be very grateful if you would give this your serious 

attention and let us know what we can do to move this forward. 

Ms. DARCY. I will. 

Mr. BISHOP. The next question I wanted to go to was the issue 

of independent peer review and linking that, if I may, to the centers of expertise that the Corps maintains. My understanding is 

the Corps maintains some number of centers of expertise and that 

one of their roles was to provide some type of independent peer review of major Army Corps projects. 

So I have a couple of questions that flow from that. One, do you 

feel that this process is working, are the centers of expertise providing this kind of peer review? That is my first question. 

General VAN ANTWERP. Congressman, first of all, we do have six 

centers of expertise and four of six are functioning very well and 

have done a lot of what they were designed to do. A couple of 

them—and one is the navigation center, are still trying to get up 

and running but these six centers are to do exactly as you say. 

One of their functions is to help in the review process. We have 

two types of review. We have internal review, and they can organize that process and put together the group of experts. They can 

also help to organize the external review, when that would go to 

the nonprofit organization or whatever organization chosen to complete the review. That is part of their charter. 

The other part is to really help our districts, where they have insufficient expertise to bring the best technology and innovation to 

projects, to bring that expertise to these projects. 

Mr. BISHOP. How are these centers currently funded? 

General VAN ANTWERP. They are really joint funded. They are 

funded partially by what we call general funds and then partially 

by the project funds of those projects to which they are lending 

their expertise. 

Mr. BISHOP. Would the Corps benefit and certainly would the 

American people benefit if we had more of them, and would a 

model for them be to site them on college or university campuses 

that have expertise in coastal zone processes or whatever their particular expertise might be that would be related to or be relevant 

to Corps projects? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I think several questions are there. One, 

I think we have the number about right. Where they are located 

generally is where there have been projects like that or in a district 

that already has that expertise. We do use universities, and we do 

have money that we provide universities to help us, both in review 

and in study, which I think is an excellent idea. It gets the innovation, and it also puts us with academia in a little different light, 

and I think that is good. 

So by and large, I think we are located well, we have about the 

right number. But we need to go to great in this area. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you both. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Cao. 

47 

Mr. CAO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, before I 

begin my questioning, I ask for unanimous consent to enter into 

the record a statement by my colleague from Louisiana, Congressman Steve Scalise. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Without objection, the statement will be included 

in the record at the appropriate point. 

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

Secretary Darcy, General Van Antwerp, first of all, I want to 

thank you for everything that you have done. I am pretty sure that 

overseeing the Army Corps of Engineers is a quite demanding job, 

and I am very certain that you hear a lot of complaints on a dayto-day basis, and I am here to complain again and to make sure 

that my complaints are being heard. 

As you can tell from Hurricane Katrina, all of these projects that 

I just mentioned, not only do they mean economic development, but 

these projects basically entail the survival of the people of the region. Katrina devastated 80 percent of New Orleans, misplaced 

over a million people nationwide to various areas of the country. 

And 4-1/2 years after Katrina, we are only, hopefully, 60 percent, 

65 percent back. 

This past weekend, I met with Director Spike Lee, who is doing 

a follow-up documentary to his first piece, When the Levees Broke, 

and he asked me a very direct question. He said you are the representative of this district. What are you doing to restore the coast 

and to protect the people of New Orleans? 

And one of my answers was, because I belong to the T&I Committee, I have oversight of the Army Corps of Engineers, and my 

task is to make sure that they keep up with their duties, to make 

sure that they complete their project on time. 

My question to you here is, what are you doing to ensure that 

the projects in my district are being completed on time and to ensure that the projects that are under the direction of Army Corps 

are being completed on time? 

General VAN ANTWERP. First of all, thank you for the question. 

I count it as constructive criticism, and I appreciate it. 

We have our eye on a target in New Orleans, and it is June 

2011. It is the beginning of hurricane season 2011. The Congress 

has been gracious and the Administration has been gracious. This 

is about $15 billion worth of work. I would love to bring it to you 

in the detail that we have; when the study must be completed, 

when the detailed design has to be done in order to start the 

project at the right time to finish and meet those deadlines. 

So we are very much conscious of the necessity of getting these 

projects done to meet that deadline of 2011. 

Mr. CAO. I am pretty sure you are familiar with the issue we 

have in connection with Option 1 and Option 2 and Option 2(a) in 

connection with, I guess, the project. 

An issue that has been raised, and the issue questions the, I 

guess, the forthrightness, the honesty of the Army Corps with respect to the feasibility study of Option 1 versus Option 2 and 2(a), 

seems to think that the cost study that the Army Corps put out in 

regards to Option 2 and 2(a) are way overblown. 

What is your answer to that? 

48 

General VAN ANTWERP. First of all, Option 1 and 2 and 2(a) 

are— a lot different in that 2 and 2a really are a pump to the river 

option that eliminates a lot of the local pumps. It is a much more 

elegant solution, but a pricey solution, and here is why. 

In order to really capture the cost, and the ability, if this is 

constructable or not, we are not sure because of the depth of the 

canals. You have all kinds of utilities and bank stabilization when 

you start to really increase the depth of those canals. So we have 

decided first of all thus far short of having any of that information, 

that we would accommodate options 2 and 2(a) by having a feature 

for the current pumps under Option 1 that would be adaptable to 

2 and 2(a). So we don’t burn that bridge, but that we do make it 

if ever 2 and 2(a) were studied and were feasible and funded that 

that would not all be thrown away. 

But there is a part here that has been talked about and that is 

suspending any action now unless it is consistent with 2 and 2(a). 

First of all, it is very hard to know what is and what isn’t feasible 

until you have done a study. That is the first start. You do a detailed feasibility study, give you the risks, give you enough of the 

engineering to say it could be done. 

The other part is we have pumps right now that are temporary 

pumps that are on those canals, and by 2013 they are going to hit 

their design life. They were never intended to go the long distance. 

I am very concerned right now, heart to heart, about not doing 

something now, that we are going to count on the temporary 

pumps if you have a major event that won’t be able to deliver without an incredible amount of maintenance. 

We are checking the maintenance curves right now on every single pump, and they are increasing as we speak as they age towards 

2013. So we have got to do something. 

The others are a more longer term solution, to study it well. We think it would be about $15 million and 36 months to do an adequate feasibility study that would be actionable by the Congress 

and Administration to say if we wanted to do 2 and 2(a). 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CAO. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. If I may interrupt the General, 15 million to do 

the evaluation, analysis of the adequacy of the pumps and the replacement cost? 

General VAN ANTWERP. No, sir. This would be for a feasibility 

study to look at Options 2 and 2(a), which is really the pump to 

the river option, vice Option 1, which is currently funded and authorized to replace those temporary pumps with a permanent solution. The one nuance there—and maybe I wasn’t clear—but if we 

would do Option 1, we would include some adaptability features 

that in case you came back later and wanted to do 2 and 2(a), part 

of those features are existent. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Just a horseback estimate, if the gentleman 

would allow me to continue. 

Mr. CAO. Please. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. A horseback estimate, not hold you to the numbers, but what do you think the replacement cost would be for 

those pumps? And I ask the question, you know, just need a ballpark figure, but I think the gentleman would want to know, I 

49 

would want to know, other Members would want to know, so that 

we can start laying the foundation for it. Those pumps have to be 

replaced or the city is simply going to be inundated, and we should 

be planning now for some rather substantial investment. 

General VAN ANTWERP. We actually are planning for that investment right now. That is under Option 1, and we are funded for 

that. So we have a plan to do that. The one thing we don’t have 

yet for that part of the project is a project agreement with a local 

sponsor for that because we have had a debate over options 1, 2 

and 2(a). The Corps’ position is that we need to get that project 

agreement done and get to work and put those permanent pumps 

in. 

If Congress tells us to do a feasibility study for 2 and 2(a), and 

it is funded, we would do that to the best of our ability and give 

the comparison. But those pumps are going to need to be replaced 

in 2013. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. In the range of hundreds of millions of dollars I 

am sure. 

General VAN ANTWERP. It is in the hundreds of millions but the 

funding is there. We are not coming back for a request for funds. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Cao. 

Mr. CAO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would look again to question you tomorrow and I yield back my time. Thank you very much. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Now, independent peer review reports, the ones 

that have been completed so far, it seems we have had difficulty 

getting access to them, initially Committee staff was denied access. 

The public has the right to see these reports, our staff has a right 

to see them. They are not available on the Internet, we can’t get 

them in person. We have to come and knock on the door, bag in 

hand. What do we have to do to get this? 

General VAN ANTWERP. You have every right to have total access 

to those. There is a way to Google them, but when we went and 

made a lot of improvements to our website, we essentially took the 

easy Internet access down. The best way is to have that website 

that gets you there directly. But you can go through the policy review site and do it. I have the team working on this for you. 

You are on to something that has been a challenge. We are trying to improve our website system and give more access and visibility. And what actually happened was it shut the Internet access 

down unless you were really, really savvy at how to get there, and 

I am not. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, I have newly become an Internet user after 

years of resisting. I am a paper and typewriter person. 

So I learned how to use this and I said well, let me try to get 

this. We can’t get access to this. So I tried, and I can’t get in there. 

I use Google and all these things, so you tell us how, and make it 

open and transparent, whether we have a headquarters web page 

or something, somehow we haveto—— 

General VAN ANTWERP. We are going to link it, put a big spot 

on the headquarters web page, just come on to the Corps of Engineers homepage and it will tell you how to get there. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Good. 

Now, early drafts of revisions to the planning principles and 

guidelines that we saw, that staff shared with me, required the 

50 

process to consider alternatives likely to have a high benefit-to-cost 

ratio. I said, where is this coming from? 

It turns out that there was a document from OMB and to the Assistant Secretary of the Army and to the Corps that directed the 

Corps to evaluate only those projects that would have a 1.5 to 1 

benefit-cost ratio. 

My question was how—I asked Ken Kopocis, our Counsel, and 

Ryan Seiger, Counsel to the Water Resources Subcommittee, how 

do you determine that a project has a particular benefit-to-cost 

ratio if you don’t do the study first. It is like Abraham Lincoln objecting to the proposal of the President for a toll on waterways. 

