U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

93–391 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 113–697 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON IMPLEMENTATION OF 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS WATER RESOURCES 

POLICIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 7, 2013 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

FEBRUARY 7, 2013 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Vitter, David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ..................................... 3 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 4 

Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska ............................. 6 

Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from the State of New York .................. 7 

Wicker, Hon. Roger, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi ........................ 8 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 10 

Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas ......................... 12 

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana .............................. 12 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 58 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 59 

WITNESSES 

Darcy, Hon. Jo-Ellen, Assistant Secretary of the Army, Civil Works; accompanied by: Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick, Commanding General 

and Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ................................... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 24 

Senator Baucus .......................................................................................... 27 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 29 

Senator Udall ............................................................................................. 32 

Senator Gillibrand ..................................................................................... 34 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 35 

Senator Wicker .......................................................................................... 43 

Johnson, Richard M., Executive Director, Sacramento Area Flood Control 

Agency ................................................................................................................... 91 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 93 

Response to additional questions from Senator Boxer .................................. 99 

Turner, Richard A., P.E., CFM, Regional Director, Southeast Louisiana Flood 

Protection Authority ............................................................................................ 104 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 106 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 111 

O’Mara, Collin, Secretary, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control ........................................................................................ 114 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 117 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 122 

Graves, Garret, Chair, Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana ..................................................................................................................... 126

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 129 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statement of the American Shore & Beach Preservation Association ................ 143 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON IMPLEMENTATION 

OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS WATER RESOURCES POLICIES 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

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

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of the full committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Vitter, Cardin, Gillibrand, Carper, Baucus, Whitehouse, Lautenberg, Fischer, Wicker, and Boozman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Good morning, and welcome, everybody. Welcome, our new member, Senator Fischer. We are thrilled that you 

are here. 

And I have to say, this is a very important day, starting with a 

very important hearing. But at 1:30, I have to admit, Senator 

Cardin and Senator Mikulski are going to be receiving a massive 

gift from Senator Feinstein and I regarding the Super Bowl. We 

are not going to say much more about it now, we are not. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Boxer, I just really want to thank you 

for your generosity. You are being so kind, I might ask Senator 

Vitter not to hold that investigation on the power outage that I was 

going to ask him to do. 

Senator VITTER. Madam Chair, I was just going to say, it could 

be worse. You could be a Saints fan. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Well, I was worried that the cameras would 

catch me climbing up the electric pole. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. But fortunately for me, they were focused on 

some of the players. 

But Senator Cardin, you know I am a good loser. 

Senator CARDIN. I had never noticed that about you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. I was about to check with Senator Vitter to see 

if he would mind if I took away your subcommittee chairmanship. 

But I decided you are just too good in the job. 

Anyway, we will have more fun with that. 

Today we continue this committee’s oversight of the Army Corps 

of Engineers by looking at its water resources policies and how 

they impact our communities. The Corps’ flood control projects 
2 

keep our families safe, provide enormous economic benefits. The 

Corps has also contributed to the construction of over 14,000 miles 

of levees across this Nation, and the Corps estimates that its flood 

protection efforts prevent $37 billion annually in damages. 

The testimony we hear today will help us as we move forward 

with the next WRDA bill, the Water Resources Development Act, 

which authorizes the Corps’ projects and programs. The devastation caused by Superstorm Sandy last year has placed the spotlight 

on the need to ensure that communities have critical flood protection, which is one of the primary goals of the WRDA bill. 

Sandy and other extreme weather events in recent years have resulted in the loss of lives, caused billions of dollars of damages and 

wiped out entire communities. And no one knows that better than 

the gentleman sitting next to me, my Ranking Member, Senator 

Vitter. 

We have proposed a new title for the WRDA bill that will enable 

the Corps to help communities better prepare for and reduce the 

risks of extreme weather-related disasters, including severe flooding. There are other goals we want to accomplish in WRDA that 

will help many local governments, including those in my home 

State of California. 

Our draft WRDA bill includes a provision that will allow the 

Corps to consider regional differences and work with State and 

local governments to develop the most appropriate approach for 

managing levee vegetation. This may seem like a small matter, but 

it is a big matter. In California, vegetation not only provides stability for many levees, it also offers the last remaining habitat for 

some species, such as salmon. 

After evaluating its levees and identifying critical maintenance 

and repair needs, California has rightly prioritized its projects to 

address the most pressing problems first. The Corps has begun 

working with California and other States to consider regional approaches to vegetation management. The Corps has also stated 

that it will allow local officials to address the worst problems first. 

I am encouraged by this progress, I say to you, Hon. Jo-Ellen 

Darcy, I am encouraged by this. You are allowing greater flexibility 

and I believe we must make this localized approach to vegetation 

management permanent. 

Another issue we must address in the WRDA bill is the Corps’ 

policy for providing credit for work carried out by non-Federal 

sponsors of Corps projects. In California, State and local governments are bringing billions of dollars to the table to improve flood 

protection. Unfortunately, the Corps’ crediting policies may be discouraging local investments. State and local participation is vital. 

That is why I have worked with Assistant Secretary Darcy to give 

non-Federal sponsors more flexibility. 

I appreciate the commitment she has already made to consider 

exceptions that would allow non-Federal sponsors to proceed with 

work ahead of the Corps, if it will improve public safety or provide 

other benefits. This type of flexibility is something we should make 

permanent as part of the next WRDA bill. 

So I look forward to working with my colleagues and with the 

Corps on these and other important issues that will be raised 

today. This hearing will help us tremendously. I want to give great 
3 

credit to Senator Vitter for asking for this hearing. I think we will 

identify ways to improve the Corps’ policies and practices in the 

next WRDA bill. 

Senator Vitter and I will work with our colleagues on both sides 

of the aisle to hear their concerns. I appreciate everyone’s participation in today’s hearing. With that, I call on my Ranking Member. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for this 

hearing, which you graciously organized as soon as I requested it. 

And thank you for your leadership and partnership on water resources. 

I think this hearing is another clear, bold statement that this entire committee, in a very bipartisan way, is committed to a new 

WRDA bill. And we are well into the concrete work of that bill on 

a true bipartisan basis. So we are going to do it in the near future, 

and it is because of your leadership, Madam Chair. Thank you very 

much for that. This hearing is an important step toward that. 

But of course, any bill, including any WRDA bill, is only as good 

as its implementation. And that is what I wanted to focus on the 

most in this hearing, looking back to the 2007 WRDA, discussing 

what I consider real and serious implementation problems and 

frustrations, so that we solve them for the 2013 WRDA. 

I certainly share the Chair’s concerns about all the issues she 

mentioned, and I will bring up some more. First of all, some very 

basic ones, things that are clearly mandated in the 2007 WRDA 

with the word ‘‘shall’‘ with a crystal clear, non-discretionary mandate that the Corps has simply ignored. Many other cases where 

deadlines have slipped significantly on a routine basis, causing us 

to miss important deadlines, even including a loss of authorization 

of some projects. 

Post-Katrina engineering and design guidelines, everyone wants 

to learn the lessons of Katrina. Everyone wants to strengthen engineering and design guidelines in an appropriate way. I fear, 

though, that in some cases the new guidelines are really put together with the thought, if unspoken, that the safest levee is one 

that never gets built. Some of these guidelines have priced protection completely off the map. And a levee that isn’t built, of course, 

can’t breach. But it also provides no protection. 

The levee vegetation issue that the Chair mentioned, I certainly 

share in that. We need a flexible, localized response to that, so that 

we do it right. The new introduction of the Modified Charleston 

Method in the New Orleans district is very troublesome and inconsistent with what many other districts do. And the great curtailed 

lock hours of operation we have seen in Louisiana around the year 

are also troublesome. So we’ll hopefully get to all of these and other 

important matters that the members care about. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Senator Cardin. 
4 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me thank you 

and thank Senator Vitter for your working together to get us a 

WRDA bill. I think that is extremely important. 

We had a hearing last week as to how important WRDA reauthorization will be for jobs in our community. For the Port of Baltimore, which is the ninth busiest commercial port, it is thousands 

of jobs that are involved. Getting the WRDA bill done will help 

save and create jobs in my community. 

Last week I pointed out that between 2004 and 2019 on the Har- bor Maintenance Trust Fund, the Baltimore Port contributes $228 

million and we receive back $155 million. So we need to do a more 

aggressive job in keeping our ports competitive. I mentioned the 

fact that when you have to load ships at less than capacity because 

of the maintenance of the channels, we are not going to be as competitive as we need to be in the global economy. 

Now, I want to talk about a couple of issues that are directly related to the Assistant Secretary of the Army, and to the Army 

Corps, dealing with how we are going to be handling dredged material, particularly in the Port of Baltimore. In the 1996 WRDA Authorization Bill, we authorized Poplar Island, which was a barrier 

island that almost disappeared in the Chesapeake Bay. That 

project allowed for dredged material, not only a place where we 

could dispose of it, but it also became a plus on the environment, 

by restoring an environmental area. 

In 2007, we authorized the next phase of Poplar Island. So as I 

look at the WRDA bill, we have to handle extending the WRDA 

Section 902 cost limit authority for projects like Poplar Island. The 

2013 WRDA bill will have a major impact on the long-term success 

and utility of these projects. 

The Corps and the State have worked successfully over the years 

to redevelop the barrier islands that have historically been present 

in the Chesapeake Bay, using dredged material from the harbor 

and elsewhere. As the constructed islands reach their design capacity, the State and Corps need to work to close these facilities and 

move on to the next disposal sites. 

The Baltimore Corps District is revising its dredged material 

management plan to reflect the closure of Hart-Miller Island. Cox 

Creek will replace Hart-Miller Island as a disposal site for the 

dredged material in the plan for the Baltimore dredging projects. 

I am pleased that the discussions between the Baltimore Corps and 

the State are resulting in a mutually agreed-to solution. 

Let me also mention Pierce Creek, which is a disposal site that 

is to be reopened, but has to be done in a remedial work for the 

community is sensitive to the environmental concerns. I do have 

concerns that we are using an old study that involved one community. I would expect, and I will be watching to make sure that the 

remedial work involves all the communities that are at risk, that 

could be at risk with the re-opening of the Pierce Creek facility. 

Another major set of concerns are the accumulated sediment and 

nutrients behind the Conowingo Dam, and the impact these pollutants are having on the Chesapeake Bay water quality. In December, I wrote a letter, with several of my Bay State Senator col-
5 

leagues, to the Assistant Secretary, urging the completion of the 

long-overdue Lower Susquehanna Watershed Assessment. This 

study is designed to examine the loads of pollutants accumulated 

behind the Conowingo Dam. The completion of this study is imperative to informing any remedial action that may be necessary to 

improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay. 

Now, I understand the Corps may not be directed involved in the 

work to remediate the accumulated contaminants behind the dam, 

but I think the findings and the ongoing assessment could be very 

informative on the upcoming FERC relicensing process. 

Then last, let me just than the Corps for the work that you do 

in the restorations in the Chesapeake Bay, the shoreline protection, 

the sediment management, oyster and habitat restoration programs. These are absolutely critical to the health of the Chesapeake Bay. The Corps has been very active in this. It is not only 

an important cash crop for our watermen, it is also an important 

environmental crop for how it filters the pollutants in the Bay 

itself. 

Madam Chair, I really do look forward to this hearing. I look forward to working with you and the Ranking Member, so that we 

can carry out our responsibly and pass, I hope in a timely fashion, 

the Water Reauthorization Act. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Madam Chairman, I appreciate you holding this hearing today to discuss the 

Army Corps’ Civil Works’ water resources programs. It goes without saying that 

these programs are incredibly important to Maryland’s economy and the health of 

the Chesapeake Bay. 

I am very pleased that our committee is not wasting any time in working on reauthorizing the Water Resources Development Act. This hearing, as well as last week’s 

hearing, certainly helps advance progress on the reauthorization process. 

The high quality jobs associated with maintaining and building our waterways infrastructure makes reauthorizing WRDA all the more important. 

The 2007 WRDA received overwhelming bi-partisan support from this committee. 

The projects that bill supported provided critical employment opportunities at a 

time when the Nation was beginning to face uncertain economic times. Now, we’ve 

come back from the brink of economic catastrophe and reauthorizing WRDA this 

year helps keep our economy on the right course. 

WRDA projects are critically important to the U.S. economy. According to the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, 1 in every 11 shipping containers 

engaged in global trade is either bound for or originates from a U.S. port. 

The Port of Baltimore is ranked ninth among all U.S. commercial ports, in terms 

of total value of goods moved through the port. In July 2012, the Port of Baltimore 

handled a record 853,818 tons of general cargo. The Port of Baltimore handles the 

most ‘‘roll on/roll off’’ cargo, like cars and trucks, as well as the most ore, sugar and 

gypsum than any port in the United States. 

The Port of Baltimore also directly employs more than 1,000 workers while supporting thousands more across Maryland. These jobs and the movement of the valuable cargo coming in and out of the port would not be realized if it weren’t for the 

Army Corps’ work to maintain the Baltimore Harbor Channel. 