And he said, ‘‘How can you impose a toll on a waterway unless you 

build the project first so that you have product in the waterway for 

a while so that it can generate the money for the toll?’’ 

This is the same thing, this is 160 years later. There was another 

document that I saw, that OMB proposed. This is OMB, that direct 

the Corps to support only, recommend only those projects that have 

a benefit-cost ratio of 2.5 to 1. That is a huge standard. It is a high 

requirement. Alright, tell us. 

Ms. DARCY. That is a very aggressive benefit-to-cost ratio, 2.5 to 

1. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is very kind, you are being very judicious. 

Ms. DARCY. That is something that we have been looking at trying to find those projects for setting priorities in a budget. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Do you have an example of one that meets that? 

Can you give me an example, 2.5 to 1? 

Ms. DARCY. All of the projects in the President’s budget, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. They do. We probably don’t need to build them. 

If they are that good, someone else can build them. 

No, seriously, this is unreasonable to set a goal before you undertake the review of the project, which review is going to lead you 

to that goal of determining benefit-cost ratios. Give it a try, General? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I believe what Ms. Darcy is saying is 

that the projects that were 2.5 to 1 or greater are what is in the 

President’s budget, but that number floats dependent on the list in 

priority. As you take the benefit-cost ratio and rack and stack the 

projects and then you look at what the affordability is, that is how 

it is prioritized. One year, it could be 3 to 1, or it could go to 2 to 

1. In the 2011 budget, for those construction projects, we know how 

much they cost, we know the benefit-cost ratio. When we drew the 

line, it came to that. 

Now, there is a couple of other categories. There are life safety 

projects where the the benefit-cost ratio does not govern. It is the 

life, health and safety, and an example of that would be one of our 

dams that needs critical rehabbing. 

But the projects that were not life, health and safety or ecosystem restoration, they competed based on their benefit-cost ratio. 

Those ratios were known from a feasibility study and a chief’s report. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I think my recollection of the Tennessee 

Tombigbee was just barely 1 to 1, maybe below that. We had to 

push and shove to get it over point 1. Lock and Dam 26 was about 

1.2 at the beginning. It turned out to be one of the best projects 

51 

we have ever done on the Mississippi River. We need five more of 

them. And I wonder, I just wonder what B-C ratio you would assign to any one of those other five before you could even begin to 

work on it. 

General VAN ANTWERP. We do a preliminary study. And then if 

we think we have a 1 to 1 benefit-cost ratio or better, then we 

could go to feasibility. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You make a horseback estimate—— 

General VAN ANTWERP. Right. You make that estimate, and then 

you go to feasibility, where you refine it. Then it comes out 2 to 

1, 4 to 1, 2.5 to 1, whatever. And then that is where you now have 

a tool, that says, I can prioritize these. But a project that has a 1 

to 1 cost-benefit ratio says it could be worth doing. Now you get 

into the next question, can we afford to do all of those that were 

1 to 1, and the answer to that is no. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is a different question. That is a question 

Congress needs to address, whether we can—or as in the case of 

the Panama Canal, President Roosevelt said, ‘‘I don’t think Congress will ever approve that kind of money.’’ But he is not the first 

one. President Franklin Roosevelt, when presented with the cost of 

building the atomic bomb, said, ‘‘can’t we build a little one? That 

is a lot of money, we have a war going on.’’ So they made Little 

Boy. Yeah. It was big enough. 

Alright. In the planning process, where in order of significance 

does the B-C ratio come? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I think it comes in in several places. The 

first one is where you do the initial cursory study, 100 percent Federal, to determine if we think we have a potential project. It is answering that question. And the benefit-cost ratio, unless there is 

health or safety or other things, says this makes sense to go to the 

next level. 

The next level, the feasibility, has some cost-sharing aspects. So 

now you are also engaging the stakeholders, partners, local folks 

and saying, is this worth it for you to do? We think that there is 

a benefit-cost ratio that applies here. 

And then you come through that process, eventually ending up 

with a chief’s report, and it will have the benefit-cost ratio nailed 

down with all of the documentation of what are the benefits and 

what are the costs. 

One of the things, of course, the new Principles and Guidelines 

will do, will now incorporate nonmonetary things; they will incorporate the environment and some of those things that are a little 

harder to estimate benefits. But they are going to have to be figured into whether this makes a valid project or not. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is very illuminating, and that is important. 

But let me ask you a question also about the Mississippi River 

Lock and Dam 26, 1,200 feet, very efficient operation. But its efficiency and its contribution to river navigation is offset, mitigated, 

downrated by the other locks that aren’t of that efficiency. 

If you are looking at a system, then don’t you have to look at all 

of the elements of the system and say together they achieve this 

greater goal and will have this greater benefit-to-cost ratio? Grain 

moves in international markets on as little as an eighth of a cent 

a bushel. If it takes 6 weeks round trip for barge tows to make that 

52 

trip to New Orleans and back to the Upper Mississippi, we are not 

being efficient. We are not being competitive in the international 

marketplace. The port of Santos in Brazil has a 2-week sailing advantage over New Orleans because they are further out in the 

South Atlantic. 

General VAN ANTWERP. I think you are absolutely onto what we 

would call watershed planning, and you can’t do a project in isolation. You have to look at effects of whether one lock could take X 

amount of traffic, but all the other ones on either side that actually 

govern, then that figures into the benefit-cost ratio of building that. 

Another example is the Great Lakes. They are so intertwined, all 

the ports and harbors in the Great Lakes really make up a system, 

and you have to work them all together, because if you can’t get 

into one port, then you can’t take materials to another. Those are 

the tough decisions. But I think the Principles and Guidelines also 

includes this larger look that you are speaking of. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You just made the argument maybe somewhat 

better than I have done for the second lock at Sault Ste. Marie. 

When you think of the winter—Mr. Boozman doesn’t have to deal 

with that issue. They don’t have as much ice. And Mr. Cao doesn’t 

have any ice at all except in the cocktail lounges in New Orleans. 

They don’t want it. By the time it gets down to New Orleans, it 

is all melted. But if you think of a 105-foot beam lock and a 1,000- 

foot ore carrier, or an 1,100-foot, and a 1,200-foot chamber, and in 

January, the lock chamber has 4 or 5 inches of ice on either side, 

and the vessel has 3 or 4 or 5 inches of ice on either side, and they 

come through—have you been up there when that has happened, 

grinding and squeaking and creeking, and you have just got 

inches? You need a second lock. 

We are going to be producing steel in the iron range, in the iron 

ore mining country in my district. The SR Steel Company, financed 

by Indian interests from India, not Native American interests, is 

going to be producing steel slabs. In 2 years or so, the slabs will 

be rolling off the production line. We have another plant right at 

Silver Bay, and inland from Silver Bay Mesabi, Nugget is producing 98 percent iron product; not taconite, which is 64, 65 percent iron, but a pure iron like a feed for a blast furnace, for steel— 

for a blast furnace, for steel, electric arc furnaces, for minimills, for 

foundries. That is also going to be—they are going to need dependability and continuity of intralake shipment. There is an increasing 

demand for Powder River Basin coal. Those coal trains come in 2- 

mile lengths down to the Port of Duluth-Superior. They have got 

to be able to move in the wintertime. So I think we have made— 

I have made my point. 

Mr. CAO. Mr. Chairman, can you yield? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Cao. 

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

Mr. Chairman, I have in the room to your right is a group of students from New Orleans. They are from Cabrini High School. And 

all of the students returned to New Orleans after Katrina, so they 

fully understand the importance of the issue that we are discussing, the levees, the locks, what do we do, whatever we have to 

do in order to prevent the city from flooding again. So I just want 

to introduce to you the students from Cabrini High School. 

53 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Let me, on behalf of the Committee, welcome the 

students from Cabrini High School. 

Mr. CAO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Welcome. I am familiar with Cabrini. My wife is 

from New Orleans, grew up there. She still has family living there, 

and we make frequent trips to New Orleans. It is good to have student groups see how the work of Congress is conducted. And your 

Representative, Mr. Cao, is doing a splendid job of advocating for 

the city. 

Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess I would like to follow up since the Chairman brought it 

up, the cost-share ratios and things, and hopefully we will be able 

to talk about this more tomorrow as we talk about the budget. 

Where would a situation fall where if you had a project that you spent $80 million on, it lacked $30 million of completion? The costbenefit is $1.50. So if you go ahead and complete it, then you are 

going to have revenue coming in. It costs $20 million to pull the 

plug, so you have spent about $100 million versus 110-. How would 

you do that? I mean, in a sense why would you not complete a 

project like that? Why would you change the rules of the game in 

the midstream? And that is essentially what we have being proposed today. 

I guess when we see things like that, it really—as the Chairman 

mentioned, there has to be some common sense with these things, 

and it really does—it makes us lose confidence. It makes us really 

look harder at the rest of it to wonder if those kind of projects can 

go on, kind of what the rationale is behind it. So where would that 

fall? General? 

General VAN ANTWERP. May I defer? 

Ms. DARCY. Is your question regarding—— 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I just want to—either one. I really would like an 

answer to the question. How would you not continue that project? 

What is the rationale behind that one? Because if you figure the 

cost-ratio now after you get all of this stuff invested in it, and it 

is way up there, it is over the 250 mark at this point to go forward 

as compared to discontinue it, does that make sense? Because you 

have so much invested in it. 

Ms. DARCY. In making priorities for the budget, we need to not 

only look at the benefit-to-cost ratio, but also the project purpose. 

And what it is we are actually going to fund in terms of project 

purposes, and whether those are in the priorities for the year’s 

budget going forward. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. So a hydroelectric green energy is not—does that 

come from the Council of Environmental Quality? Does that come 

from you? 

Ms. DARCY. It comes from the Administration, sir. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I guess, again, that makes no sense to not fund 

and then ultimately have the thing paid for. Is there a rational answer, General? I mean, do you agree with that? 

General VAN ANTWERP. What you have to do is take the cost to 

complete. Obviously the cost invested, the benefit-cost ratio, but as 

it came out in the President’s budget, where it fell in the priorities 

was to not continue. 

54 

Mr. BOOZMAN. So cost to complete is $20 million. You have spent $80 million on it. I am sorry. The cost to complete is $30 million. 

You have spent 80 million. And 20 million to stop the project. I 

mean, you guys are sitting there arguing that, but that can’t be argued in a rational way. I understand you have got to do it, but, 

again, that makes no sense at all. 

And like I say, we can talk about it tomorrow, but those are the 

kind of things, Chairman, that we are running into that we really 

need to get some answer to, and it is a problem. 

So I yield back. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman makes a very important point. To 

the layman’s mind, it is very hard to justify a termination cost that 

is almost as much as it takes—— 

Mr. BOOZMAN. When you have got a hydroelectric, unless we are 

down on hydroelectricity now, and we don’t know about it—the 

President in his State of the Union Address was very much, let us 

do nuclear, let us do these things. This is a clean—it is a situation 

where the turbines are down, way down in the water, so it runs 

all the time. It is a great project for so many things. It is clean. 

It is a very efficient use of whatever. But not only do we waste the 

money, if we go forward with the cost-benefit, we will actually get 

the thing paid for by the utilities over a period of time. So—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That raises the issue of independent review and 

the mitigation, or the issues of independent review and mitigation. 

We have a few more minutes remaining before closing of this 

vote. We are going to—the next panel is going to tell us, judging 

by the testimony I have read, that independent peer review is not 

fully transparent to the public. They will say that interested parties don’t even know that it is in the works. Do you agree? If so, 

what suggestions do you have for making the peer-review process 

more publicly available? 

Ms. DARCY. Mr. Chairman, I think that it is our goal to have the 

independent peer-review process much more transparent. In experience so far, we thought we have done that, but, as the General 

mentioned, we have had access problems on the Internet. But I 

think we would be open to try to work more openly with the independent peer-review process because I think that was the intent of 

having the process in the first place. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. It is a very, very important point in the discussions between our Committee and the Senate Committee, not just 

in the summer 2007 conference that we had, which, by the way, 

was about 45 minutes on a 7-year bill, but it was the subject of frequent discussions over that period of 7 years and one of the issues 

that continually held up further action on WRDA, Water Resources 

Development Act. So we need to take action to let interested parties know the peer-review process is under way, or it is coming, 

and inform the panels that they have the responsibility to seek 

public input. 

General? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I think the independent peer reviews do 

seek public input, but there is another piece at the end after they 

make their recommendations--that is, what we do with those recommendations will become public as well. So we will say, yes, we 

took that, it was important. We put that in, we are considering 

55 

this, we have done the cost-benefit of doing this, but I think that 

is the whole life cycle of this. 

The one in particular about even the Principles and Guidelines, 

when they went to the National Academy of Sciences, the Principles and Standards, also went out for public review. What happens after the review of the National Academy of Sciences and 

after the public review, all should be made public. That is our opinion. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And regardless of what the judgment is from the 

public about the substance of the review, making it public is the 

critical point. And we get more flack for process than you do for 

the substance of it. 

We are going to recess for these three votes. When we come back, 

I want to conclude with mitigation and cumulative effects measures. I want to have a discussion about floodplain management and 

revision of principles and guidelines. Those are the three issues remaining. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The Committee will resume this hearing and conclude on the three items that I referenced before we left to vote on 

the House floor. 

So we strengthen mitigation requirements in WRDA 2007. And 

I have already earlier described the effort that Mr. Quie, then-Congressman Al Quie, later our Governor of Minnesota, and I crafted 

on mitigation being done concurrently with the construction. The 

guidance issued to field offices allows them to rachet back on mitigation by setting up some sort of a determination or a category— 

I am not quite clear how it is expressed when situations where adverse impacts are deemed not significant, requiring that mitigation 

be justified incrementally. That approach, ignoring—making a determination on an impact that is negligible, that it is not significant or can be done incrementally is contrary to the spirit and, I 

would say, requirements of section 906. So do you have a compendium of definitions of these categories of impacts, adverse, significant, negligible? When do you make that determination? How do 

you come to that determination? 

Ms. DARCY. Mr. Chairman, I expect that we have a compendium, 

but I cannot right now list off for you what that is. I would be 

happy to look into it and be able to provide that to you. Is your 

question how do we make the determination about which kind of 

mitigation is necessary? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. The criticism is, we have seen over the years 

prior to WRDA 2007 that the Corps uses these sort of escape 

clauses and ignores effects that, in the judgment of some observers, 

are significant and, by the Corps’ determination, are negligible. So 

we need an understanding of and a transparent process of coming 

to those determinations. 

General VAN ANTWERP. We have a number of processes, Mr. 

Chairman, but I think we will definitely look into this and get the 

criteria back to you. But there is a lot of other agencies that have 

real high stakes in this, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the EPA for 

example. We have, among the Federal agencies, a lot of different 

inputs that have significant impact on it. And if there is, I think 

they would let us know, too. 

56 

[The information follows:] 

57 


Insert offset folio 38 here 55276.038
58 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And a further question: When do those other 

agencies come into this process? I raise the question because in the 

2005 surface transportation bill, Mr. Young, then Chairman, asked 

me to convene a group, a working group, of all the various interests, environmental groups, the contractors, the builders, the 

unions and all the rest, and the Federal Highway Administration, 

to find a way to expedite projects. 

What I found in this process is we have sequential review. The 

Federal Highway Administration starts; and then the State DOT; 

and then you have the EPA; then the State public pollution control 

agency; and then you have the Council of Environmental Quality; 

and then you have the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service; and then you have the Park Service, and one project comes in 

and says, you forgot about us; and then at the tail end, there is 

the National Trust For Historic Preservation, and they say, we 

weren’t included. Well, they were; they just didn’t pay attention. 

So in the highway bill that we reported from the Subcommittee, 

it turned this vertical process on its side to get everybody in the 

room at the beginning. How long do you need, how long does this 

agency need for your permit, and let us squeeze that time frame 

down and do it in a more expeditious manner, not override it, not 

ignore these things, but do them concurrently rather than sequentially. 

Now, is that a part of this? 

General VAN ANTWERP. Mr. Chairman, that absolutely is a part 

of it; as we have refined our planning process, it is to do those 

things simultaneously and to get all the other agencies that have 

a stake in it involved very early. And for us that usually begins 

when we make a decision that a project is going to require an environmental impact statement for example. That process has to begin 

very early because that is the time driver. So if you can get that 

time down for that, you have decreased the overall time for the 

planning studies. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You have all the legislative authority or administrative authority to do this, to command all of the various agencies 

to come together at the beginning of the process? 

General VAN ANTWERP. We have everything we need to do that. 

I think to bring them all together—and a lot of it is collaboration 

with them, but it is also what their mandate is and what they are 

to do. All of us are now working together to get a good jump-off. 

And actually it goes right into the initial scoping, that we are all 

getting together to determine what needs to be done. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Do you from time to time have an experience, as 

I uncovered in the course of this process on the SAFETEA legislation, an agency, for example, Fish and Wildlife Service, we would 

love to do this, but we don’t have the budget for it? We can’t afford 

to send one of our staffers off for 3 months or 6 months to do this 

work. So what I did was write into the surface transportation—we 

will pay out of the Highway Trust Fund that person to do this 

where you can’t get off the hook. This has got to be done, we can’t 

have things drag on for years. Now, it is not to rule out or to skirt 

the environmental issue, but deal with it in a reasonable timeframe. That is what people get exacerbated with. 

59 

Okay. Next, floodplain management. We gave the Corps, in the 

1986 Act, authority to enhance responsible floodplain management, 

and required a non-Federal interest to, quote, prepare a floodplain 

management plan designed to reduce the impacts of future flood 

events in the project area. The plan shall be implemented by the 

non-Federal interest not later than 1 year after completion of construction of the project. 

Going back to Assistant Secretary Woodley, we found that implementation was hit or miss, spotty. Are you, in the course of the direction given in WRDA 2007, reviewing floodplain management? 

Do you have some interim thoughts for us on where you stand with 

this now? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. In addition, my office and FEMA 

have just reestablished the Floodplain Management Task Force 

that was originally instituted, I think, in the early 1990s, but we 

are sort of re-energizing that because we think it is a really important issue for us to be looking at on a number of fronts, not only 

for floodplain management, but also for some of the other Executive Orders that have been issued in this area, as well as of how 

our programs overlap and can be better managed. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. General, do you have any comment? 

General VAN ANTWERP. I would just make one quick additional 

comment that under the Principles and Guidelines, one of the aspects is really the nonstructural use of floodplains, which is also 

very wise. It is also in the Principles and Guidelines as one of the 

big factors, how do we use those floodplains, and where possible 

could you have a nonstructural solution as part of the flood-control 

measures? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. ′′Nonstructural′′ is becoming kind of the watchword. It has been around for a long time. It certainly is a lowercost way to deal with issues, and one nature has itself implemented 

over centuries. 

The final question, I think, for me is the draft revisions to the 

planning Principles and Guidelines and standards, where does that 

stand right now, and how is this process moving forward, and what 

steps have you taken to engage the public in this procedure? 

Ms. DARCY. The draft for the Principles and Guidelines was released on December 9th. It was released and transmitted to the 

National Academy of Sciences for review. Concurrently it was put 

out for public review and comment for I believe it was 60 or 90 

days. But it has been extended through next month for public review and comment. And that public review and comment will be 

considered not only by the Academy, but then finally by the interagency group headed by CEQ that will review it before it goes 

final. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. So you expect by April—you said by the end of 

April? 

Ms. DARCY. I think the public comment period ends April 5th. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Okay. Mr. Boozman, do you have any other—— 

Ms. DARCY. Sir, it is also up on the Web site. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Okay. On the Web site that we—— 

Ms. DARCY. Just click on it. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Supposedly. 

60 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Just one thing real quick. I know that our witnesses have to go. And again, we appreciate you being here. 

Section 5001 directs the Corps to assume maintenance of specified navigation channels upon a determination that the assumption 

would be in the best Federal interest. However, the Corps has interpreted this as requiring a full feasibility study of the existing 

project, and I know there is some wording in there that—but the 

reality is that as it is interpreted now, the study can cost much 

more than the actual assuming the maintenance. 