That’s not to say more work is not needed. My statement from last week’s hearing 

explained the backlog of work that is needed at the Baltimore Harbor. I also discussed my concerns with the inequity in how Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund dollars are distributed. Between 2004 and 2010, the Port of Baltimore generated approximately $228 million in Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund revenues, yet during 

that same period the Port of Baltimore only received $154.7 million for dredging. 

The extensive work that is done to maintain Maryland’s shipping channels generates a great deal of dredge material that needs to be disposed of in a safe and 

responsible manner. 
6 

A great project that exemplifies a critical dredge material disposal site that also 

represents an important ecological restoration project is the reestablishment of Poplar Island. Prior to the restoration project, Poplar Island had washed away to less 

than 5 percent of its historical landmass. The first phase of the Poplar Island restoration project was authorized in the 1996 WRDA and has been a success. The 

2007 WRDA authorized the next phase of the Poplar Island restoration project 

which is still in the planning phase but is nearly ready for construction. 

I want to make sure that both of these worthwhile projects that serve the multiple 

purposes of dredge material disposal, ecosystem restoration, and barrier island protection for coastal communities from storm surges, continues to progress. 

How we handle extending the WRDA Sec. 902 (Cost Limit) authority for projects 

like Poplar Island in the 2013 WRDA will have a major impact on the long term 

success and utility of these projects. I look forward to asking Assistant Secretary 

Darcy for her input and assistance with keeping these projects on track. 

The Corps and the State have worked successfully over the years to redevelop the 

barrier islands that have historically been present in the Chesapeake Bay using 

dredge material from the Harbor and elsewhere. As the constructed islands reach 

their designed capacity the State and the Corps need work to close these facilities 

and move on to the next disposal site. 

The Baltimore Corps District is revising its Dredge Material Management Plan 

(DMMP) to reflect the closure of Hart-Miller Island (HMI). Cox Creek will replace 

HMI as the disposal site for dredge material in the DMMP for Baltimore dredging 

projects. 

I am pleased that the discussions between the Baltimore Corps District and the 

State are resulting in a mutually agreed upon solution. I will continue to follow the 

development of this process and will be in contact with the Assistant Secretary as 

the revised DMMP makes its way to her for approval. 

Another major set of concerns are the accumulated sediments and nutrients behind Conowingo Dam and the impact these pollutant are having on Chesapeake Bay 

water quality. In December, I wrote a letter, with several of my Bay State Senate 

colleagues, to the Assistant Secretary urging the completion of the long overdue 

Lower Susquehanna Watershed Assessment. 

This study is designed to examine the load of pollutants accumulating behind the 

Conowingo Dam. The completion of this study is imperative to informing any remediation actions that may be necessary to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay. 

I understand that the Corps may not be directly involved in the work to remediate 

the accumulated contaminants behind the dam, but I think the findings of the ongoing Assessment could be very informative of the upcoming FERC relicensing process. 

I’d be remiss if I didn’t also take this opportunity to mention the important work 

the Corps is doing in Maryland, and throughout the Bay region, to provide critical 

environmental restoration of natural resources. The Corps’ shoreline protection, 

sediment management, and oyster and habitat restoration programs are integral to 

Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts. Since oysters represent more than just a source 

of income for Maryland’s watermen—they are natural biological filters continually 

cleaning up the Bay—WRDA’s habitat restoration is leading to long-term solutions 

for water quality in the Bay. 

It has been more than 5 years since Congress passed the last WRDA legislation. 

It is essential to our Nation’s infrastructure, economy, and environment that we 

work together to craft a strong, effective bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the latest reauthorization of WRDA. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Fischer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Senator FISCHER. Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter, 

thank you for holding this hearing today. 

I would also like to extend my gratitude to Assistant Secretary 

Darcy and General Bostick and all the other witnesses for being 

here today, and for your willingness to share your time with this 

committee. 

Madam Secretary, I know you had the opportunity in 2011 to 

spend some time on the Platte River in Nebraska. I want to thank 
7 

you for coming to our State. I understand that you saw several 

bald eagles while out on the Platte River, and you developed a real 

appreciation for the natural resources of our great State. 

I would like to take this opportunity to point out some other resources that Nebraska has to offer as you carry out your work. Recognizing the important role that technical expertise plays in the 

Corps of Engineers mission, I want to make you aware, if you are 

not already, of the recently established Water for Food Institute at 

the University of Nebraska. The Institute’s executive director, Professor Roberto Lenton, who was previously at the World Bank and 

helped to launch the global water partnership. 

I would like to invite the experts at your engineering research 

and development center and across the Corps to visit and utilize 

these experts that we have at the University of Nebraska. Nebraska, like so many other States, has grappled with water resource management challenges. After dealing with the damage and 

devastation of the floods along the Missouri River in 2011, we are 

now facing a time of historic drought all across our State. 

I am pleased to be joining a committee that has a very strong 

history of bipartisan cooperation on these important infrastructure 

issues, and I look forward to working with all of my colleagues on 

the committee on this next Water Resources Development Act. I 

am pleased we are meeting today to examine the implementation 

of the Corps’ water resource policies. Before we undertake the consideration of this new bill, that will hopefully reform and expedite 

project delivery and prioritize water resources projects, it is important that we understand how the Corps is currently working to 

maintain navigation channels, reduce flood and storm damage and 

restore aquatic ecosystems. 

Thank you again, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing. I look 

forward to today’s testimony and questions. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator Fischer. 

Senator Gillibrand. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding this very important hearing on our Nation’s water infrastructure priorities. 

For New York, in the wake of Superstorm Sandy, this is one of 

the most urgent priorities for New Yorkers trying to rebuild our 

communities. I want to thank Assistant Secretary Darcy for your 

willingness to testify before this committee twice in 2 weeks, and 

for your strong commitment to helping my State. I am incredibly 

grateful, because all the communities in the Northeast that were 

damaged by Sandy are in urgent need. We will need your assistance in rebuilding our communities and our coastal infrastructure. 

For Madam Chairwoman and Senator Vitter, I share your commitment to having a strong WRDA bill this year. New York is not 

only a maritime State, it has 127 miles of coastline, but our State 

is also home to 70,000 miles of rivers and streams and 76,000 

freshwater lakes, pond and reservoirs, and hundreds of miles of 

shoreline along Lakes Erie, Ontario and Champlain, and the St. 

Laurence Seaway. Superstorm Sandy, Hurricane Irene and Trop-
8 

ical Storm Lee have shown us in no uncertain terms the importance of Army Corps flood protection and mitigation to communities across New York and the Northeast. 

One of the lessons learned is that mitigation matters. And providing adequate flood protection, whether it be structural or nonstructural, reduces the risks associated with extreme weather. 

Communities along the coast that did not have dunes or sea walls 

were exposed to a greater impact from the storm surge than those 

that did, and suffered far greater damage as a result. 

Another lesson learned is that we cannot just rebuild what was 

lost. We have to rebuild smarter, stronger and more resilient. That 

is why I am working with Senator Lautenberg to provide the Corps 

with more flexibility when they rebuild and repair infrastructure 

damaged by a disaster to provide more effective protection against 

the next storm or flood. In the era of more frequent extreme weather that we live in, this is just common sense. 

While rebuilding from Sandy remains a top priority, there are 

other key water infrastructure priorities that I hope will be addressed in the next WRDA bill. Last week, this committee had a 

hearing on the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, which is a major 

priority for the Great Lakes communities that rely on strong ports 

and harbors to support local jobs and strong local economies. I fully 

support Chairwoman Boxer’s efforts to include a Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund guarantee in the next WRDA bill. 

The Army Corps also has an enormous responsibility to protect 

the Great Lakes against the threat posed by Asian carp. These 

invasive species pose a significant threat to the Great Lakes and 

to the regional economy of Western New York. The Army Corps 

must move quickly to finalize the Great Lakes-Mississippi River 

Inter-Basin Study, which must be completed by January 2014, so 

that additional measures can be taken to prevent the flow of carp 

from the Mississippi River Basin into the Great Lakes. 

Maintaining our Nation’s water infrastructure is one of our biggest responsibilities as a Federal Government. Dams, levees, dunes 

and other flood control infrastructure provide life-saving protection 

to our coastal and flood-prone regions. Maintenance of our harbors 

protects jobs and ensures the United States can remain competitive. Keeping our lakes and streams free of dangerous invasive species keeps our drinking water clean and our sporting and recreational industry strong. 

So I look forward to working with our Chairwoman and Ranking 

Member. I look forward to working with the Corps and my colleagues on this committee to address these very urgent needs. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Senator Wicker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Madam Chair, thank you and the Ranking Member for scheduling this important hearing. I am delighted to be here for my first 

hearing as a member of this committee. I want to thank our two 

distinguished panelists for being here, also. 
9 

America’s inland waterways, ports and flood control structures 

help drive domestic and global commerce, spur economic development, and support millions of American jobs. The President has 

stated he wants to double America’s exports. To do so, we must address needed updates in infrastructure that manages our water resources. We must make sure that American products can move efficiently to global markets. 

Most of us recognize the Inland Waterways Trust Fund is dysfunctional, due in part to cost overruns and decreased revenues. 

The trust fund may require structural changes to ensure that aging 

infrastructure can be maintained and rehabilitated. Any changes 

should include meaningful input from commercial shippers that 

pay the fuel tax to support the fund. 

With 15 ports, my home State of Mississippi recognizes the importance of our Country’s water resources, in particular the extraordinary value of the Mississippi River. The Mississippi River is 

a wonderful work of nature. It is also a critical backbone of our Nation’s economy, responsible for creating $105 billion worth of America’s GDP. It should be a key component of any discussion we have 

about the Nation’s commerce and waterways. 

The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project, MR&T, has protected this essential artery of commerce for more than eight decades, safeguarding the flow of traffic on the river and fertile agricultural lands along its shores. Since 1928, the project’s planning, 

construction, operation and maintenance has delivered a 34 to 1 return on its investment and saved $350 billion in prevented flood 

damages. 

In short, the MR&T is a Federal project that works. Yet we are 

not fully utilizing this proven investment. The MR&T is only 85 

percent complete, leaving many areas and the flow of commerce 

vulnerable to disaster, including areas in my State of Mississippi. 

In addition to the Mississippi River, effective policies concerning 

water resources along the Gulf Coast are vital to the protection of 

life, property and the well-being of our Nation’s economy. The Mississippi Coastal Improvement Program was authorized by Congress 

following Hurricane Katrina to provide storm damage protection off 

the coast of Mississippi. The Corps of Engineers completed the program’s initial projects under budget. But Mississippi is still waiting 

for work to be done on other Mississippi projects that have received 

favorable chief reports from the Corps. 

It is only a matter of time until another hurricane hits the Gulf 

Coast of our Country. We must be prepared. Work on these projects 

needs to begin without further delay. 

I would like to hear the Secretary’s views today on these issues 

and what the Corps is doing to address inland waterway needs, especially how projects of national significance, such as the MR&T, 

might be impacted should sequestration occur. Unless this policy 

changes, the Corps of Engineers will face an 8.2 percent reduction 

in its budget. So I am concerned that the MR&T could lose funding, 

putting jobs and safety of Americans at risk. 

I am also interested in learning how the Corps prioritizes 

projects for funding each year in the Administration’s budget. Finally, I would like to state that we are long overdue in addressing 

the dredging needs of our Nation’s ports, which was a subject of the 
10 

committee’s most recent hearing. It is particularly troubling that 

lack of maintenance dredging makes a port less competitive in securing future maintenance dredging. For Mississippi’s State port, 

at Gulfport, Mississippi, this has become a self-perpetuating cycle 

that must be addressed. 

So thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to these distinguished 

witnesses. I look forward to a very important hearing. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. Welcome to our committee. 

I think you will find that when we are in the area of WRDA and 

highways, we are very bipartisan. A little different when we are 

talking about climate change. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. But we are starting off on the things we agree 

with. So that is good. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. And we know you will be a part of a very productive committee. 

So the order is Carper, Boozman, Baucus. And at that point, we 

are going to stop the opening statements and go straight to our distinguished panel. Senator. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. I agree with what the Chairwoman’s characterization of our committee. It is a good committee; we do get a lot 

done. 

I just want to say to Senator Fischer, as she prepares to head 

for her next meeting, it is great to have you on board. We welcome 

you and also Roger. I think you will both add a lot to this committee. Welcome. 

Secretary Darcy, it is very nice to see you. Thanks for joining us 

today. Thanks for bringing General Bostick with you. It is a pleasure to see you both. Thank you for your leadership. You have hard 

jobs, very challenging jobs, but really important jobs, as you know. 

We are grateful for your leadership and what you do. 

I want to welcome out in the audience, sitting two rows behind 

Secretary Darcy, over your right shoulder, is a fellow from Delaware, Collin O’Mara, who is our Secretary of Natural Resources 

and Environmental Control. He has been a terrific Secretary for 

the last 4 years, hired by our Governor, Jack Markell, and one of 

the best hires that the Governor has made. He has been terrific. 

Not only just a good Secretary for us, but he has actually played 

leadership roles among the Nation’s Secretaries of Environment 

and Natural Resources. We are happy that he is going to testify 

later today. We look forward to his being here. He is a real credit 

to our State. 