Would you all—you can comment on that if you would like, or 

you can just look into that and just see—again, just make sure that 

we are looking hard at that and not getting ourselves in a situation 

where we all agree that the thing was built in such a manner that 

it is economically in the best interests of our country, the language 

is in the bill, but not to make it such where the study costs tremendously more than if we just did the maintenance in the first place. 

Ms. DARCY. We will look into that. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Back to the question about the concurrency of review, and Committee staff counsel passed me a note that the Corps 

has not yet issued the guidance to implement that legislative language. 

Ms. DARCY. For—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. In section 2045 of WRDA 2007, the streamlining 

of the review process. Would you take a look at that? 

Ms. DARCY. That guidance—you are correct. We will try to get 

a date for when it will be done, too. 

[The information follows:] 

61 


Insert offset folio 39 here 55276.039
62 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Do you have anything else to say in your own defense? 

Ms. DARCY. I thought we did all right. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You are very forthcoming, and I think we have 

a better understanding of where the Corps and where your office, 

Ms. Darcy, stands in implementing WRDA 2007. Very important 

for us as we proceed with the next water resources bill. 

And just as a message to the administration, whoever they are, 

the President and his inner circle and other circles within the circle, they have underfunded the Corps in their proposed budget for 

2011 again. This is supposed to be the administration of change, 

and, ′′yes, we can.′′ And the needs are huge. 

And you were here, Ms. Darcy, for our oversight of the continuing review of the implementation of the stimulus bill. And, by 

the way, my report card, now we have 1 million, 91,000 total employment, direct, indirect and induced jobs. That is half of all of the 

jobs created by the stimulus that come from 6 percent of the funding. Because our funds go out—this is my report card. I carry it 

around with me. It is updated every 30 days or more often. And 

6 percent of the funds created half of the jobs because we contract 

them. We know where they are going. We know the formulas, and 

we know the agencies. 

And I have been holding these hearings—we have had 14 oversight hearings. And just because the Corps got this increment of 

stimulus funding should not justify what was a $4.5 billion—does 

not justify cutting the continuing budget to $1 billion. That is appalling. That is not the General’s message to take back. He has got 

enough. You take that back. 

Ms. DARCY. I will, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You are the policy and appointed person. Tell 

them we are unhappy with that up here. 

Ms. DARCY. I think they will hear you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. 

Ms. DARCY. And you did ask if I had one closing thing. In my 

opening statement I did make a personal comment that I had a 

keen interest in this, and that is because of my 16 years of working 

with your Committee when I was on the Senate side, and it is very 

important to me that the implementation of that long-sought 

WRDA 2007 is done and done right. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is right. You were there. You are steeped in 

this subject. So take the message back and tell OMB, get on with 

it. Look, the European community is building a 2,000-mile canal 

through the heart of Europe to link the North Sea to the Black 

Sea. It is hundreds of millions of euros. It is part of the $1.4 trillion 

infrastructure investment program. They are halfway through with 

it. We need to do that at least on the Mississippi, Ohio, Illinois Rivers. And I have already talked about the five locks on the Mississippi that need to be the quality of Lock and Dam 26, on the Illinois, and Europe is going to have this project done before we ever 

get these five locks off the ground. Or in the ground is the proper 

term for it. 

So take that message back. We are falling behind the rest of the 

world. This is just not tolerable. Free the Corps. Let it do what it 

does best. Give them the money to proceed. 

63 

Alright. Thank you. The panel is dismissed. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We have our next panel—Michael Leone, Port Director, Maritime Administration, Massport; Mr. David Conrad, 

Senior Water Resources Specialist from National Wildlife Federation; Mr. Steve Fitzgerald, Flood Committee Chair, Harris County 

Flood Control District of the National Association of Flood and 

Stormwater Management Agencies; Brian Pallasch, Water Resources Coalition, American Society of Civil Engineers; Amy 

Larson, president of the National Waterways Conference. 

Alright. Mr. Leone, I started with you in the naming, and you 

are first listed in the agenda, so you are first up. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL A. LEONE, PORT DIRECTOR, MARITIME ADMINISTRATION, MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY 

(MASSPORT), AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES; DAVID R. CONRAD, SENIOR WATER RESOURCES SPECIALIST, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION; STEVE FITZGERALD, FLOOD COMMITTEE CHAIR, HARRIS COUNTY 

FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 

OF FLOOD AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCIES 

(NAFSMA); BRIAN PALLASCH, COCHAIR, WATER RESOURCES 

COALITION, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS; AND 

AMY LARSON, ESQ., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL WATERWAYS 

CONFERENCE 

Mr. LEONE. Thank you, Chairman Oberstar. And thank you for 

the opportunity to provide testimony on the implementation of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 2007. I am Michael Leone, director of the Port of Boston for the Massachusetts Port Authority. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We should have pronounced it Leone. 

Mr. LEONE. But I appear today as the Chairman of the Board of 

the American Association of Port Authorities, which represents the 

interests of the leading U.S. public port authorities, as well as public port authorities throughout the Western Hemisphere from Canada, Argentina, including the Caribbean. 

I will direct my comments today to several of the policy provisions included in the 2007 act, specifically that set of provisions in 

Title II, the general provisions which deal with the Corps’ project 

development and review. In the 2007 act, Congress directed a number of management measures aimed at improving the efficiency, reliability and responsiveness of the Corps’ project development and 

implementation processes. Today I would like to share our observations on the impact of the changes and pursue the question of 

meeting the intended goals. 

As a project development review, there are two areas of concern, 

sections 2034 dealing with independent peer review, and section 

2045, project streamlining, that should be given additional consideration by the Committee. Both sections deal with review of project 

reports at different times in the project-development process and 

with varying scope. The issue that is not addressed is one of timing, when the reviews occur. 

We do not believe that the Corps’ current process is consistent 

with the intent of sections 2034 and 2045 to assure both thorough 

and streamlined review of project reports. We believe that the review, as quality control, needs to start at the beginning of a study, 

64 

involve the local sponsor, district and higher headquarters and/or 

independent entity, and be continuous throughout the phases of the 

study. There should be no surprises at the end of a cost-shared 4- 

to 6-year multimillion-dollar study effort. 

In my own case, Massport has invested 10 years and several million dollars towards a feasibility study to deepen Boston Harbor, 

which so far as been rejected twice by the Corps’ headquarter staff 

after a late-stage review surfaced differences of opinion within the 

Corps on the economic study parameters. There is no end in sight 

in pursuit of an approved chief’s report. In the meantime, we are 

losing jobs and business. 

There are currently many channel-deepening studies under way 

throughout the country that are required to handle increasingly 

larger vessels and for the Nation to remain competitive in global 

markets. Some have been stalled for many years and are not advancing because of technical or policy conflicts among reviewers, 

the study teams and the project sponsor. We are hopeful that when 

fully implemented, the revised project development and review sections of WRDA 2007 will result in improvements in the overall 

project-delivery process, and we ask the Committee to monitor that 

progress with us. 

A related area of concern in section 2033(e) is that of centers of 

expertise. We have yet to see a viable and fully operational center 

of expertise for deep-draft navigation. We believe it is a critical 

missing link in fully implementing section 2045 and streamlining 

the project-delivery process and improving the quality of the planning and review process. Attrition and downsizing have had a noticeable effect on the ability of the Corps districts to perform all of 

the technical and economic studies necessary to formulate a 

project. Work is often spread among districts with mixed results. 

We believe a deep-draft center of expertise with a dedicated fulltime cadre of subject matter experts can pay many dividends in 

providing the most technically competent, efficient and cost-effective project-delivery system in a central location. The Corps’ Inland 

Navigation Center of Expertise has been fully operational since 

1981 and provides world-class products to Corps districts in the 

navigation industry. So we know what success looks like and would 

like to see that replicated for the deep-draft navigation to the benefit of all four coasts. We are working with the Corps on the center 

of expertise concept through our Quality Partnership Initiative and 

ask for the Committee’s continued support as well. 

Additionally, sections 2005 and 2029 of WRDA 2007 speak to the 

need for adequate dredge material management, beneficial use of 

recovered sediments, and use of multiple factors in judging the 

benefits to the Nation for investing in maintenance dredging. However, we believe it is time to revisit the 24-year-old Harbor Maintenance Tax and Trust Fund authorized in 1986 that is the sole 

source for reimbursement of Federal maintenance dredging funding. Port and harbor users are paying for the full maintenance and 

getting half in return. The tax revenue of about $1.4 billion annually would be adequate to maintain Federal channels if fully applied. 

Congressional intent notwithstanding, there is no provision in 

the original authorization to dedicate that tax revenue for its inVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:50 Sep 23, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\55276.TXT KAYLA
65 

tended purpose. We ask the Committee to consider legislative provisions to ensure full use of the tax for maintenance dredging in 

the subsequent WRDA, hopefully this year. 

And finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend your leadership for section 3091 of the 2007 act, which finally provided a resolution and direction necessary to get the construction started at the 

Sault Ste. Marie for the second lock. This is a project of national 

significance that directly impacts the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway portions of our national freight system. Our Great 

Lakes Members look forward to the jobs, efficiencies and transportation cost savings the new project will bring. 

Again, thank you for including the American Association of Port 

Authorities in these proceedings. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Leone. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I do appreciate all of your comments, but especially the latter. It is nice to have that attention paid to the needs 

of the Great Lakes from the association, and just a quick question 

before out next witness. What is your current channel depth? Is it 

38 feet? 

Mr. LEONE. We are 40 feet. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And you want to go to 45? The Corps wants you 

to go to 48? 

Mr. LEONE. In the initial study we felt we needed to go to 45 

feet, but when the analysis was completed, the local district determined that 48 was probably the optimum depth for us. We feel that 

45 would be adequate, but we are arguing on the economic parameters as to whether it is 48 or 47. So we are doing numerous studies, and as a result of this 10-year process and the multimillion dollars we have spent, we have yet to reach a resolution as to what 

is the correct depth and what the correct benefit-cost ratio would 

be. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We can pursue that further and perhaps in another venue. But it is of great interest to me with the opening of 

the Panama Canal, and the larger-capacity vessels coming to all of 

our seacoasts and to the gulf, with container transport possibly 

upbound on the Mississippi, ports have to be ready with the proper 

channel depth to accommodate this whole new post-Panamax capacity. And I don’t know if the—if Maersk calls on the Port of Boston, but Sally Maersk and Regina Maersk with 6,000 and 6,600 

containers respectively have now been outdistanced by the newest 

class of Maersk vessels with 13,000 containers at a 50-foot channel 

depth requirement. Those are going to call—or if you want them 

to call on your port or other east coast ports, you have got to have 

that channel updated. And you cannot do it 5 years from now, you 

need to start doing it now. 

Mr. LEONE. Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely correct. And I 

think many ports along the gulf and east coast are trying to prepare. Not everyone needs to have 50 feet, but there are numerous 

ports that will need it. And that is why we have been preparing 

for many, many years, as other ports have done so. 

So it is important to get the authorization necessary because we 

are in the process of also dredging our own berths at our own cost, 

buying cranes that can handle these larger vessels. So we are making the terminal infrastructure, but it is very, very important, it is 

66 

essential, to have that highway, the Federal channel, into your 

berth. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. Mr. Conrad, thanks for being with us, 

and thank you for the great work of the National Wildlife Federation for these many years when I started up here as a clerk of the 

Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors. 

Mr. CONRAD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman Boozman. On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation, we deeply appreciate the interest and work of this Committee 

on providing oversight for the Corps program. 

We have a lengthy statement for the record, which I will do my 

best to summarize. We have particularly focused on what we believe to be among the most critical WRDA reform areas, the peer 

review, mitigation of fish and wildlife and wetland losses, and revision of the principles and guidelines. But first I want to speak to 

the reform issues in their context. 

These WRDA reform provisions were enacted in the wake of the 

terrible consequences of Hurricane Katrina and a series of damaging hurricanes and storms in 2004 and 2005. In addition, the Nation was growing increasingly aware of the threats of climate 

change and sea level rise, continued deterioration of critical fish 

and wildlife habitat and health of natural ecosystems, and increasingly severe instances of flooding and drought conditions. 

After the findings emerged about the background and conditions 

of the New Orleans—this levees in New Orleans, this was, in essence, as much a manmade disaster as a natural disaster, many 

felt that the WRDA reforms were all the more necessary. These 

were also adopted against a backdrop of the General Accounting 

Office—or the Government Accountability Office having reported 

that recent Corps studies ′′did not provide a reasonable basis for 

decisionmaking′′; that they were ′′fraught with errors, mistakes and 

miscalculations, and used invalid assumptions and outdated data.′′ 

Those are all in quotes. GAO also testified failings were ′′systemic 

in nature and therefore prevalent′′—′′and therefore prevalent 

throughout the Corps Civil Works portfolio.′′ That confirmed a pattern of egregious pattern flaws that have been revealed by more 

than a decade of analysis of NAS, GAO, Army inspector general, 

independent reports, and such as the coastal Louisiana levees and 

the Upper Mississippi lock expansions. 

These reforms are not just about technical planning matters and 

minute details of the law. We have received major wake-up calls 

that the impacts of activities of the Corps of Engineers have profound impacts and implications for our citizens, the environment 

and the Nation’s future development. We cannot simply do things 

the same way. 

Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed the guidance and extensive 

amount of material provided by Assistant Secretary Darcy and the 

Corps. On the whole we found that to date the implementation of 

these reform provisions in many cases is barely under way. Guidance prepared in many ways falls short, in some cases far short, 

of what we believe Congress and the law intended, and the objectives sought in the WRDA reforms are still mostly unimplemented. 

On independent peer review, we would first applaud the Corps 

for at least broadly embracing the concept of peer review even beVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:50 Sep 23, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\55276.TXT KAYLA
67 

yond that required by WRDA. But on the ground, WRDA’s independent review process—WRDA’s independent review process, we 

find the process has been weakly implemented, is highly obscure, 

and has failed to involve the public, and is almost completely out 

of public sight. The Corps reported that in 13 of 14 ongoing completed external peer reviews, and 4 of the 5 ones that were completed among those, the reviewers had not taken any public testimony or otherwise obtained public input. Conversations with conservation activists and State officials across the country have 

shown a near universal lack of awareness of and lack of public involvement in these processes. Locating review plans and completed 

IEPR reports on district Web sites is in many cases difficult or impossible. Reviewers’ names can generally not be located until after 

reports are completed. 

We believe Corps guidance and the lack of public input will likely 

discourage review panels from reviewing issues outside whatever is 

included in the charge set by the Corps’ contractor. This would defeat some of the main purposes of external review. 

On mitigation of fish and wildlife and wetlands, we looked extensively at implementation of the new section 2036 provisions. We 

are extremely concerned that the compliance with these provisions 

appears to be lagging. WRDA added great specificity to the definition of mitigation plans: standards for in-kind mitigation, requirements for ongoing monitoring and consultation with Federal agencies and States, and reporting annually to Congress on progress for 

ecological success, and contingency plans for speeding progress 

where progress was not being made. Regrettably, our review found 

implementing guidance and mitigation plans developed by the 

Corps demonstrating that the Corps had made little progress in 

complying with even the most basic of mitigation reforms. 

In one example we cited, a waterway channel improvement 

project, the Galveston district of the Corps concluded that resources 

which were not nationally or otherwise significant need not be mitigated. Such a standard, which is directly contrary to section 2036, 

would likely result in far less mitigation than WRDA requires. 

We reviewed documentation of 32 projects the Corps said fell 

within parameters of the Senators’ request for information, and in 

17 projects for which we could locate adequate information for a 

judgment beyond those with negligible impacts, we found all 17 essentially out of compliance with WRDA’s requirements, and in 

some in unusually multiple major ways. The process for monitoring 

ecological success is essentially unimplemented, in our opinion. 

Finally on principles and guidelines, Mr. Chairman, WRDA 2007 

enacted a new water policy that requires a fundamentally different 

approach to water resources project planning, and directs the Secretary to develop new planning principles, guidelines and procedures to modernize water planning. 

We are very pleased that the White House Council on Environmental Quality has taken on a key role in facilitating the revision 

and updating the principles and standards. We also applaud Congress for directing attention to the need to update water resources 

planning, and applaud the administration for recognizing its importance across the Federal Government. 

68 

A new PNS provision proposal is now set to receive public and 

NAS comments, and we recognize the process will appropriately 

take considerable time to unfold. But the potential long-term benefits to the Nation make this a highly important exercise. 

In our written statement we raise critical concerns that planning 

should be driven by Federal law and policy, not simply by benefitcost-only framework. Environmental protection and restoration 

need to be fundamental objectives for water planning in the 21st 

century. 

We are also concerned that economic requirements not undermine the new policy requirements to protect and restore natural 

ecosystem functions. And a base of science, including recognition of 

climate change and sea level rise, and greater emphasis on nonstructural approaches in integrated water resources planning is essential to a modernized planning process. 

Mr. Chairman and Congressman Boozman, once again on behalf 

of the Federation, we greatly appreciate the efforts being made by 

the Committee to follow up progress of implementing the reforms 

of WRDA 2007. I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank 

you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much for a very thorough statement. And, of course, your entire document will be included in the 

Committee record. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And now Mr. Fitzgerald. 

Mr. FITZGERALD. Thank you, Chairman, Mr. Boozman. 

The National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management 

Agencies, or NAFSMA, we represent about 100 Members, mostly 

large urban agencies, and about 76 million citizens. Our Members 

on the front line are reducing loss of life and property damage from 

floods, improving the quality of the Nation’s surface waters and riparian habitats, and helping guide the design and construction of 

low-flood-risk and affordable communities. 

NAFSMA not only supported passage of WRDA 2007, but our 

Members have experience complying with it in previous WRDA 

bills as partners with the Corps of Engineers. We recognize the 

Corps has had a challenge developing guidance for such a large 

bill, but they have done a good job setting priorities. From a local 

perspective, most active studies and projects are not being held up 

waiting for new implementation guidance. 

My testimony today will focus on four of the general provisions 

in WRDA 2007; first, independent peer review. It takes multidisciplinary teams to address the many interdependent and interrelated 

factors that influence analysis, evaluation and decisions. Our Members welcome any assistance provided, provided it is helpful in advancing the study, results in a better project and does not hinder 

progress. 

In practice, some feasibility studies that were near completion 

have been delayed to comply with new peer-review requirements, 

with no substantial improvement in the recommended course of action. We believe peer review will be beneficial when it is actually 

utilized as stated in the bill. In all cases, the peer review shall be 

accomplished concurrent with conducting the project study. 

The second provision, the principles and guidelines updates. As 

you would expect, we have been active in this effort. While 

69 

NAFSMA supports and agrees with most of the draft principles 

and standards issued by CEQ in December, we feel there are some 

areas where clarifications and emphasis is needed. First, while 

some believe that historically there has been a bias towards economic benefit, it is imperative that future water resources planning 

emphasize the balance and recognize interdependence of economic, 

environmental, public safety and social factors. Easier said than 

done. 

Next, the non-Federal sponsor is an active partner with the Federal Government in terms of contributing funding, local knowledge 

and expertise. Active participation by the non-Federal sponsor during all phases of the planning process is critical to the success of 

the study and subsequent project. 

And finally, NAFSMA members are concerned that the new principles and guidelines will make the planning process even longer, 

more expensive and more complex than it is now. Resources, funding and patience are limited. To fully appreciate how the proposed 

standards will change the planning process, NAFSMA recommends 

that the Corps and NAFSMA work through an example flood risk 

reduction study from initiation to completion while the National 

Academy of Sciences is preparing its comments. 

The third provision I want to address is actually two: planning 

and streamlining. The current process that I mentioned has 

evolved into such a long and costly exercise that doesn’t necessarily 

yield better decisions or projects. So what are we doing about it? 

Well, the inclusion of these two provisions in WRDA 2007 was a 

good first step. 

Mr. FITZGERALD. A NAFSMA work group has identified four 

basic problem areas and is developing alternatives to address them. 

We understand the Corps’ senior leadership and Secretary Darcy’s 

office have made this a priority as well. It will take a sincere, considerable, and collaborative effort from local sponsors, the Corps, 

and Congress to make significant improvements. 