As you all know, our State of Delaware, we have water to our 

east, we have the Delaware River, which farther south becomes the 

Delaware Bay, farther south becomes the Atlantic Ocean. And not 

far off to our west is the Chesapeake Bay. So we are kind of surrounded by water and some land as well. But along with our inland 

bays, our smaller rivers and tidal marshes, we are also blessed 

with terrific water resources. The Army Corps of Engineers has 
11 

been and remains a critical partner to us in managing those resources. 

For example, the Corps is in the midst of deepening the main 

channel of the Delaware River, a critical shipping corridor, to 45 

feet in anticipation of the larger super Panamax, the ships that are 

going to be coming our way. This project, this deepening project, 

years in the making and vital to regional commerce, will allow 

Delaware ports like the Port of Wilmington to make our contribution to the President’s goal of doubling exports by 2015. 

On the other side of the State, to our west the Chesapeake Bay 

is the largest estuary in the United States of America, host to 

countless species and one of our Country’s natural national treasures. Senator Cardin has left us, but he has spent huge amounts 

of time and energy trying to make sure that the large estuary, 

huge estuary which has these enormous dead zones, is brought 

back to life. I think we are actually seeing some encouraging 

progress. 

If you can believe it, back to Delaware, both the pharmaceutical 

industry and the Red Knot, the Red Knot is an endangered migratory bird, depend on the largest population of horseshoe crabs in 

America. Those horseshoe crabs are found right along the Delaware 

Bay shore. 

The Corps’ partnership in environmental restoration projects has 

helped to revitalize and enhance these magnificent coastal environments for the benefit of wildlife, the benefit of outdoorsmen and 

women, for tourists and the businesses that they support. Finally, 

as we tragically saw during Hurricane Sandy, Delaware is also at 

the mercy of severe coastal storms. We depend on the Corps’ flood 

protection projects, which have spared lives and protected hundreds of millions of dollars worth of our constituents’ properties. 

Whatever the project may be, we value our partnership with the 

Army Corps of Engineers and the work that they do, that you all 

do. I really want to thank Senator Boxer and our Ranking Member, 

Senator Vitter, for making WRDA a top priority in our 113th Congress. 

I often say my work in the Senate, everything I do, I know I can 

do better. I think the same is true for all of us, if we are honest, 

and the same is true of all our Federal programs. That is true of 

the Army Corps of Engineers. 

We last passed a WRDA bill in 2007. I was proud to be part of 

the bipartisan reform efforts that I believe have had a positive impact on the Corps’ effectiveness. I appreciate that Senator Boxer 

and Senator Vitter have been just as receptive to our suggestions, 

to my suggestions this time around. However, as much as we seek 

to improve the policies that guide the Corps’ work, we also have 

to keep in mind the fiscal constraints under which we are all acting. I was reminded of that just in the last 2 days. We have to 

focus on new ways of doing business that offer us better results for 

less money where possible, doing more with less, rather than less 

with less. 

Nowhere is this as clear to me than in the storm damage protection and coastal hazard mitigation. The Corps, along with FEMA 

and States and municipalities, must form even closer working relationships to help protect against rising seas and stronger, more fre-
12 

quent storms. There are other areas of coastal policies such as the 

regional management of sedimentation, sediment resources that I 

believe could also yield cost savings while offering better outcomes. 

Ultimately, I am sure we can accomplish this. We have more solutions than we do have problems. While our budgets may be limited, our capacity to innovate is limitless. I look forward to hearing 

your ideas from this panel and the subsequent panel. We are delighted to have this hearing today. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. My thanks to the witnesses. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

And we turn to Senator Boozman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I think in the interest of time, which you will appreciate, you and 

the Ranking Member, I will submit something into the record. 

There are a couple of things, reduced levels of service on our inland 

waterways, hydropower modernization, levee safety policies as well 

as the Olmstead and Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Certainly 

those are things that I’m concerned about, along with other aspects 

of your testimony. 

So it is good that you are here. I look forward to hearing the testimony. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. We will put your opening 

statement into the record. 

[The referenced statement was not received at time of print.] 

Senator BOXER. Senator Baucus. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I am very pleased to be here, for a lot of reasons. One, because 

of the importance of the Corps to not only the Country, but my 

State of Montana. Second, to be able to ask the Assistant Secretary 

of the Army Corps, Jo-Ellen Darcy, some questions. Jo-Ellen Darcy 

once worked for me. She was on my staff, and just terrific. I would 

turn to Jo-Ellen with all kinds of questions about the Corps and 

WRDA, you name it. I very much appreciate how competent and 

how well she answered, and what a sterling person she is. So I am 

not at all surprised that she has been promoted, a while ago, to be 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. We are very 

proud of you. 

I would like to focus on a couple of areas, how the Corps affects 

the State of Montana. First, flood risk management, the second is 

water demands on Missouri. A couple of years ago, 2011, Montana 

suffered some of the worst floods in recent memory. It was stunning, the floods in the State of Montana. And I am sure this is true 

across the Country. People, restaurant owners, people who worked 

on the highway and county commissioners, and farmers, ranchers, 

all joined together to help each other out. It was really flooded. It 

is hard for me to find the superlatives just to explain how flooded 

it was. 
13 

I had to go visit some of these places; I was stunned how much 

was underwater. I didn’t know there was that much water, but it 

was there. I deeply appreciate all that they put together. FEMA alone distributed I think about $60 million to pay for 

roads and levees and irrigation ditches and water treatment plants 

and now they are slowing getting back together. I was just there 

a year ago, and it was still not totally recovered. 

The Corps, of course, played a very essential role in both planning ahead and managing the base when the floods came. 

On the first count, I have worked for 3 years to inject some common sense into the overlapping levee inspection, a process that involves both the Corps and FEMA, especially the Corps’ certification 

process of FEMA. I know, Madam Secretary, how much you understand and appreciate that. I will go visit communities in Montana, 

around Great Falls, for example, Sun River, Miles City, people are 

just fit to be tied. They just want to do the right thing, they want 

to have the levees there so flood insurance can be provided, so the 

area can be developed. It is just bureaucracy, the tension between 

the Corps and FEMA, who is going to pay for it and so forth. 

Frankly, I would like to hear from you, Madam Secretary, about 

how the Corps is implementing all of that, especially a provision 

that Senator Tester and I included in the Highway Bill last summer, to straighten out that confusion. 

Now while we are sitting here in the Capitol today, we expect 

rain tonight. While it is raining here, the snow packs will be building in the mountains of Montana. The question is, will 2013 bring 

another 500-year flood. Nobody knows. But the independent panel 

that reviewed the Corps operation in Missouri in 2011 did note the 

recent frequency of extreme weather. And droughts become floods 

in Montana, it is amazing. 

Therefore it seems appropriate that our Chairman has chosen to 

focus a section of the new WRDA Act on extreme weather. I think 

that is very appropriate that we do that, because it is happening, 

it is with us, we have to deal with it. The whiplash damage caused 

by floods one year, then drought and fires the next year, underscores the need for more attention to this phenomenon, the fluctuation, the frequency. 

It also underscores the need to avoid knee-jerk reactions. We too 

often forget or choose to forget a very important fact. The Missouri 

River wasn’t dammed up just to benefit our friends east of the 

100th meridian, or stated differently, less obliquely, opaquely, we 

didn’t build dams on the Missouri to benefit our friends on the Mississippi. That was not the plan. So I understand that people downstream, and by downstream I mean way downstream, on the Mississippi, not downstream Missouri, but on the Mississippi, want us 

to flood water down from the dams upstream in the Missouri. I understand that. But that is not the purpose of the master manual 

that manages the dams on the Missouri. 

The current operating manual took a decade and a half to complete, a decade and a half. So much time and effort has been put 

into putting that master manual together. So beyond flood management, I remind you, Madam Secretary, Montanans irrigate their 

farms, they run valuable fishing businesses, you know about Fort 

Peck Lake. They draw their power from the river. 
14 

In 2010, 800,000 visitors went to Fort Peck and Lake Koocanusa, 

spent about $17 million annually. I spent years on this committee 

fighting attempts to drain the livelihood of Montanans to float 

barges downstream. I needn’t remind you of that economic study 

the Corps undertook, you are smiling, so you know what I am talking about, and you know the conclusions in it, which basically provided that on about an eight to one basis, economic value is much 

greater, that is the recreation value and dollar value, is about eight 

times higher upstream than is the economic value of downstream 

Missouri barge traffic. Eight times higher economic value from 

recreation than it is for downstream. 

And that is in the manual. The manual sets policy and I thank 

you for following the manual. 

In two consecutive years, now, though, for separate reasons, but 

the drop of a hat, downstream rivers have attempted to siphon off 

our water. It is just not right, but first of all, that is not what the 

manual provides. 

So I look forward to the comments of our witnesses about the 

long-term stable management of our water resources, and I thank 

you, Madam Secretary, for your good work. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Baucus follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Good morning. I am pleased to join today for this oversight hearing on the Corps 

of Engineers. I welcome the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, JoEllen Darcy, who was a key member of my staff before taking over the reins at the 

Corps. 

While the Corps affects many areas of American life, I will focus on two key areas: 

flood risk management and water demands on the Missouri River. 

In 2011, Montana suffered some of the worst floods in recent memory. For 

months, we used Montana grit to make emergency repairs in towns like Roundup, 

Ryegate, Joliet, Lodge Grass, and Sun River. 

FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, alone distributed over $60 

million to pay for repairing roads, levees, irrigation ditches, and water treatment 

plants. 

The Corps, of course, played an essential role in both planning ahead and managing the basin when the floods came. 

On the first count, I have worked for 3 years to inject some common sense into 

the overlapping levee inspection process of the Corps and certification process of 

FEMA. 

I hope to hear today from Assistant Secretary Darcy about how the Corps is implementing a provision that Senator Tester and I included in the highway bill last 

summer. 

Now, while we sit here in the Capitol expecting rain tonight, the snowpack is 

building in the mountains of Montana. Will 2013 bring another 500-year flood? No 

one can say. 

But the independent panel that reviewed the Corps’ operation of the Missouri in 

2011 did note the recent frequency of extreme weather. 

It seems appropriate, therefore, that the Chairman has chosen to focus a section 

of a new Water Resources Development Act on extreme weather. 

The whiplash damage caused by floods one year, then drought and wildfires the 

next year, underscores the need for more attention to this area. It also underscores 

the need to avoid knee-jerk reactions. 

We too often forget, or choose to forget, an important fact. The Missouri River 

wasn’t plugged up just to benefit our friends east of the hundredth meridian. 

Or put another way: we didn’t dam the Missouri River just to help the Mississippi. 

Congress authorized the Corps to manage the Missouri for multiple purposes. The 

current operating manual took a decade and a half to complete. 
15 

Beyond flood management, Montanans irrigate their farms, run valuable fishing 

businesses, and draw their power from the river. In 2010, 800,000 visitors to Fort 

Peck Lake and Lake Koocanusa spent $17 million locally. 

I have spent years on this committee fighting attempts to drain the livelihood of 

Montanans to float barges downstream. 

Lo and behold: in two consecutive years now, for separate reasons but at the drop 

of a hat, downriver States have attempted to siphon our water. 

In that light, I look forward to the comments of our witnesses about long-term 

stable management of our water resources. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

So we are now going to hear from our distinguished panel, Hon. 

Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army. She is accompanied by Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick. 

We will give you, I think we should give you about 8 minutes instead of the 5 minutes, so that you don’t have to rush your testimony. Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, CIVIL WORKS; ACCOMPANIED BY: 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL THOMAS P. BOSTICK, COMMANDING 

GENERAL AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF 

ENGINEERS 

Ms. DARCY. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I am honored today to testify before you on the implementation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Policy. 

To address the Nation’s water resources infrastructure needs and 

continue to provide greater value to the Nation, the Army Corps of 

Engineers is working to transform the Civil Works program to improve performance and responsiveness, to enhance the quality of 

our products, to increase customer satisfaction, to build public trust 

and confidence and most importantly, to improve the reliability of 

the Nation’s water infrastructure. 

First, I will highlight the four issues that you addressed in your 

letter of invitation for this hearing. The first was vegetation on levees. Over the last few years, the Corps has been looking in depth 

into the issue of how vegetation impacts infrastructure performance worldwide. Also, advancing our woody vegetation research efforts and using the information to work collaboratively with other 

Federal agencies and local levee authorities to develop the best 

path forward for managing vegetation on or near public safety infrastructure in the Country. 

The second issue was in-kind credit. For approving in-kind credit 

for projects, the Corps provides guidance on the implementation of 

Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970, which was amended 

in WRDA of 2007. This is to study and construct Corps water resources projects and provide for the affording of credit to the nonFederal sponsor for their planning, for their design and for construction of work, if the work is determined to be integral to the 

project under discussion. 

The third issue was levels of service on our Corps locks. By establishing operating hours for its locks, the Corps is implementing 

a system-wide, uniform approach to standard levels of service. We 

do not plan to close any locks, but rather, adjust the operating 

hours of service with the lowest level of commercial use, those with 
16 

less than 1,000 commercial lockages per year. This impacts approximately 54 of the Corps 239 locks on our systems. 