Finally, the National Levee Safety Program. The National Committee on Levee Safety carried out the necessary work, prepared an 

excellent report, and continues to function effectively and productively. National believes that significant progress has been made on 

several of the Committee’s 20 recommendations since your hearing 

on this topic last May. 

For example, the Corps and FEMA have made substantial 

progress completing the National Levee Inventory and Database. 

However, additional authority is needed to include data for those 

levees owned and operated by non-Federal entities. Much work is 

still needed to improve levee safety in this Nation. 

In closing, WRDA 2007 was a much-needed piece of legislation 

that helped our Nation move forward. It is now time to take the 

next step forward by pursuing the passage of WRDA 2010 to continue our critical water resource needs and protect the Nation’s 

population, environment, and critical infrastructure. 

Thank you for inviting local sponsors to make this presentation 

today before the Committee. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much for your testimony, and I 

appreciate your participation today. 

Our next is the Water Resources Coalition. 

70 

Mr. Pallasch, thank you for being here. 

Mr. PALLASCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. I appreciate being here. 

My name is Brian Pallasch, and I am the co-chair of the Water 

Resources Coalition and managing director of Government Relations and Infrastructure Initiatives at the American Society of Civil 

Engineers. I am pleased to appear before you today as we talk 

about the implementation of WRDA 2007. 

Title II of WRDA 2007 contains many key policy requirements 

for the Corps to complete on independent peer review, dredge material disposal, technical assistance, access to water, data, planning, shore protection projects, and other program requirements. 

Title IX called on the establishment of the National Committee on 

Levee Safety. 

First, I want to talk a little bit about principles and guidelines. 

In December of 2009, as many of my colleagues have noted, the 

White House Council on Environmental Quality released for public 

comment its version of the principles and guidelines. The Water 

Resources Coalition believes the current proposal fails to meet the 

congressional intent and still needs to be reworked. 

First, the proposal speaks to the need to incorporate public safety 

into the planning process, but it does not continue the discussion 

of the obvious ways to achieve the goal. Specifically, nothing in the 

proposal identifies the unequivocal need for resiliency in the design 

and construction of Federal civil engineering projects. In engineering terms, resiliency is the ability of an infrastructure system to recover its function after it is damaged by a natural disaster or a 

man-made attack. 

Sustainability and resiliency must be an integral part of improving the Nation’s infrastructure. Today’s infrastructure, especially 

flood control systems, must be able to respond to and change with 

dynamic conditions. By incorporating resiliency, disasters will pose 

less of a threat to public health and will minimize disruptions to 

our economy. 

Second, the proposal’s discussion of the use of cost-benefit analysis and the development of water resource projects is flawed. The 

CEQ needs to explain in some detail how it will require cost-benefit 

analysis to be employed and especially how it will be possible to 

monetize the social or environmental benefits of projects and how 

these benefits can be compared to economic benefits and public 

safety. 

Nearly 5 years after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and 1 

year after the release of the National Committee on Levee Safety’s 

recommendations, Congress has still not acted to create a National 

Levee Safety Program. While the Corps of Engineers has begun 

work and made significant progress, there is no comprehensive and 

dependable catalog of the location, ownership, condition, hazard potential of all of the levees in the United States. 

As of February 15, the Corps had inventoried or contracted for 

inspection approximately two-thirds of the more than 14,000 miles 

of Federal levees. Another 21 percent of the levee mileage is under 

contract for inventory and inspection. However, by some estimates, 

there are more than 100,000 miles of levees in the United States. 

71 

We still have a long way to go to complete a national inventory of 

levees. 

Title IX of WRDA created the National Levee Safety Program 

Committee; and the goal of a robust nationwide levee safety program, though, remains an aspiration rather than a reality today. 

The Committee on Levee Safety submitted its interim report 

with the Office of Management and Budget in January of 2009. We 

feel very strongly that Congress should adopt many of the recommendations of that Committee and enact legislation to establish 

a national levee safety program. We also feel strongly that this program could be modeled on the successful National Dam Safety Program and possibly merged with that program. 

Additionally, Congress should also examine FEMA’s certification 

rule for levees. Congress should direct FEMA to amend the rule to 

change the requirement from a certification to an NFIP evaluation. 

The term ′′NFIP evaluation′′ is preferable over the present ′′certification requirement′′ to make it clear that an evaluation is 

merely a judgment that a levee system is in conformity with the 

requirements of NFIP regulations. 

The National Shoreline Erosion Control Development Program 

was established by section 227 of WRDA back in 1992. It is designed to test new technologies that will improve or reduce the cost 

of Federal beach restoration projects. There are currently seven 

testing sites being used by the Corps. 

Section 2038 of WRDA 2007 contains important modifications to 

that program. For example, the original section 227 program did 

not permit the Corps to cost share these projects with local governments. In addition, where technology was demonstrated to work, 

section 227 did not permit the technology to be seamlessly integrated into existing Federal beach restoration projects. These 

weaknesses have been corrected in section 2038. 

Currently, the Corps has issued no guidance on this program. 

This is an important program. Coastal areas of the Nation are at 

risk from serious storms that endanger lives and property. We cannot afford a lack of implementation guidance for section 2038 to 

stall this critical program. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will end my remarks and be ready 

for your questions. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Pallasch. 

I will have some questions when we come back, but I would just 

observe, on the levee safety program, in light of your comments, 

that report and the recommendations are being crafted in legislative language to be included in the water resources bill for fiscal 

year 2011. 

Ms. Larson, you are next. 

Ms. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Boozman. 

My name is Amy Larson. I am the President of the National Waterways Conference. 

The Conference, established in 1960, includes in its membership 

the full spectrum of water resources stakeholders, including flood 

control associations, levee boards, waterways carriers and shippers, 

industry and regional associations, port authorities, shipyards, 

dredging contractors, regional water supply districts, engineering 

consultants, and State and local governments. Given our diversity, 

72 

our membership is keenly interested in the development of planning of all types of water resources projects. 

My comments today will be focused on the principles and guidelines applicable to the planning and development of water resources projects and the proposal issued by the Council on Environmental Quality related to this effort. 

Attached to my written statement is a copy of the comments the 

Conference submitted to CEQ in response to its proposal, and I respectfully request that they be included in the record here. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. LARSON. As this Committee well knows, reliable, well-maintained water resources infrastructure is fundamental to America’s 

economic and environmental well-being and is essential to maintaining our competitive position within the global economy. 

Our water resources infrastructure provides lifesaving flood control, navigation critical to national security and commerce, abundant water supplies, shore protection, water recreation, environmental restoration, and hydropower production. As a consequence, 

the planning and development of water resources projects are vitally important. With that in mind, we are very concerned that 

CEQ’s proposal falls short of enacting a policy model envisioned by 

Congress in enacting the Water Resources Development Act of 

2007. 

At the outset, water resources planning ought to be governed by 

a well-defined set of overarching principles which set forth the national interest in water resources development, management, and 

protection. The principles should establish a clear, concise, and 

workable planning framework to guide the development of project 

recommendations through an unbiased, scientifically sound analysis; and they must recognize the critical role nonFederal sponsors 

play in project formulation and development. 

Fundamentally, these revised principles should strengthen the 

executive branch’s ability to recommend to the Congress economically and environmentally sound projects; and they must be clear 

enough to drive understandable processes and replicable outcomes, 

thus enabling the nonFederal interests to make complementary 

plans. 

Unfortunately, the proposal issued by the Council on Environmental Quality fundamentally fails to establish a path to balanced 

solutions, clear and consistent guidance to planners, or replicable 

results that are understandable to all stakeholders. At the outset, 

the proposal doesn’t really establish a workable set of principles at 

all, but instead uses the concepts of principles, guidelines, standards, and procedures interchangeably so that the proposal itself is 

confusing and unworkable. 

WRDA 2007 contemplates planning founded upon multiple national objectives—economic, environmental, and social well-being, 

including a public safety objective. And, additionally, WRDA 2007 

emphasizes a watershed approach to planning, recognizing the importance of collaborative planning and implementation. 

We are concerned that CEQ’s proposal, an apparent contradiction 

of the directive in WRDA 2007, does not promote coequal objectives 

in water resources planning but, instead, elevates environmental 

considerations at the expense of economic benefits. This approach 

73 

would be especially detrimental to flood control, navigation and 

water supply projects. 

The proposal also sets forth a confusing approach to watershed 

planning. Although it appears to recognize the importance of watershed planning as called for in WRDA 2007, watershed plans are 

then explicitly excluded from the process. 

It is unclear why a comprehensive planning framework would exclude watershed plans; and this is particularly troubling at a time 

when our Nation, both at the Federal and State level, is working 

towards the development of collaborative watershed planning, rather than planning on a project basis. 

We are also concerned the proposal establishes an unworkable 

policy with regard to the use of floodplains. While directing avoidance of the unwise use of floodplains, the proposal does not provide 

criteria for determining what that would be. Instead, it appears to 

create a bias for selecting nonstructural approaches, thus limiting 

in practice full consideration of all alternatives. 

This approach ignores the recognition in WRDA 2007 that sometimes use of the floodplains cannot be avoided, providing that in 

such cases planners should seek to minimize adverse impacts and 

vulnerabilities. CEQ’s proposal appears to preclude consideration of 

all alternatives and instead support a nonstructural or no-action alternative. Such a policy would be devastating to many communities 

in or near the floodplains. 

I see, Mr. Chairman, my time is up, but I would like to draw 

your attention to the procedural concerns that are outlined in more 

detail in our written comments. They are much more complex in 

those comments. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Go ahead. 

Ms. LARSON. But, in sum, we are concerned that the process does 

not provide the transparency needed to establish a viable, longterm planning model for our WRDA resources. 

Thank you, Chairman Oberstar, Mr. Boozman, for the opportunity to appear before you today; and I look forward to answering 

any questions you might have. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Ms. Larson. 

I do have some questions. We will proceed. 

Earlier in the hearing we had a group from Mr. Cao’s district in 

New Orleans, a school that we recognized; and I would like to take 

this opportunity to acknowledge the Eveleth-Gilbert school Close 

Up group who just entered the room and welcome them to the legislative process. 

This is an oversight hearing on the work of the Corps of Engineers implementing Water Resources Development Act of 2007. A 

unique bill, not only because it covered 7 years of authorizations 

needed for the work of the Corps of Engineers on the inland waterways, ports and harbors and flood control areas of the country, but 

also because it was unique in that the Congress overrode a veto to 

put it into effect. 

So welcome, students, to this unique hearing that the Committee 

is conducting. 

Now, Mr. Conrad, you raised concerns about the ability of the 

public to participate in independent reviews. Have you participated 

in independent review? 

74 

Mr. CONRAD. In a specific independent review, I am just trying 

to think. Well, I have been involved in a lot of different processes. 

I am not sure that I actually have been involved in one, directly 

involved in one of the new IEPRs, no. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, what about other members of your organization? You say this whole process—I made special note of it—is 

highly obscured, completely out of the public eye. 

Mr. CONRAD. Right. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And a universal lack of awareness, that you 

searched the Internet and could not find a review plan. We had 

some discussion of that earlier with the Chief of Engineers. Does 

that characterize the current situation? 

Mr. CONRAD. Well, what I would say is that there are a lot of 

projects that are listed in one of the tables that the Corps of Engineers provided to Congress in terms of ongoing, independent peer 

reviews. In the last few weeks, I spoke with conservation leaders, 

State, and State officials, particularly, and even some news media 

people who regularly are involved in those projects. And many of 

them—most of them, with really one major exception, and that was 

a project at Louisiana coastal protection, were rather shocked to 

hear that even though they had been to many, many meetings of 

the Corps of Engineers in planning those projects, they had not 

heard about the independent peer reviews that the Corps listed 

were under way; and they were, well, again, rather shocked because they thought they were following things very, very closely. 

That shocked me when I heard that. I began to realize this process is really just an internal process at the moment for the Corps. 

It is not being delivered as a process that would embrace any kind 

of public input. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is business as usual, and that is not what 

we had in mind. We had in mind in WRDA of 2007 changing the 

process, making it open to the public, transparent, and accessible. 

Mr. CONRAD. Right. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You heard the exchange I had with the Assistant 

Secretary and the General that I went on the Web, I couldn’t find 

their information. Well, I am no expert on the Web, but I used the 

procedures that most everyone else would use, and you shouldn’t 

have to be an expert on this thing. 

Now, do you think what General Van Antwerp said was sufficient, that they are going to fix the Web, that they are going to 

make this a success? Is that enough? Don’t they need to have an 

active outreach? 

Mr. CONRAD. I think it is going to need a lot more than that. 

The way the Corps—the newest Corps guidance which, by the 

way, I couldn’t find on the Web either, the 209 guidance, which 

came out on January 31, the way that guidance contemplates the 

process, the review plan is supposed to be up front, and it would 

lay out when and where the review would take place. 

But what the public is going to need is to know who are the reviewers, that they are going to need opportunities, I think, to be 

able to communicate with reviewers. Reviewers are mostly dealing 

with technical issues, but the public, in many cases, has technical 

information that is necessary and valuable to reviewers. 

75 

So I think they are going to need to create a more robust process 

than what we see so far. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Your testimony suggests there are gaps in the 

Corps’ mitigation program, that adverse impacts go unaddressed, 

either because the Corps doesn’t consider the resource significant 

or because they don’t believe that the mitigation is justified. But 

those are issues that we tried—the Corps has been criticized for 

this attitude for many, many years; and we tried to give them a 

means by which to overcome those objections. 

So now is there an assessment of the cumulative effect of unmitigated harm? Should there be one? How should it be done? 

Mr. CONRAD. Well, as we looked at the fairly high degree of specificity that you all included in WRDA 2007 in terms of what should 

constitute plans, what they should be looking at—I am talking 

about the mitigation plans-- it is rather hard to understand how 

that could be any less clear that these are required with each 

project, that if it is nonnegligible impact, anything other than nonnegligible impact should be part of a plan, part of a plan, they 

should be monitored and reported back to Congress with consultations with State and Federal fish and wildlife agencies. 

All of these different processes, unfortunately, they just haven’t 

been implemented yet. Cumulative effects should definitely be part 

of that, I would think. I think we may have to look very closely to 

see what else could bring the Corps to be more responsive to that. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, the National Wildlife Federation has been 

engaged in these processes for decades, beginning when I started 

here on Capitol Hill; and we need to take—pay careful attention to 

those comments. We want to be sure that all organizations are included. 

Now, let me yield to Mr. Boozman for such questions as he may 

have. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Pallasch, the WRDA 2007 authorized a rewrite—or there is 

a rewriting of the principles and guidelines. In your opinion, how 

has CEQ strayed from what ASCE thought it was advocating. Does 

that make sense? I know that you all were supportive in the sense 

of going forward and looking at this. Do you have concerns now 

that maybe we are straying a little bit beyond what you thought 

would be the case? 

Mr. PALLASCH. Sure, Congressman. I think one area that we 

have great concern, especially after our experience with Hurricane 

Katrina and working with the Corps of Engineers, is this concept 

of public safety. I think the principles and guidelines started with 

a single approach of looking at the economic benefits of a project. 

Obviously, the environmental benefits and environmental issues 

came into play; and that is an acceptable second leg of the stool, 

if we want to think of it as that. 

I would, ASCE and the Coalition, the Water Resources Coalition, 

feels very strongly that public safety needs really to be the third 

leg of that stool. As we look at—when you are looking at a project, 

certainly when you are talking about flood control projects, levees, 

and things like that, public safety is paramount when we are looking at those types of activities. 

76 

We also have some concerns, as you try to monetize the environmental benefits, that there is no agreed-upon monetization of that, 

if you will. 

I am not an economist, but certainly there is a lot of skepticism 

as to how we approach that issue, and I think the same is probably 

true to be said for public safety. So we have those concerns. Certainly we are going to be filing our comments. We got an extra 30 

days, I guess, yesterday so we are pleased to have a little bit more 

time to comb through the document. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Can you comment on that, Ms. Larson? I guess I 

would like to know what you feel like CEQ is doing to ensure public involvement, making sure that organizations like yours are able 

to petition the Federal Government. 

Mr. PALLASCH. I think at the beginning of the process the Water 

Resources Coalition was rather frustrated by the switching of the 

process, shall we say. The Corps of Engineers was in charge. You 

all gave them the charge of rewriting the principles and guidelines, 

and certainly ASCE supported that. We had some of our members 

who were calling for that over their lifetime of using that document. 

In the middle of the game, shall we say, we a little bit changed 

the rules. And CEQ was put in charge, and we expanded it from 

being a rewrite simply for the Corps to going to all of the groups 

that were involved, and I think it is actually a little bit broader 

than just the four agencies. 

Not that that maybe wasn’t the right thing to do, to expand it 

a little bit. I think there were some time issues involved in that 

where there was only a 30-day comment at the beginning, and I 

think we would have been better served with a little bit more of 

an open process. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Ms. Larson. 

Ms. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. 

We have substantive as well as procedural concerns with it. At 

the outset is the question of whether the agency with the most expertise in water resources planning is at the helm here, and we 

have serious concerns about that. I don’t think it should be CEQ. 

With respect to the substantive concerns, as I stated in my remarks, there really is no set of principles that is established; and 

we are concerned that if we are looking for a viable long-term planning model, this document doesn’t have that for a variety of reasons, including that it is confusing and unworkable but also that 

it elevates environmental over economic. There is really no balance 

there, which would be devastating to the navigation and flood control projects. It promotes a nonstructural approach to floodplain 

use, sort of a biased approach there without that balance as well. 

Those are the substantive concerns in a nutshell. 

On the process side, I have two concerns about that as well. 

First, the second phase of this process is already started. That 

is the development of the guidelines. I am saying guidelines. They 

have an interchange of words here. But that seems a bit premature. How can one develop guidelines when the principles are 

not established? Principles should be the foundation. You can’t 

build a house without the foundation properly built, so they seem 

to be getting ahead of themselves. 

77 

The other part of this is a procedural due process concern, and 

it falls back on the Administrative Procedure Act. Now, I recognize 

this is not construed at the moment as a notice and comment type 

of rulemaking. But in a notice and comment type of rulemaking, 

an agency is required to at least respond to and address the comments. Failure to do so would be considered arbitrary and capricious and grounds for reversing that decision in the Court of Appeals. 

At this point, the CEQ has not explained what the process is, 

how any comments will be addressed, how they will be heard. That 

could be, in an agency rulemaking, something as simple as saying 

we have heard your comments, we are not persuaded because of 

these reasons, but at least setting forth that explanation. We don’t 

even have that at this point. So, really, there is no transparency. 

And if we are talking about long-term viable planning, this document does not set that foundation. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Very good. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Fitzgerald, very quickly, because we do have votes and I 

think the Chairman perhaps wants to follow up, but levee safety, 

some of my communities were, you know, got involved in that very 

early on and got in the process. It does seem, when you look at the 

timeline, the timeline really becomes pretty unworkable by the 

time you do things back and forth. 

I guess what I would like to look for is, you know, with your help 

is a little softer landing. I think our communities are committed to 

doing that, but it seems like what they are faced with right now 

is pretty significant. When you look at the timelines, when they are 

trying to act in good faith, it becomes a real problem. 

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, the timeline on identifying a project or 

making a decision has taken a long time. I am not sure what the 

average time is, but some in our community are taking 10 years 

plus to go through the planning process. Some of it, as local sponsors, we have a responsibility to help and do our part. We recognize 

this. It is not all the Corps. We have responsibilities, too; and we 

are willing to step up to the plate where we can. 

But I think this has evolved over the years. You know, when 

something would go wrong, we have a human tendency to add another step, you know, try to make it not happen again. I think over 

the last 50 years this process has evolved into something that has 

gotten difficult to try to make work. 

The four areas that we—when we started doing a survey with 

our NAFSMA members, we were able to put the problems in four 

areas; and one of them was the process itself, it is a little bit unwieldy. The second is people. It takes people to do a study, to look 

at the problems, and come up with good solutions. So the people 

side is one of the areas we need to work on. 