The fourth issue that you raised was applying engineering standards for flood damage and for hurricane protection projects. The 

Corps is using a risk-informed process to both confirm as well as 

adjust the application of post-Katrina standards to other projects 

resulting in a more appropriate and cost-efficient design approach. 

The Corps has been developing a strategy to address major challenges, including ensuring the performance of the key features of 

the Nation’s water infrastructure and responding to shifting demographics, as well as changes in societal values and climate variability. 

Our intent is to better equip the Corps program, our civil works 

program, to effectively meet current and future needs, as well as 

ensure that decisionmakers are fully informed. This strategy focuses on four main areas: planning modernization, budget development transformation and infrastructure strategy and our methods 

of delivery. We are looking to ensure that the budget development 

process considers the entire portfolio of potential studies and 

projects. Funded projects will be completed more quickly, thereby 

realizing the benefits for those projects that offer the best return 

on investments from the Nation. 

The Civil Works transformation also links national objectives, 

our strategic goals and current and emerging needs using a system-based watershed approach. When implemented, this new approach will compare outcomes of competing studies and projects 

based on their returns. Collaboration with our customers, our 

stakeholders, the public and Congress will enable us to successfully 

implement this approach. 

Ensuring the continued performance of the key features of our 

infrastructure is becoming more costly over time, in part because 

of the age of the components of some of our projects, but also because of the increases in costs to repair and rehabilitate them. 

Operational demands have also grown and changed. We are working on an infrastructure strategy to address these growing needs. 

The strategy incorporates four focused areas. It will be an integrated approach to manage our assets, managing the system over 

its entire life cycle, evaluating whether a project or group of related 

projects should remain a Federal responsibility prior to making a 

substantial further investment, and potentials for alternative financing mechanisms. 

The Administration is exploring alternatives for infrastructure financing, including public-private partnerships and an infrastructure bank. The intent of the strategy is to make the best use of 

Federal and non-Federal dollars to reduce risk and improve the reliability of the Nation’s water resources infrastructure. 

The strategy is to have reliable and efficient methods of delivery 

by linking technical capabilities to uniform national standards, 

maintaining our core competencies and having consistent methods, 

processes and approaches throughout the Corps of Engineers. The 

desired end result is a high quality and timely product delivery 

services for our customers and our stakeholders. To that end, for 

example, the Corps has established centers of expertise from major 
17 

dam safety modifications as well as inland navigation design and 

deep draft navigation economics. 

The Corps of Engineers has a strong tradition of working collaboratively with our non-Federal interests to plan as well as deliver 

our products. Our transformation partners include States, tribes, 

local governments, non-governmental organizations, non-profit 

agencies and the general public. These partnerships are increasing 

and will likely continue to increase as we share our common goal 

of having reliable and resilient infrastructure for our Nation. 

Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you 

for the opportunity and I look forward to answering any questions 

that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Darcy follows:] 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. General. 

General BOSTICK. Madam Chair, I have no prepared remarks, 

but would just like to thank the committee for all the support that 

we have received, and look forward to the questions. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

I will start it off, talk about home a little bit, Madam Secretary. 

The city of West Sacramento is working with the Corps to improve 

the inadequate Federal levees that protect the city. And anyone 

who has looked at the Sacramento area knows how vulnerable we 

are. 

The city is currently planning how to spend the substantial local 

and State dollars that have been committed to the project. On October 1st of last year, Mayor Cabaldon wrote to you requesting 

guidance on the Corps’ crediting policy. The city plans to spend $14 

million, that is a lot for the city of West Sacramento, to design a 

5.7 section of the levee project. But they seek assurances that its 

efforts will be eligible for credit. 

On November 29th, you replied that you weren’t able to provide 

specific criteria that would be used to evaluate any requests for an 

exception to the Corps’ crediting policy. Now, without specific criteria, how can non-Federal sponsors like West Sacramento have 

certainty that the work they are pursuing will be eligible for credit? 

And how can we proceed from this point, so we can encourage the 

locals to move ahead with these important improvements? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator Boxer, I believe in the case of Sacramento, 

we have worked with the local sponsor to come up with a timing 

schedule for when our feasibility study would be completed and 

when their construction would start, so that we would be able to 

evaluate the study and that would be completed, or in the draft 

feasibility stage, which is when we would be able to make a determination as to whether the construction that they were contemplating would be integral to the project. That’s the key to determining credit, is if it is integral to the Federal project. 

Senator BOXER. When will you let them know? 

Ms. DARCY. I think this draft, I want to say August, but I will 

double check with staff. I think it is August 2013 that the draft 

feasibility will be released. 

Senator BOXER. If I could, instead of taking up your valuable 

time, could we talk about this? That is a long time to wait. These 

projects are urgent. Could we talk a little about this? This is the 

city of West Sacramento, which is not the city of Sacramento. So 

could we talk later? 

Ms. DARCY. Certainly. 

Senator BOXER. OK. First, I wanted thank you, because we met 

about the Salton Sea, and for those people here who have never 

heard of it or don’t know, it is a huge, amazing sea that came 

about through human activity, let’s put it that way. In the 1950s 

and 1960s, it was just this amazing recreation area. And because 

of a confluence of issues, it is drying up. If it continue the way it 

is going, it is a huge health hazard to not only the people of Riverside County, but it will be a problem even as far away as Los Angeles. So we are talking about potentially millions of people breathing 

in small particles, et cetera. 
47 

We have to make sure that the sea is restored. I have been working with you and also Interior. I look forward to working with the 

new Interior Secretary on this. 

Would you commit to me to work to make sure that the Corps 

is involved in the restoration of the sea? Because you are the ones 

that can really do it. There is a lot of talk but you are the ones 

who have the expertise. Can we continue our collaborative relationship? 

Ms. DARCY. Of course. I believe also that Colonel Toy was with 

you when you went to visit the Salton Sea. 

Senator BOXER. He was, and he couldn’t have been nicer. It is 

a very big challenge for us. It is a health issue, it is a species issue 

and it hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves. 

I have one more question. Your testimony highlights the Administration’s efforts to explore alternative models of infrastructure 

funding. In MAP–21, which was our highway bill, all of us together 

worked to expand TIFIA, which is a way to take a steady flow of 

financing and, because we have that steady flow, in other words, 

in this case of the highway bill, a vote by the people of the localities to fund transit or fund roads, the Federal Government can 

step in front and get that funding quicker and get paid back 

through the State a stream of funding. 

So we are looking at this in WRDA, a way to do the same thing, 

where localities vote to improve their water resources, the Federal 

Government, without any risk, really, can come up front and fund 

it. Will you take a look at that part of our WRDA draft and get 

back to us as to whether you think it could be helpful? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, I believe it provides loan guarantees, doesn’t it? 

Senator BOXER. It is credit assistance, yes. The steady stream of 

funding is already there. It is not a lick and a promise. It is there 

via a sales tax or a commitment by a county. So will you work with 

us so that when we put this out, hopefully in our WRDA bill, you 

will have looked at the technicalities? 

Ms. DARCY. I believe the provision in MAP–21 was sort of a pilot 

project, so putting it in WRDA maybe could build off what we 

learned from that. 

Senator BOXER. OK, well, we are going to need your help on the 

funding for the Salton Sea, because that is something we just need 

to have. We need to look at these innovative ways, because if we 

do, we can really multiply jobs and multiply commerce. Because a 

lot of these projects are very expensive. 

Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, 

Madam Secretary and General Bostick, for all of your work. There 

is no State that is more dependent on the good work of the Corps 

than Louisiana. And of course, Hurricane Katrina underscored 

that, and thank you in particular for historic important work postKatrina that made the directly impacted area far safer than the 

day before Katrina. 

The last WRDA, WRDA 2007, was a big part of that direction 

and of that work. But there are some aspects of implementation of 

that, as I suggested at the beginning, that I am very, very frustrated about. And in the spirit of fixing those problems for the next 

WRDA which we are going to produce, I want to focus on that. 
48 

My biggest frustration is really that the Corps ignores mandates 

from Congress when it chooses to, when it doesn’t want to do certain things. I think that is really inappropriate. Madam Secretary, 

I assume you recognize, both in terms of common sense use of the 

language and legal language that there is fundamental difference 

between a provision which says you may do this and another provision which says, you shall do this, is that fair to say? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, Senator. 

Senator VITTER. I think it is universally understood, including in 

legal language, may is discretionary, shall is mandatory. And yet 

the Corps has ignored several ‘‘shalls’‘ in WRDA 2007 because it 

clearly just doesn’t want to do those things. For instance, with regard to the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Report, 

that was mandated and specifically in WRDA 2007 Section 7014 

says, ‘‘The Secretary shall submit to the maximum extent practicable specific project recommendations.’‘ So the idea was not just 

to do a nice, general report coming out of Katrina, but that it 

would include specific project recommendations that could be fasttracked coming out of this disaster. 

As you know, the Corps has not submitted a single project recommendation pursuant to that. Do you think that is a fair interpretation of that mandate? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, I believe under the LCA that we came up 

with a suite of projects. However, the ultimate recommendation for 

going forward was not a recommendation of a particular project in 

that instance. 

Senator VITTER. So again, you are confirming what I said, you 

all submitted no specific project recommendations, even though 

that was mandated, at least to the maximum extent practicable. Do 

you think it is reasonable to take that language and do nothing in 

terms of specific project recommendations? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, we make project recommendations when we 

have a cost-sharing sponsor for a project. And that was not the 

case in many of these. 

Senator VITTER. Oh, I can line up many cost-sharing sponsors in 

Louisiana for what we are talking about. That was not an issue. 

That was absolutely and is absolutely not an issue. Are you considering, at this late date, making specific project recommendations 

pursuant to that language? 

Ms. DARCY. Are we currently considering making recommendations? 

Senator VITTER. Correct. 

Ms. DARCY. Not that I am aware of. But it is something that we 

can revisit. 

Senator VITTER. OK, well, I just point that out as a pretty obvious example of what I am talking about. Another one is the Louisiana Coastal Area Comprehensive Plan. Again, in WRDA 2007, 

you were mandated, shall submit a comprehensive plan to Congress. To date, the Corps has not done any LCA Comprehensive 

Plan. There is a chief’s report, there is LACPR, you were mandated 

to put those together, submit a Comprehensive plan, clear mandate. Why hasn’t that been acted upon? 

Ms. DARCY. I believe that the combination of the two is something that has not been funded. 
49 

Senator VITTER. Well, through the generosity of the American 

people, through act of Congress, we have sent billions of dollars 

down there related to this. Billions of dollars. There is a chief’s report and an LACPR. All you have to do is put the two together for 

a comprehensive plan. What does it take to do that? 

Ms. DARCY. I want to just double check, I believe that the President requested it in both his 2012 and 2013 budget. And it would 

be considered a new start. But it has not been funded. 

Senator VITTER. Quite frankly, this is a game we play all the 

time. When the Corps doesn’t want to do something, you say, we 

need specific line of authorization. Even though there are billions 

of dollars in this area. When the Corps wants to do something that 

doesn’t have a specific appropriation line, you do it. So again, you 

are picking and choosing. Not every discrete action takes a specific 

authorization line. There are billions of dollars in this area that 

fully cover that. 

Let me just go to a final example of ignoring mandates, in my 

opinion, that touches on what Senator Boxer was talking about for 

West Sacramento. For crediting their two provisions, as you know, 

Section 104 and Section 221, they both exist, they are for different 

times of a project, different applications. The Corps used to use 

both of them appropriately. 

More recently, you issued a decision that says, we are never 

going to use Section 104. Now, not coincidentally, that section is 

more helpful and more generous to the locals. So you are saving 

money doing that. 

What has Congress done to make you think that Section 104 has 

gone away and does not exist? Because we did not repeal it. 

Ms. DARCY. When the Congress amended Section 221 in the 

WRDA 2007 bill, it gave a different crediting scenario, including 

that the crediting could be applied to all projects. Section 104 was 

limited to just flood control projects. So in looking at that amendment, to Section 221, the application of credit can now be more 

widespread among all of our programs. It also recognizes, by saying 

that credit will be afforded to a local sponsor once a project has 

gone through the draft feasibility stage, gives us a point in time to 

measure whether or not that Federal project will have Federal benefits in order for us to afford the credit. Because it has to be proven 

to be integral to the project in order for us to be able to give the 

credit down the road to the local sponsor. 

Senator VITTER. I will wrap up and hopefully we can come back 

to this. But I just note that Section 221 did not repeal Section 104. 

Again, you are just choosing to read it that way because it is to 

your advantage. But I will follow up. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to first of all 

follow up on one of the points of Senator Vitter. I think he expresses the frustration of many members of our committee when 

we have worked to get funding for a project, only to find it is not 

funded in the Corps’ programs or it takes a lot more years to get 

started than we had anticipated. 

We have a particular problem now because we have our restrictions on earmarks. I know that in regard to authorized projects in 

Maryland, we are going to need to deal with the caps, particularly 
50 

Poplar Island and Poplar Island expansion. Will you work with this 

committee in a way that we can carry out our responsibility, consistent with the restrictions that we are operating under, but to be 

able to have some degree of confidence that by our action and our 

intentions, that projects that have been authorized will in fact be 

funded? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, Senator, and I think one of the things you are 

referring to is the 902 cap that is in place. 