Another one is the written guidance itself. It has evolved over 

time and is very difficult to kind of work your way through it, and 

that needs to be somewhat cleaned up. 

And the third one is, of course, the funding and budgeting. If you 

can have an uninterrupted funding cycle, you can get through the 

process more quickly. But I know sometimes the nonFederal sponsor can’t come up with their finding; and that kind of slows it down 

sometimes, too. It is not only a Federal thing. 

78 

But I think with the principles and guidelines updates, this gives 

us a great opportunity to look at all these areas and build into 

these guidelines and procedures that each agency is going to come 

up with to try to make sure this doesn’t get more complicated but 

that we can streamline and get the planning process where we all 

would like for it to be. So I think we are at a good crossroads in 

the United States to be able to do that. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, thank you for those questions, Mr. 

Boozman, and for the responses. That is what we are trying to get 

at, is a more streamlined procedure. We want to be sure that the 

public is engaged, there is openness in the process, transparency in 

what is happening but also that we move the whole procedure 

along. That is why I spent a great deal of time on that issue with 

General Van Antwerp on the matter of expediting. 

We have taken from the surface transportation bill of 2005 the 

project-expediting language, put it into the Corps of Engineers’ 

WRDA bill, and now we have taken that language and refined it 

further and put it into our next surface transportation authorization bill that has been reported from the Subcommittee. 

But we need to continue working and delivering to the public the 

product that agencies are supposed to deliver. If it takes 3 years 

to do a simple mill and overlay in a highway project, the public sector is not being efficient. If it takes 14 years to do a transit project 

from idea to ridership, the public sector is not being efficient. In 

the meantime, bond issues expire, the public loses interest, projects 

die, and the same thing for the water program. 

Maybe these two goals are mutually exclusive, public review, the 

public input. I don’t think so. I have been engaged in this—this is 

my 36th year in Congress, and I just—I know that we can make 

things work better. 

There are issues, some, perhaps, you can’t resolve. Eventually, 

someone has to make a decision, but the process of getting there 

has to be more expeditious than it has been in the past. 

Now, Ms. Larson, one of the concerns raised—and you have done 

a very great, detailed comment on the draft revisions to the principles and standards; and I like your distinction between principles, 

which should come first, and the standards and implementation, 

second. What I have heard from the waterways community is that 

the document does not have or it appears that the Corps does not 

draft this document with their navigation mission in mind. Is that 

your review of things and how would you propose to adjust that? 

Ms. LARSON. I would agree with that. Our structure of comments 

was on broad-based policy rather than section by section because 

it is so unwieldy and these defects, I think, are throughout the document. But I think overall the navigation mission and the flood 

control mission, in particular, are relegated to second class in this 

document. 

I think we need to find the appropriate balance between economic and human uses of our water resources and environmental 

and ecological considerations; and that includes ensuring that the 

navigation, flood control, and water supply projects are addressed; 

and it includes an unbiased look at all alternatives, structural and 

nonstructural. I think if we can strike that balance between ecoVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:50 Sep 23, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\55276.TXT KAYLA
79 

nomic and environmental, we can ensure that all the water resources projects are addressed. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And in timely fashion. 

Ms. LARSON. Correct. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I remember, as a parenthetical observation, 

Muriel Humphrey saying to Hubert at one time, ‘‘Hubert, a speech 

to be immortal need not be eternal.’’ A review, to be effective, need 

not take forever; and that is what we are trying to get, a proper 

balance. 

Just two more questions, we have 2 minutes remaining on a vote. 

Mr. Fitzgerald, as we have proceeded on the oversight of the implementation of the requirement on the Corps to undertake responsible flood plain management and prepare, quote, a flood plain 

management plan designed to reduce the impacts of future flood 

events in the project area, et cetera, et cetera, do you have experience with implementation so far of section 402? What are your 

views on what the Corps is doing in pursuance of that language? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. In Harris County, the Harris County Flood 

Control District, we are very aware of this requirement and we and 

other local sponsors in the United States agree with it. Once we 

invest with the Corps or any project, a lot of time, effort, and 

money into a project to reduce flood risk, we want to make sure 

that that level of protection does not deteriorate over the years. 

That is what the important part of the flood plain—or that is the 

reason for the flood plain management plan, is that actions aren’t 

taken over the years to where that level of flood protection deteriorates. 

We take that very seriously, and we are actively preparing those 

on a couple of projects during the study phase. I know the law says 

or the guidelines say we don’t have to do it until after the construction is finished. That can take a long time to do. And while we are 

in the analysis and study phase, that is the time we need to be developing our flood plain management plans, and we are doing that 

now. 

We look forward to completing a flood control project, a new one, 

so that we can actually implement those new flood control plans, 

flood plain management plans. So we do agree with it. We think 

it is very important. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. 

Mr. Pallasch, have you—that is, you personally, but also your organization or your members, had an opportunity to participate in 

developing the revisions to the principles and guidelines? 

Mr. PALLASCH. Early on, when the Corps of Engineers started 

drafting their revisions, there was a couple of days’ worth of listening sessions that they held in the Water Resources Coalition. 

ASCE, AGC, the whole list of our groups all participated in that. 

Since that time, once it was taken over by CEQ, it was more a 

discussion via correspondence than a listening session type of arrangement. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. So when it got out of the Corps’ hands, then you 

said it became more bureaucratic, more cumbersome? 

Mr. PALLASCH. I think it may have become a little bit more of 

a closed process. 

80 

Mr. OBERSTAR. A closed process. Well, that is not what we want. 

We want it to be open. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their contribution and testimony, for your written documents, which were very, very helpful. 

They show that each has undertaken a great deal of time to evaluate the subject matter at hand, the review of WRDA; and thank 

also, of course, the Corps, General Van Antwerp, and the Assistant 

Secretary. 

This is the beginning of an extended review process, but it will 

lead to—at least this stage will lead to the next Water Resources 

Development Act. Lessons learned will be implemented in our subsequent bill. 

I also ask unanimous consent to include in the record the statement of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association on 

the subject of this hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Since there are no other Members to pose questions, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

81 


Insert offset folio 108 here 55276.108
82 


Insert offset folio 109 here 55276.109
83 


Insert offset folio 110 here 55276.110
84 


Insert offset folio 111 here 55276.111
85 


Insert offset folio 112 here 55276.112
86 


Insert offset folio 113 here 55276.113
87 


Insert offset folio 114 here 55276.114
88 


Insert offset folio 115 here 55276.115
89 


Insert offset folio 116 here 55276.116
90 


Insert offset folio 117 here 55276.117
91 


Insert offset folio 118 here 55276.118
92 


Insert offset folio 119 here 55276.119
93 


Insert offset folio 120 here 55276.120
94 


Insert offset folio 40 here 55276.040
95 


Insert offset folio 41 here 55276.041
96 


Insert offset folio 42 here 55276.042
97 


Insert offset folio 43 here 55276.043
98 


Insert offset folio 44 here 55276.044
99 


Insert offset folio 45 here 55276.045
100 


Insert offset folio 46 here 55276.046
101 


Insert offset folio 47 here 55276.047
102 


Insert offset folio 48 here 55276.048
103 


Insert offset folio 49 here 55276.049
104 


Insert offset folio 50 here 55276.050
105 


Insert offset folio 51 here 55276.051
106 


Insert offset folio 52 here 55276.052
107 


Insert offset folio 53 here 55276.053
108 


Insert offset folio 54 here 55276.054
109 


Insert offset folio 55 here 55276.055
110 


Insert offset folio 56 here 55276.056
111 


Insert offset folio 57 here 55276.057
112 


Insert offset folio 58 here 55276.058
113 


Insert offset folio 59 here 55276.059
114 


Insert offset folio 60 here 55276.060
115 


Insert offset folio 61 here 55276.061
116 


Insert offset folio 62 here 55276.062
117 


Insert offset folio 63 here 55276.063
118 


Insert offset folio 64 here 55276.064
119 


Insert offset folio 65 here 55276.065
120 


Insert offset folio 66 here 55276.066
121 


Insert offset folio 67 here 55276.067
122 


Insert offset folio 68 here 55276.068
123 


Insert offset folio 69 here 55276.069
124 


Insert offset folio 70 here 55276.070
125 


Insert offset folio 71 here 55276.071
126 


Insert offset folio 72 here 55276.072
127 


Insert offset folio 73 here 55276.073
128 


Insert offset folio 74 here 55276.074
129 


Insert offset folio 75 here 55276.075
130 


Insert offset folio 76 here 55276.076
131 


Insert offset folio 77 here 55276.077
132 


Insert offset folio 78 here 55276.078
133 


Insert offset folio 79 here 55276.079
134 


Insert offset folio 80 here 55276.080
135 


Insert offset folio 81 here 55276.081
136 


Insert offset folio 82 here 55276.082
137 


Insert offset folio 83 here 55276.083
138 


Insert offset folio 84 here 55276.084
139 


Insert offset folio 85 here 55276.085
140 


Insert offset folio 86 here 55276.086
141 


Insert offset folio 87 here 55276.087
142 


Insert offset folio 88 here 55276.088
143 


Insert offset folio 89 here 55276.089
144 


Insert offset folio 90 here 55276.090
145 


Insert offset folio 91 here 55276.091
146 


Insert offset folio 92 here 55276.092
147 


Insert offset folio 93 here 55276.093
148 


Insert offset folio 94 here 55276.094
149 


Insert offset folio 95 here 55276.095
150 


Insert offset folio 96 here 55276.096
151 


Insert offset folio 97 here 55276.097
152 


Insert offset folio 98 here 55276.098
153 


Insert offset folio 99 here 55276.099
154 


Insert offset folio 100 here 55276.100
155 


Insert offset folio 101 here 55276.101
156 


Insert offset folio 102 here 55276.102
157 


Insert offset folio 103 here 55276.103
158 


Insert offset folio 104 here 55276.104
159 


Insert offset folio 105 here 55276.105
160 


Insert offset folio 106 here 55276.106
161 


Insert offset folio 107 here 55276.107
162 


Insert offset folio 121 here 55276.121
163 


Insert offset folio 122 here 55276.122
164 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 123 here 55276.123