Senator CARDIN. Yes. 

Ms. DARCY. Historically the 902 caps have been addressed 

through an earmark. What we have to do in the Corps, I think, is 

two things. One is to look at the fact that we have too many 902 

busts right now. So we need to look more carefully at how we are 

actually doing our cost estimates to begin with. Second, we need to 

devise a way that we can make recommendations on what are 

called post-authorization change reports, which tell you why the 

cost has increased and what the new total project cost should be. 

But as you noted, the total project cost has to be changed by Congress if it meets the 902. That may often be viewed by some as an 

earmark as opposed to adjusting a current project. So I think we 

have to work together to figure out a way that we can address the 

902s, maybe in some broader programmatic way or in a way that 

we can be able to have it not be an earmark. Because especially 

for an ongoing project, if it is 75 percent complete and you just 

need a little more money to complete it, that shouldn’t be standing 

in the way. 

Senator CARDIN. And some of this is self-imposed by us. I think 

we have to work together. This committee has worked very closely 

to advance projects that are important that you all have carried 

forward. I just urge you that if there is an understanding that by 

having this pool of funds that these projects are going to be able 

to move forward. We expect at the end of the day these projects 

will move forward. Poplar Island has been very popular, it has 

been authorized, it has been successful. And as you point out, the 

cap needs to be adjusted and we have to do it in a way consistent 

with our current rules. 

Let me move to Conowingo Dam. You heard my opening comments about it. The dam has acted as a retention pond for sediment, phosphorus for decades. Every major weather event we see 

the pond breached, and additional sediments and pollutants ending 

up in the Chesapeake Bay. You received a letter signed by several 

of my colleagues from Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia. There 

was a study that started in 2011, the Lower Susquehanna Water 

Assessment Study that has not been completed. 

We also have a deadline with a FERC reauthorization in August 

2014. Can you tell us how we can get the adequate information and 

game plan at least to understand it in a timely way, also recognizing that this information will be important in the reauthorization under FERC? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, I understand that the study is important in 

making those determinations. However, in order to be relicensed I 

don’t believe that assessment is necessary from the Corps, because 

in the relicensing process, the only time the Corps of Engineers 

would be involved in the relicensing is if indeed the license—— 
51 

Senator CARDIN. I understand the legal point here, but it is a 

useful bit of information when we talk about environmental impacts. 

Ms. DARCY. Right. And I believe that in the 2013 budget, I don’t 

believe we budgeted for that assessment in the 2013 budget. 

Senator CARDIN. Once again, there are pools of funds that are 

available. I would just urge you to work with us. This is an extremely important environmental challenge of what happens during every major weather event. 

Ms. DARCY. We will, sir. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

One last point, Pierce Creek. Pierce Creek in Cecil County is a 

site that was used for dredge material in the upper bay, and now 

likely to reopened. There was a limited study done in one community about its environmental impact. The communities that surround, and I support this, believe that it needs to be a broader review before it is reopened, to make sure that the environmental impact is protected. Will you work with us to make sure we have the 

best information for the community? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, sir, because I believe, some people believe that 

there are groundwater impacts around it that we need to improving the dyking. So yes, we will. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

I just want to thank Senators Fischer and Gillibrand, because 

Senator Baucus, who is Chair of Finance, has such a crazy schedule. He is going to proceed. And we thank you for your cooperation. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you both very much. I will be very brief, 

Madam Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, would you just give me the status of the Corps 

work in harmonizing the certification process with FEMA? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, Senator. As a result of the MAP–21 provision, 

we have been working with FEMA to better integrate and coordinate the information that we have. We actually have already finished one of our reports that was mandated under the law that 

hopefully we will be transmitting shortly. 

Senator BAUCUS. An interim was due a month ago, isn’t that correct? 

Ms. DARCY. The interim report was due on the 30th of January. 

I believe it has been signed and is going through the Administration. We hope you will have it soon. 

Senator BAUCUS. When can we expect to see it? 

Ms. DARCY. I had hoped you would have it by now. I will make 

every effort to make sure it happens. 

Senator BAUCUS. We would really appreciate that. 

Ms. DARCY. There is a second phase of the report that is required 

by MAP–21, which I think is going to help all of us. I think the 

whole purpose was to better have the accreditation and the certification be in line with one another, so that the information that the 

Corps collects for safety purposes could somehow be used for FEMA 

to be able to use it in their flood insurance program. I think we 

are finding ways that we can hopefully share that information, 

even though some of the information is for safety and some is for 

flood insurance. But if the local sponsors or the local levee agencies 
52 

can use the Corps information for FEMA purposes, that benefits 

everyone. 

Senator BAUCUS. I appreciate that. FEMA is a good agency, but 

frankly, I have even more confidence in the Corps. I encourage you, 

the Corps, to take the lead effort there to bring that together for 

an awful lot of people around the Country. And I am going to 

watch this closely, for one reason, it is so important. Second, the 

language in the bill I mentioned earlier, the highway bill, was a 

little bit vague, which means we are going to have to watching you 

very closely to make sure it is implemented in a way we think is 

satisfactory. 

Second, if you could just tell me a bit about the pallid sturgeon 

restoration project in the Yellowstone Basin. There is concern 

about the pallid sturgeon under the Endangered Species Act. We 

put a provision in the WRDA bill that allows the Corps to restore 

a Bureau of Reclamation project, provides irrigation water for 

sugar beet producers downstream at Glendive. I think you received 

a letter, I know you haven’t read it yet, because you got it I think 

yesterday, from the Fish and Wildlife Service, which basically 

states that if this reclamation project is undertaken, that it is sufficient to prevent, and therefore not require Fort Peck renovation, 

isn’t that correct? 

Ms. DARCY. That is correct. We did last night receive a letter 

from the Fish and Wildlife Service saying that the project that we 

have, hopefully will undertake at intake on the Yellowstone, will 

provide the kind of fish passage for the pallid sturgeon and other 

fish so that we will not have to do a different project at Fort Peck. 

The fish passage, as well as the bypasses that come along with it, 

will meet the requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

We are also in addition to that working with the Bureau of Reclamation to get a memorandum of agreement between them and 

the Corps of Engineers for the future operation of the project. 

Senator BAUCUS. I appreciate that. 

Then finally, with respect to the master manual, I made my 

point earlier, but I just want to hear it from you that the Corps 

will not ignore the master manual when there are efforts, mainly 

because there is a flood, efforts downstream to say, release water 

earlier to help downstream, or when there is a drought, to say release it now upstream to help us now for those States downstream. 

I just want you to say that you are going to stick with the master 

manual. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, sir, I am legally bound to the master manual. 

Senator BAUCUS. Good. 

Ms. DARCY. The court determined in 2003 that the master control manual is the operating manual for the Missouri River Basin. 

Senator BAUCUS. While you are legally bound to follow the master manual, that means that you will continue to resist requests 

from Mississippi States, or even lower Missouri States, to change 

the manual just on the basis of a 1-year event. 

Ms. DARCY. Right. As you noted earlier, last summer we were 

fighting floods, this summer we are fighting a drought. And the 

purpose of the master manual is to be able to manage that Missouri River system for both instances. And it is for the Missouri 

River, it is not written to help the Mississippi. 
53 

Senator BAUCUS. I thank you very much, because that is something that is very important to not just Montana, it is other upper 

Missouri River States. Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Baucus. And thank you to 

both our colleagues, who are very gracious. 

Now we call on Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, it would appear that many previously authorized and funded water resource projects that are critical to public 

health and safety require Corps assessments, as you said, with Section 902 with that limit prior to a full project completion through 

the development of a post-authorization change report. 

How can the Administration assure us of the timeliness of these 

assessments by the Corps and by the OMB? The issue here is how 

timely are those post-authorization change reports that the Corps 

is required to do before an adjustment can be sought by Congress. 

Ms. DARCY. What we are doing internally is trying to get after 

it earlier. In other words, before it is a year away from meeting the 

902 cap, we are trying to work within the Corps, but in our vertical 

team with the district, the division and then headquarters to get 

that information earlier, so that we are able to be able to chart a 

path forward on how we are actually going to get the 902 fix that 

we need. And actually, if it is necessary, if there are any ways we 

can look at what contingencies we built in to the costs or whatever. 

Senator FISCHER. There are a number of projects that have exceeded their authorized spending. In Section 902, that limit appears to be at a similar phase of completion. So some of these are 

80 percent finished, but they risk non-completion for 2 or maybe 

even 3 years with a resulting risk to the populations that they are 

supposed to protect. 

So can you tell me what criteria is being used to determine 

which of these completed projects will move forward and when they 

will move forward? 

Ms. DARCY. Do you mean in light of a 902 or just a project’s 

phase in completion? 

Senator FISCHER. In light of the 902 limit, where they are 80 percent completed, say. 

Ms. DARCY. Well, if they are 80 percent complete and there is no 

further increment of that project that we could go forward with 

without a 902 fix immediately, in looking at the whole array of 902 

fixes, it would appear as though that would take some kind of priority. Because it is more eminent than something that is going to 

meet a 902 cap 3 or 4 years from now. 

Senator FISCHER. Specifically what would you use for criteria, 

though, to move those projects forward? What would you look at? 

Ms. DARCY. In order to move them forward, we would need congressional authorization to increase the cap, increase the total 

project cost. 

Senator FISCHER. And that would be the sole criteria you would 

look for? 

Ms. DARCY. We could not move forward with that. That is the 

biggest criteria. 

Senator FISCHER. OK. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Gillibrand. 
54 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

My focus today is going to be, of course, on Sandy-related 

projects, because that is obviously the most urgent issue. And because there was no congressional report language, there are still 

some issues that need to resolve on how the Corps will spend the 

$5.4 billion that was appropriated. As you know, I sent you a letter 

on February 1st, outlining what our intent of that was. So my 

questions are directed there. 

The disaster supplemental included $20 million for a comprehensive study to address flood risk and vulnerability along with Sandyaffected coasts. It is critical that the study be specifically focused 

on the New York-New Jersey region that was hardest hit by 

Superstorm Sandy. 

Do you agree that resources should be directing to addressing 

flood risk in the hardest-hit and most vulnerable coastal population 

in my State and in New Jersey? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, I believe the authorizing language on the 

supplemental appropriations bill directs the Corps of Engineers 

throughout its North Atlantic Division, which begins in Norfolk 

and goes all the way up to the top of Maine, to look at a comprehensive study of that entire coastline. However, I think that 

what we learned in looking at Sandy is that was the most impacted 

area, so that has to be looked at as far as the frequency of future 

storms, and also the vulnerabilities that are there in New York and 

New Jersey are different than the vulnerabilities in other parts of 

the North Atlantic Division. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Well, so you are saying you do have to use 

the money to look at the whole region? 

Ms. DARCY. I believe it says the North Atlantic Division impacted, because some of the States south of New York and New 

Jersey were not, and some north. Rhode Island and Connecticut 

had some damage as well as Maryland. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. But you can primarily focus on the places 

that had the most damage? 

Ms. DARCY. I would think that because of the vulnerabilities that 

exist there, and the need for increased resiliency in those areas. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I am also concerned about ensuring that 

the study produces tangible results that will allow the Corps to 

move forward with specific projects to address flood risks that are 

identified. Do you believe that the Corps has sufficient authority to 

move forward with full feasibility studies using the resources provided in the supplemental? And will you commit to moving forward 

with full feasibility studies of solutions to address the highest priority risks that are identified, if they are not already covered by 

the existing study? 

Ms. DARCY. I believe the funding in the supplemental will be 

adequate. However, once you begin a feasibility study, you are 

never quite sure what the scope is necessary in the end. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Have you had any conversations or has the 

Corps developed any plans on how you will incorporate other Federal agencies, States and local governments into the study process? 

In addition, does the Corps intend to work with other agencies to 

incorporate non-structural options, including ecosystem restoration, 
55 

into any of the plans for addressing the flood risk in the affected 

areas? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, we will, and yes, we have. We have already 

begun also looking at, and we have been developing within the 

Federal family principle and criteria for what it is we would need 

to look at if we are going to build back resiliently. I serve on Secretary Donovan’s task force, and we met yesterday. I think as part 

of that task force, we are also looking at this as well. I think what 

we are doing in the Corps with this study can help to inform what 

we are going to be doing with Secretary Donovan, because we have 

a 6-month time line to make recommendations to the President 

through that task force. The Corps is involved in that, both with 

NOAA and Commerce and Department of Interior and others. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. That is helpful, thank you. Shortly following Sandy, I met with your staff and with Senator Schumer to 

discuss seven specific projects that we identified as high priority 

and included language in the disaster supplemental meant to accelerate these projects and fund ongoing construction costs at full 

Federal expense. Will the Corps be using the list we identified as 

a basis for prioritizing projects, and how does the Corps plan to 

prioritize other projects that are necessary to reduce flood risk? 

Ms. DARCY. We will be looking at that list as well as within the 

Administration, looking at what will be considered ongoing construction. I know you mentioned that in your letter. So that will 

help determine. I think the way we have to look at this is life safety. That is our initial criteria for everything we would be doing. 

And that would be the priority that we would have to set. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Briefly, on carp, what is the status of the 

Great Lakes-Mississippi River Inter-Basin Study, and how quickly 

will the Corps be able to move, once that study is complete, to 

begin implementation measures that will prevent the flow of Asian 

Carp into the Great Lakes? 

Ms. DARCY. The GLMRIS study, the alternative analysis that we 

will be presenting in December this year, the end of December, will 

present an array of alternatives that we think are possibilities for 

keeping invasive species out of the Great Lakes and the tributaries, 

from the Mississippi. I think once we have that, our next step will 

be working with Congress to decide which of those alternatives 

would best suit the outcome that is desired, which is no invasive 

species in the Great Lakes. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. And I have this last question that I will 

submit for the record. It is about dredging. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. I am getting a little bit worried 

about our time. We have a panel yet to come up here. 

So if it is OK with everybody, Senator Vitter is the only one that 

I know wanted a second round. Does anyone else need a second 

round of questions? 

We are going to go to you, Senator, but right now, Senators 

Wicker and Carper haven’t even had their questions. Then we will 

turn to Senator Whitehouse. Senator Wicker. 

Senator Wicker. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Let me go back to a couple of things I mentioned in my opening 

statement. And I note that Senator Carper announced how excited 
56 

his home State of Delaware is about Panamax. I think every State 

from Texas on up around the coast and up the eastern seaboard, 

we are eager to be part of economic expansion and job creation 

through this great opportunity of the larger vessels coming through 

the Panama Canal. 

I mentioned, as one of my areas of concern, the Port of Gulfport. 

The fact that we sort of have a cycle there, we haven’t had the 

maintenance dredging, and that makes the port less able to be 

competitive, because it can’t take the larger ships. It becomes a 

self-perpetuating cycle. 

We were supposed to meet, Senator Cochran, you and I and 

other members of the delegation were supposed to meet. At the last 

minute you were unable to do that, and I understand that. You 

sent Mr. Letmon Lee, who has been a great public servant, and we 

had a great meeting. I hope you will agree that we need to look 

at this what I call self-perpetuating cycle. When the dredging isn’t 

there, fewer goods and less valuable goods come through. It becomes a cycle. 

So I hope you will agree that you and I and Senator Cochran and 

others need to have that meeting and talk about this, and let’s try 

to resolve that for the sake of jobs and the economy. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, sir. 

Senator WICKER. Then let me just ask you, I understand no question has been asked about plans for sequestration yet. Again, I 

touched on this in our opening statement. Is it true that it will 

mean 8.2 percent across the board to the Corps? I will ask this of 

both witnesses. What contingency plans do you have? I hope at this 

late date we can stop it. We need to make the budget savings. But 

I think we can make them a lot smarter someplace else in the 

budget than in DOD. 

So what are your plans? I am hearing, Madam Chair, that there 

are people on this Hill that are getting a little more relaxed about 

sequestration. I continue to believe it is going to be an utter disaster. So what plans do we have in the event that this does take 

place and takes place soon? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, if we are faced with sequestration, we are 

going to have to do across-the-board cutbacks in all of our program 

areas. We will have reduced funding for dredging, we will have reduced funding for flood protection, we will have reduced funding for 

ecosystem restoration. We have to take it from every program, and 

every project is going to have to take that percentage off the top. 

Senator WICKER. Have you talked at all about sending a request 

upstream in the bureaucracy for prioritizing the cuts? Would you 

like the flexibility to do that? 

Ms. DARCY. Perhaps that would be good. But right now, it is an 

across the board, and that is the sequestration number, and the 

law tell us that is what we have to do. 

Senator WICKER. General Bostick, are there any contingency 

plans that are just waiting for this axe to fall? 

General BOSTICK. I think, Senator, that across-the-board cuts are 

something that we are going to have to live with, as the Secretary 

mentioned. But I think the way our moneys are prioritized now in 

flood risk management and in navigation, we will at least keep the 
57 

bulk of our funds in the areas that are high priority to the Corps 

and to the Nation in life safety and in those areas. 

We would prefer not to have across-the-board cuts, but that is 

the way it is. I think the funding the way we have it now is going 

to help mitigate that. 

The other concern we have is for our people, and to make sure 

that technical expertise and the folks that have done all the great 

work for this Nation over many years, that we are able to retain 

the kind of technical expertise that can continue on with the mission. We will work that internally. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you very much. The Chair is concerned 

about the time. I have 30 seconds left. Let me just say, back to one 

of the first points I made, we want the inland waterway system to 

be part of a solution to the President’s goal that we increase American exports. That being the case, I just would hope, Secretary 

Darcy, that the Administration would help us to do that by making 

more realistic funding requests that actually match the needs for 

flood control and navigation on projects like the Mississippi River 

and tributaries. 

With that observation, I will let it go at that and thank both of 

you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Let me assure you that as Chairman of this committee, I just 

wrote an op-ed piece that ran in CNN about how to avert this ridiculous sequester. It is dangerous, it is dangerous to everything it 

touches. They can’t have contingency plans, they have to follow the 

law. We didn’t put into the law, none of us, a contingency plan. It 

is what it is. 

So unless we act, we can’t look at them to save us from ourselves. Just my point here. We just need to come up with a way, 

and I have to commend my colleague, Senator Whitehouse, because 

he has come up with a list of ways that we can avert this thing 

that is painless, truly. I hope you will take a look at it. And if there 

is some agreement, let’s get it going across the aisle here. 

Senator WICKER. In 15 seconds? 

Senator BOXER. Yes, go ahead. 

Senator WICKER. Let me also observe the House of Representatives passed a plan. 

Senator BOXER. Oh, I read it. Oh, I saw it. 

Senator WICKER. Bill Lankford scored it. 

Senator BOXER. You think sequester is bad. 

Senator WICKER. Where is my 15 seconds here, Madam Chair? 

Senator BOXER. You can have 30 seconds. 

Senator WICKER. Let me just say, I look forward to seeing bill 

language coming down from the White House on their proposal. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Senator WICKER. We had a general concept a few days ago. But 

at least our brothers and sisters on the other end of the building 

have passed a bill. It is incumbent upon us to take up some language, vote on it, trying to work it out. 

Senator BOXER. I couldn’t agree with you more. 

Senator WICKER. And some language from the Administration 

would help also. 
58 

Senator BOXER. I couldn’t agree with you more. What I would 

say is, our brothers and sisters on the other side of this Capitol, 

it was a Republican plan, hurt their brothers and sisters in the 

community. It is, I call it Plan C, Calamity. It didn’t do a thing to 

solve the problem, it just took a bunch of horrible cuts and in light 

of Eric Cantor’s point yesterday that he now values education, it 

killed education, he said he valued jobs, it killed jobs. He said he 

valued innovation, it killed innovation. And he said he valued 

health care, and it kills that. 

So all I am saying is, let’s not look over to our brothers and sisters over there. Let us come together, because recent history shows 

we can do it in a way that bridges this divide. I hope that we can. 

I want to see something from the President, I want to see something from us. I am with you on that. I agree with you, this is a 

calamitous path we are going down in terms of this sequester. I 

wanted you to know that I am not one that is getting comfortable. 

I am getting more uncomfortable by the minute on it. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you. Somehow I don’t think I am going 

to get the last word in on this, but I do thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Well, you know, elections have consequences. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. I ask unanimous consent to enter the following 

statements into the record: Senators Tom Udall, Landrieu, Inhofe, 

Association of State Flood Plain Managers, American Society of 

Civil Engineers, National Wildlife Federation, a letter from Senator 

Cardin and other members to Secretary Darcy. So we will put 

those in the record. 

[Referenced statements follow. Not all statements were received 

at time of print.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Good morning and welcome, Madam Secretary. 

Last week, I took the opportunity to highlight three issues that are of importance 

to New Mexico. I’m glad we have the opportunity to follow up again today to discuss 

them further. 

The issues I raised were: 

(1) The potential for flooding in our major city—Albuquerque, New Mexico; 

(2) My continued support for the Rio Grande Environmental Management Program; and 

(3) My concern over the current status of the project in the Rio Grande Floodway, 

San Acacia to Bosque del Apache. 

These Army Corps projects along the Rio Grande are different from many of the 

other areas of the Nation, because the Corps is not the only Federal agency with 

projects along the river. 

Like many other areas of the West, they need to work with the Bureau of Reclamation which is supplying water for irrigation, while you are trying to prevent 

flooding. Both agencies are also charged with maintaining enough environmental 

flows to support a living river for aquatic species. 

Water is the lifeblood of the Southwest and we have seen its availability dramatically affected by extreme climate events, making these agencies’ jobs even harder. 

Temperature increases can make droughts like our current one even more severe. 

In addition, many scientists tell us that warming is likely to mean not only greater droughts in the Southwest, but also an increasing risk of flooding from extreme 

rainfall events. 

So when we do get rainfall, it is often in the form of monsoons and extreme rain 

events that have the potential for flash flooding and devastating neighborhoods, 

small towns, and scenic areas. 
59 

Water supplies are projected to become increasingly scarce, calling for trade offs 

among competing uses and leading to conflict between competing sectors and neighboring States. 

In the face of these challenges I’m calling on parties to seek cooperation, not conflict. 

As a Federal agency with a lot of expertise, the Army Corps has a responsibility 

to help foster that cooperation, both among Federal agencies and with various State 

and local entities. 

This is a very critical time for New Mexico and the Southwest to update the way 

we manage our water resources. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter, for holding this hearing 

and allowing committee members to receive testimony on the implementation of 

Corps of Engineers’ water resource policies. I also would like to thank Assistant Secretary Darcy and Lieutenant General Bostick for testifying before us again this 

morning, as well as the four gentlemen who will be joining us during the second 

panel—this committee greatly appreciates you and relies on your expertise, so thank 

you very much for being here. 

It is crucial for the next Water Resources Development Act to authorize the necessary maintenance and updates to the infrastructure of the United States. I look 

forward to working with Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter, and their staffs 

in order to pass this important piece of legislation. 

To the witnesses, I look forward to talking to you about a few possible reforms 

we should consider. The provisions that expedited project delivery for Highway and 

Transit projects were a hallmark of the MAP–21 legislation that passed through 

this committee in 2012. Any reforms to Corps policies should ensure a streamlined 

process where we can cut through the red tape, avoid bureaucratic messes, and minimize the steps taken to ensure the most effective use of existing resources. More 

efficient and transparent policies will allow for greater regulatory certainty on Corps 

projects. 

We should also look to better utilize public-private partnerships. One of the most 

frequently discussed ways to leverage non-Federal investment is through public-private partnerships. With these partnerships, State or local governments enter into 

an agreement to raise private capital and transfer risks to the private sector, making challenging and unaffordable projects possible. Corps projects are woefully underfunded with a backlog of $60 billion in authorized projects, yet only a $5 billion 

yearly budget. These partnerships are a way to unleash an enormous amount of private investments in public infrastructure. 

One such project is the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan in my home State 

of Oklahoma. WRDA 2007 authorized $50 million to carry out ecosystem restoration, flood damage reduction, and recreation components of the Plan. Cooperative 

efforts among the Corps, Tulsa County, the city of Tulsa, and Indian Nations Council of Governments (INCOG) are necessary to implement it. 

Another important project includes chloride control at the Red River. I have been 

working with the Tulsa District Office and the local Lugert-Altus Irrigation District 

in order to provide new drinking water supplies, increased agricultural irrigation in 

the southwestern Oklahoma area, and improved downstream water quality. 

Our Nation’s system of inland waterways, highways, and coastal ports are our 

pathway to trade and economic prosperity. It is vitally important that we implement 

responsible policies in order to best utilize this system. Again, I thank the witnesses 

and look forward to their testimony. 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 

Senator BOXER. And now it is my pleasure to call on Senator 

Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. I will just be very brief, and one comment before I ask my questions. I think the solution to this challenge is not easy. But there are three things we need to do. One, 

we need more revenues, we need to be closer to where we were 

when we had four balanced budgets in a row. I think revenue as 

a percentage of GDP, we are between 19 and a half and 20 and a 

half percent, last year they were down around 15 and a half, 16 

percent. 

The second thing is we have to look at our entitlement programs 

and figure out how we can save money in those entitlement programs, especially in health care. And not so savage older people or 

poor people, but to find ways to get better health care results for, 

in some cases, less money. Actually, there are some really good 

ways to do that, and it is humane. And while we are doing that, 

to preserve those programs for the long haul. 

But the third thing we have to do is look at everything we do, 

everything we do, and just ask this question—how do we get a better results for less money, or better result for the same amount of 

money? So I think those are the three things we need to do. My 

hope is that at the end of the day we can come to agreement 

around that kind of proposal. 

Setting that aside, and this actually is a pretty good lead-in to 

my question. One of the projects that you all have been working 

on for several years now is the dredging of the Delaware River up 

past Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey. And they started up 

north first, and they are working their way south, as you know. I 

think maybe by the end of this fiscal year we will be down to the 

southernmost reach of the dredging operation. 

I have a concern, and I am sure it is shared by our colleagues, 

certainly shared by my colleagues in Delaware, our Governor, colleagues in Pennsylvania, their Governor. The problem we saw with 

our colleagues in New Jersey, about the prospects of the Administration asking for funding for this continued dredging in the next 

fiscal year. Given the uncertainly of sequestration, the uncertainly 

of the budget process, I just wanted to ask, I just want to make 

sure that this is one that is on your radar screen. It is important 

not just to our State but probably much more important to Pennsylvania and I think to New Jersey. I just want to bring it to your 

attention. 

It would be ironic, a cruel irony, if at the end of the day we had 

spent all that money on dredging the northern part of the Delaware River, down to the Delaware Bay, and got that dredged to 45 

feet in this environmentally sensitive way, and then found ourselves at the southern part where we have to leave it at 40 feet. 

The Panamax ships couldn’t get in to take advantage of all the investment that has been made in the northern part of that channel. 

Could you just make a brief comment on that, Madam Secretary? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, Senator. I believe we did have funding in the 

2013 budget for the deepening of the Delaware. You are talking 

about deepening, right, not maintenance dredging? The deepening 

project? 

Senator CARPER. That is right. 
83 

Ms. DARCY. For that, and of course we are still in the process of 

putting together the 2014 budget. So we will be looking at that, 

along with every other project in this Country that is competing for 

limited dollars. 

Senator CARPER. We have all heard the saying, probably used 

the saying, don’t throw good money after bad. We have actually 

spent the first part of it pretty wisely. I would hate to have wasted 

it by leaving the southern part of the channel not dredged and the 

rest of it dredged, so it would be of no use to anybody. That would 

be unfortunate. 

The other question I have is, if I could, Madam Secretary, I am 

a strong believer that when it comes to storms, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. With rising sea levels and stronger, 

more frequent storms, we need to focus on how we can mitigate 

against storm damage before it occurs. I recently succeeded Joe 

Lieberman as chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. As part of my responsibility, I have 

oversight of FEMA, we have oversight of FEMA in that committee. 

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, I have had some questions 

about the degree to which the Corps and FEMA are coordinating 

with each other as well as States and towns on a variety of mitigation activities. I was grateful to Senator Boxer for including provisions on extreme weather preparedness in her WRDA draft last 

year. And there is my question. 

Would you just take a minute and share with us your views on 

what can be done to increase the Army Corps’ capacity to help 

mitigate against storm damage, and how we can ensure those efforts are well coordinated with FEMA’s activities and actions in 

both the State and the local level? 

Ms. DARCY. Thank you, Senator. I am not sure if you were here 

when I was answering Senator Gillibrand’s questions about 

Superstorm Sandy. 

Senator CARPER. I missed most of her questions. 

Ms. DARCY. We within the Corps and FEMA and the other Federal agencies, not only through the study provisions that we were 

directed to under the supplemental in response to Sandy, but with 

Secretary Donovan’s Sandy Response Task Force, we are working 

with all the other Federal agencies to come up with a Federal response, not only for mitigation but also for how resiliency is going 

to be built into our projects in the future. So mitigation is sort of 

at the forefront of how it is we can do this. 

I think the projects along the Delaware shore during Superstorm 

Sandy can show what those kinds of resilient projects can be, the 

sand dunes and the vegetation held up pretty well. 

Senator CARPER. They saved hundreds of millions of dollars, hundreds of millions. Thank you so much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, General and Secretary. 

I am bedeviled by a situation that we have in Rhode Island. In 

March 2010, I came through the receiving dock of a Rhode Island 

manufacturing company in an inflatable boat. The reason I did was 

that we had record flooding, in some cases going beyond the 500- 

year level. We are obviously going to see a lot more of that as we 
84 

dump more and more carbon into our atmosphere and we create 

the setup for continuing worse storms. 

The company is called Hope Global. It has been in Rhode Island 

since 1883, I think. It is a great company, it is growing, it employs 

lots of people, it exports to China, among other things. So it is 

doing good work for our awful balance of trade. And it survived in 

a very competitive environment. 

But it is susceptible to flooding, as my visit to it in an inflatable 

boat proved. These kinds of things can happen again. 

So this business has to make hard decisions about relocating. 

And of course, since it employs a lot of people and it is a very successful business, there is competition. People are reaching out to 

the CEO and saying, don’t stay there in that flood plain, come visit 

us, come move to our State. 

We have been working with the Army Corps trying to solve that 

flood plain issue and figure out what can be done to protect this 

company in its existing site. And the State has ponied up the 

money for the feasibility study. And the problem is that with all 

that done, we have no idea of what is going to happen. You guys 

have, I think, a $62 billion backlog. We are in that big murky backlog some place. We have been unable to develop much in the way 

of information about where your priorities are in the backlog. 

So when we have a CEO saying, I need to make decisions here, 

and we can’t help in any respect because there is no transparency 

into how the Corps prioritizes the backlog, it creates problems and 

it create effects out in the real world where people actually need 

an answer on a date. 

So I hope that we can find ways, as we are working on the new 

WRDA bill, to try to get a little bit of sunlight into that process, 

so that people like Hope Global can at least know where they 

stand. The worst answer is no answer at all. What we are stuck 

with is no answer at all. So I guess my question is, do you have 

ideas for how to clarify that so that people can have a sense of 

where in the $62 billion they stand, and will you work with us on 

trying to get that fixed in this legislation? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, Senator, because I think that we are all looking 

at the backlog in a way that we have to look at how we are going 

to manage the assets that we have, and what is the best Federal 

investment for what is in the backlog. If there is a study or a 

project that has been there for a long period of time with no local 

support or no Federal funding, it doesn’t make sense for us to have 

that even on the books any longer. Currently, under current law, 

the deauthorization process, if a project doesn’t get money in 5 

years, then it gets on the deauthorization list. But I think your 

question is, OK, that big list out there, who is on it, who is at the 

top and who is in the middle and how do you decide that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Other people count on those decisions, and 

they need to know. We can’t just have this happen in sort of a bureaucratic limbo that may suit us in Congress and it may suit the 

Administration. But the real people who are out there depending 

on these projects are hurt by it. 

Ms. DARCY. And they have to make investment decisions. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. And they can’t. 
85 

The other question that I have has to do with, and I will make 

it for the record, time is short, under the 2007 WRDA Act, the 

Corps was encouraged to focus on natural systems and natural 

buffers and defenses. And I guess I would ask as my question for 

the record, you can get back to us in writing, how many projects 

approved or understudied by the Corps since the 2007 WRDA bill 

have or have had as their final or recommended alternative a plan 

that primarily uses non-structural and-or ecosystem restoration approaches to solve the problem being addressed by the project? So 

if you could take that as a question for the record. 

Ms. DARCY. I am not sure what the universe is, but I know we 

can get you the number. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I would appreciate it. Thank you, Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks, Senator. 

I want to talk about how we are going to deal with the rest of 

the hearing. I want to thank so many people for waiting a long 

time. I think what this shows us is that our colleagues are very interested in this. And that is a good thing. I want to say to the Lieutenant General and to the Secretary how appreciative we are of 

your patience with us and all these questions. 

So here is what we are going to do. I am going to hand the gavel 

over to Senator Carper. When he leaves, he will hand it over to 

Senator Vitter. Senator Vitter and I have a deal, he is definitely 

going to repeal any environmental laws while he has the gavel. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator VITTER. We are just going to clarify. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. So I feel very comfortable. 

So anyway, here is what is going to happen. I want to ask if Mr. 

Johnson, Richard, would you raise your hand? I want to thank you 

so much for being here. Richard is a very important person to us, 

he is the Executive Director of the Sacramento Area Flood Control 

Agency. In his testimony, he is going to underscore the issues I 

raised, the levee vegetation, the experience that we have there 

which we are so, we have kept ahead of the floods so far. We have 

had our real serious problems, but we know we are in danger. 

If we are going to keep ahead of this, the worst of it, we have 

to keep on moving. It is a pleasure always to work with the various 

agencies in the State, plus Senator Feinstein, and in this case Congresswoman Matsui and others. He will talk about the Sacramento 

experience, he will also talk about the crediting provisions, how do 

we know when to move forward at home, will the Corps please let 

us know in a timely fashion if what we are spending at the local 

level will be credited to us. This is serious business. And in the 

new WRDA, we are going to take these issues on. 

I know that Senator Vitter has more questions. Obviously he has 

had to deal with a lot of serious matters. So I have agreed to give 

him the time for a second round, and then Senator Carper, the rest 

of the hearing is up to you. I will turn this over and I thank everybody. 

Senator CARPER [presiding]. Senator. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief, covering two very important issues. 
86 

After my concern that I expressed earlier about the Corps ignoring mandates, my second biggest concern is when the Corps habitually misses and reasonable deadlines. As you all know, because 

we have talked about it quite a lot, in my world, the best-worst example of that is the Morganza to the Gulf Project. This is the basic 

history of that project since 1992. 

So we have a history since 1992, we still haven’t started construction. It involves two authorizations where the Corps has basically missed deadlines or allowed other changes to happen. So then 

the project is deauthorized. 

First, there was a contingent authorization, if the Corps produced a chief’s report by a certain date. The Corps missed the 

deadline. Second, in the last WRDA, I secured an authorization 

and 2 months later was informed by the Corps, oh, too bad, costs 

have gone up and you just broke your 902 limit. Two months after 

we passed the language, after we had been talking to the Corps 

about this, without hearing boo about the cost issue, 902 limit 

issue, before that. 

Most recently, General, as you know, we have missed another 

deadline for December. We are shooting for a new report on the 

project for mid-year. So my first question specific to the project, are 

we on track to get that new report mid-year? 

General BOSTICK. Yes, Senator, we released a post-authorization 

report in January. In parallel with that, we are doing a risk-based 

assessment through our risk assessment center. We feel the preliminary feedback that we are getting from that is going to allow 

us to reduce the cost that came out when we talked last, the $10.6 

billion. And based on where we are now, we believe some time in 

the mid-summer timeframe, we should be able to produce the report. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. As you know, General, that is essential, or else this history continues with a third miss. 

Madam Secretary, in cases like this, do you think there should 

be any consequence to the Corps for missing major and reasonable 

deadlines? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, I think this shows that we need to look at 

the way we are doing some of our planning processes and the way 

that they are implemented. I think that we are looking internally 

as to how we can better improve our planning process. This is an 

example of ways we can look to, especially the additions, and as 

you said, this has been in the works since 1992. It is now 20 years 

later and here we are with no project. 

Because of many things, including Katrina and design changes 

and there are reasons, but I do think that we need to be accountable. We will strive to do that, especially in this case. 

Senator VITTER. I appreciate that. We are looking at those accountability issues for everyone too, for the next WRDA. I just 

think in the real world, negative consequences for missed deadlines 

are part of accountability. In this case, the Corps is essentially rewarded and not penalized. Because you don’t have to move forward 

and spend money. So in a sense, in terms of the bureaucracy, you 

are rewarded for these missed deadlines, not penalized. 

The second issue, which I will submit for the record, is about 

wetlands mitigation and the Modified Charleston Method as it is 
87 

now applied in the New Orleans district. As you know, that has 

been extremely onerous and costly. I would submit two questions 

regarding that for the record. First, do you think it is appropriate 

that different districts use very different wetlands mitigation 

standards? In my world, the Vicksburg District next door uses a 

different standard that has lower cost, so that St. Tammany Parish, a major county or parish in Louisiana, is split between the two 

districts. So two very different standards, two very different sets of 

cost. 

The second question is, do you think it is appropriate that local 

government and private folks have to use this new very expensive 

Modified Charleston Method, but the Corps, in doing its important 

post-Katrina work, does not? You all essentially exempted yourselves from the higher, more expensive standard. So those are my 

two questions submitted for the record. 

Ms. DARCY. Thank you, Senator. We will get back to you on 

those. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you all very much. 

Senator CARPER. Secretary Darcy and General Bostick, Senator 

Lautenberg just joined us and he has a question or two. Then we 

will excuse you and bring on our second panel. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you both for the work that we are reviewing today. 

The Corps is such an important agency that I don’t think at times 

we understand the contribution that the Corps engineers do for us. 

So my hat is off to you. I just wanted to say that what we learned 

from Sandy was not a good lesson. But it is one that ought to stick 

with us for a long time. 

When you look at things, let’s be clear: our changing climate 

means severe storms are going to be more and more common, despite the doubters. And that mean the new WRDA bill must make 

it permanent policy to build these infrastructure projects stronger 

than before. 

During the Sandy period, New Jersey also saw the limits of our 

outdated water infrastructure when two water treatment facilities 

were damaged, one plant leaking millions of gallons of sewage into 

Newark Bay. So we need smart financing programs to ensure our 

clean water infrastructure is modern and effective. 

I proceed to ask if we can count on you, Madam Secretary. The 

Superstorm Sandy supplemental appropriations laws includes 

vague language that could lead to some communities paying a 35 

percent cost share if their planned Army Corps projects aren’t considered to be ongoing. Now, there may be some mystery surrounding that that I am not familiar with. But it seems like an unfair kind of a proposal. Shouldn’t local governments with projects 

that are ready for construction be eligible for a Federal full cost 

share? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, I believe the language in the bill for ongoing 

construction, that that would be 100 percent Federal, that within 

the Administration we are trying to make a determination of what 

would be an ongoing project, whether it is a shovel in the ground 

or if it is a study on the books that is ready to go. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. We have seen what happened in the areas 

that accidentally I would call it, General, where there were mitiga-
88 

tion opportunities just because we did some replenishment or put 

in some berms here and there. We found out that in those communities, and New Jersey has a substantial shoreline for the size of 

the State, they fared fairly well. 

So when we have an opportunity now to look ahead, we should 

have the funds, the resources to get this job done and include serious mitigation programs where we have a chance. As the planet 

continues to warm, events like Superstorm Sandy will become more 

frequent. How is the Army Corps adapting its project Development 

to reflect this new reality? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, we have been, for the last several years, actually, looking, part of our policy guidance and developing new 

plans for projects has to consider sea level change in every project 

that we look at. Because it is going to happen and we need to be 

able to mitigate for it, or else be able to build a project that will 

be resilient to that sea level change. 

We are building that not only into our planning, but also within 

the Administration, we are looking at resiliency criteria for building back projects as a result of Superstorm Sandy. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So you understand, and by the way, you 

had a good training ground to understand these problems. You 

used to sit around with the group up here and you did very good 

service there. We know that you will here as well. 

Many of these projects were inadequate before the storm hit. Fortunately, we were successful in allowing funding for Sandy relief 

to be used to improve projects. Not just to rebuild them as they 

were. And shouldn’t the Corps be given permanent authority to improve projects following these future natural disasters? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, we have current authority under 216 to reevaluate an existing project. For example, if a shore protection 

project outside of Avalon, New Jersey may have had a certain level 

of protection in its authorized purpose. But in looking at it now, 

post-Sandy, would it make sense to have a different scope of 

project, would it make sense to have a different height, would it 

make sense to have a different footprint? We can do that evaluation under current authority. If that evaluation determined that 

yes, there should be a change made to that project, then it would 

need to be a new authorization or a change to the existing authorization. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Coastal communities and businesses in 

New Jersey were devastated by Sandy. But those projects protected 

by Army Corps programs fared much better than those that were 

not, even in places that were thought to be particularly vulnerable, 

but where we had done work along the way. Most of the homes 

there fared very well. 

However, the beaches and dunes that protected many towns were 

wiped away by the storm. Will the Corps expedite the construction 

of these projects so the coastal communities are protected in time 

for the hurricane season? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, under the supplemental, we are in the process of looking at the projects that we will restore to pre-storm conditions. We have about 16, I think, right now, that we are looking 

at doing that for. Hopefully that will be able to be accomplished before the next storm season. 
89 

General Bostick and I flew over the New Jersey coast the day 

after Superstorm Sandy. We saw proof of what you just said, the 

community of Avalon, which had a Corps of Engineers beach replenishment project, the homes there were undamaged. We went a 

mile up the coast that did not have a project, you could see the difference. I think that in looking at that and looking at also what 

we have to do, I think, in places like that, have to look at the 

projects as a system, a systems approach to what it is we are protecting and what damages we can do as a system throughout not 

only New Jersey but as a coastal system, not only for hurricane 

protection but these new kinds of storms, we are seeing surges in 

addition to hurricanes. So that is what we have to be able to put 

into our planning process and our evaluation of what kind of 

project is going to work or provide what kind of protection in the 

new kinds of storms that we are seeing. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. We had bad luck because we invited several Senators from other States to take a look and understand that 

it wouldn’t be unlikely that one of those States or several of them 

wouldn’t be affected the same way we were. Unfortunately, it was 

a helicopter trip down the coast, and the fog was so think we 

couldn’t take off. I didn’t arrange it, I promise you. 

Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. You are quite welcome. Thank you. 

We are going to excuse our panel. Madam Secretary, General, 

thank you both very, very much for your presence today, your responses and your willingness to respond further to questions that 

are being asked in writing and for your leadership. Good to see you 

both. Thank you. 

And as Secretary Darcy and General Bostick leave, we will welcome our second panel. 

Gentlemen, welcome. It is great to see one of you for the second 

time today, Secretary O’Mara, good to see you, and Mr. Johnson, 

Mr. Turner, Mr. Graves, we are happy that you could be with us 

today. 

I am going to take just a moment to introduce Secretary O’Mara, 

then turn the gavel over to Senator Vitter to introduce a couple of 

folks from his neck of the woods, then we will start the panel. I 

regret that I have a luncheon engagement that I am supposed to 

be at in about 5 minutes, so I am not going to be able to stay for 

nearly as long as I would like to. 

I have read your testimonies, and especially appreciate your testimony, Mr. Secretary. 

Collin O’Mara is the Secretary of Delaware’s Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, in my State. He is the 

chief steward of Delaware’s natural resources and leads our State’s 

efforts to improve air quality and public health to ensure clean 

water, remediate contaminated sites, reduce impacts from flooding 

and extreme weather events, expand recreational opportunities and 

restore wildlife and fisheries habitat. He has a lot going on, it is 

a great job. And he does a wonderful job of meeting those responsibilities. 

He also leads the State’s Division of Energy and Climate Change, 

where he works to secure cleaner, cheaper and more reliable 

sources of energy. Since joining the Administration, he has worked 
90 

to modernize Delaware’s energy sector, spearheaded a range of innovative outdoor recreation and conservation initiatives, and led 

the largest investment in environmental and water resources infrastructure in our State’s history. All these initiative are focused on 

preparing Delaware for current and emerging environmental and 

climate changes. 

When Governor Jack Markell appointed Secretary O’Mara in 

2009, he was the youngest State cabinet official in the Nation. I remember saying, Senator Vitter, when Jack Markell, the Governor, 

nominated Collin to serve, what is he doing nominating a guy 29 

years old? And somebody reminded me that Joe Biden was elected 

a U.S. Senator from Delaware at 29, and I was elected State treasurer at 29. So I said, oh, I think he is probably ready for those responsibilities. 

Collin, it is great to welcome you back to this hearing room. We 

have been here a number of times, and we are grateful you can do 

all those responsibilities, provide leadership on regional and national issues as well, and also somehow convince your bride to 

move to Delaware and to bring a little girl into the world about 1 

year ago this week. So for all that, we congratulate you and thank 

you for your stewardship and the great job you are doing. 

With that, I am going to yield to Senator Vitter, and he is going 

to run the show from here. 

Senator VITTER [presiding]. Thank you, sir, and I also want to 

welcome the Louisiana witnesses we have with us. 

Garret Graves is currently the Chair of the Coastal Protection 

and Restoration Authority of Louisiana, and Executive Assistant to 

the Governor for Coastal Activities. The CPRA was established 

after Hurricane Katrina as the State’s leading agency for hurricane 

protection, flood control and ecosystem restoration, as well as other 

community resiliency efforts. 

Garret’s efforts to restructure and streamline our coastal programs and agencies has resulted in increasing project output by 

more than 500 percent. The Authority currently oversees a $17 billion coastal resiliency hurricane protection and oil spill recovery 

program. Garret was also involved, and is, on an ongoing basis, on 

recovery from the BP disaster. Before his work in the State, he 

served many members up here very well, including myself, Ted 

Stevens, Bill Tauzin and John Breaux. 

Robert Turner is with us. Bob is a registered professional civil 

engineer with 30 years of experience in the field of engineering. He 

served as the regional director of the Southeast Louisiana Flood 

Control Authority East since October 2007. That is the local flood 

control authority, one of the two in the New Orleans area, that is 

very involved in all things coastal protection and hurricane protection in that area. Bob has extensive background in flood protection 

and public works, including serving as the executive director of 

other levee districts and similar organizations. He is a graduate of 

Louisiana Tech University and a member of the American Society 

of Civil Engineers and the American Concrete Institute. 

I also want to acknowledge and welcome Richard Johnson. Senator Boxer introduced Richard and alluded to him. Richard is Executive Director of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Authority. 
91 

Thanks to all of you, welcome and why don’t we go in turn, starting with Richard. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD M. JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY 

Mr. JOHNSON. Good afternoon, Ranking Member Vitter. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. My name is Rick Johnson, I am 

the Executive Director of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency. 

I would like to just summarize my written comments right now. 

First, we are very encouraged and appreciative of the bipartisan efforts and commitment to move WRDA this year. We are fortunate 

that Sacramento’s flood issues are being recognized by leaders like 

Chairman Boxer, Senator Feinstein and Congresswoman Doris 

Matsui. We are grateful for that strong support. 

In recent years, the Corps has reviewed its various civil works 

policies regarding flood protection. One of the more controversial 

issues emerging is the Corps’ implementation of policies relating to 

woody vegetation on levees. This is especially important in the central valley of California, where there is significant remaining vegetation adjacent to and sometimes on the levees. Our ongoing effort 

to strengthen and improve 42 miles of levees, protecting the 

Natomas Basin in North Sacramento, is an example of this. 

Recognizing the complications associated with strict compliance 

to the Corps’ vegetation policy, we developed a plan involving adjacent setback levees where they were feasible. That design was approved by the Corps. However, there was one section of levee where 

we had to propose a different design and sought a variance from 

the Corps which was not approved. Looking forward, we will face 

similar challenges in other parts of our system. 

The Corps’ concept of addressing the worst first risks will be important in this effort and elsewhere in the State. The concept is 

that the most at-risk areas and factors be given high priority for 

resolution, especially when funding is constrained. We believe a 

wise application of this worst-first concept is essential in successfully implementing the vegetation policies. We support Section 

2017 of the Chairman’s WRDA discussion draft, which addresses 

Corps’ policies on vegetation management. This is a positive step 

to assure a flexible and collaborative process, especially taking into 

account regional factors. 

Another important challenge facing the Corps is the notion of 

credit for work accomplished by State and local interest. State and 

local governments can often do advanced work on a project, thereby 

accelerating the schedule and lowering its cost, and should not be 

penalized for those efforts. 

I am pleased to say that the Corps has been supportive and reasonable in its negotiations with us on past projects. I will use the 

Natomas project again as an example. For this project, the Corps 

approved four applications granting credit under its Section 104 

authority from the 1986 WRDA. As a result, we have been able to 

complete reconstruction of the worst 18 of the 42 miles of levees, 

while the Corps completed their efforts on the chief’s report, thus 

allowing immediate risk reduction to more than 100,000 people. 
92 

Though our experience regarding credits was favorable, the 

Corps has recently revised its policies, increasing the challenge 

that non-Federal partners face in obtaining credit for their work. 

Facilitating non-Federal efforts and allowing flexibility should be 

addressed in WRDA. Sections 2008 through 2011 of the Chairman’s 

draft address various aspects of the Corps’ crediting policy, and we 

support the positive steps taken in these provisions. We especially 

are supportive of the language that addresses credits and access of 

required cost sharing amounts for a project. 

I would like to briefly address another provision in WRDA. Section 1002 is vital to the Corps’ water resources program and we 

commend the committee for its creative approach to authorizing 

projects. As the Chairman is well aware, we in Sacramento have 

a very strong interest in this provision. Along those lines, we offer 

our sincere appreciation to Senator Feinstein and to Chairman 

Boxer for recently introducing Senate Bill 197, the Natomas Basin 

Flood Protection Improvements Act of 2013. This legislation and 

Congresswoman Matsui’s bills, H.R. 135 and H.R. 136, are important acknowledgments of the flood control needs in Sacramento. 

In closing, Senator Vitter, thank you for allowing me to appear 

before you today. We also appreciate the professionalism and courtesy of your respective staffs. I will be happy to respond to any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 

Senator VITTER. Thank you very much, Rick. 

Now, Bob Turner. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD A. TURNER, P.E., CFM, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA FLOOD PROTECTION AUTHORITY 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Ranking Member Vitter. 

For 7 years, our flood authority has been fully engaged with the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority during the planning, design and 

construction of the Hurricane and Storm Risk Reduction System 

for the metropolitan New Orleans area. So today I would like to 

share with you some observations and recommendations from the 

perspective of a local levee owner who has been in the trenches 

working with the Corps throughout this historical civil works 

project. 

There are clear indications that in the years since Katrina, the 

Corps has made an effort to improve its relations with the non-Federal sponsors through a partnering process. There can be no doubt 

that significant progress has been made. But in our opinion, there 

is room for additional improvement, particularly when it comes to 

including the non-Federal sponsor in critical portions of the work. 

It is hard to feel like a valued team member when Corps policy 

excludes you from participating in a project’s alternative evaluation 

process which is conducted during the early planning phases of the 

design work. Decisions made in the AEP set the stage for almost 

everything else that follows. So we believe that policies and procedures should be modified to not only allow, but encourage, non-Federal sponsor participation in all project AEPs. 

It is hard to feel much like a valued partner when Corps policy 

prohibits you from examining details of negotiated final fixed prices 

for early contractor involvement contracts, even though the nonFederal sponsor must pay 35 percent of that final negotiated price. 

So again, we think Corps policy needs to be adjusted here. 

The independent external peer review process that was a result 

of language in WRDA 2007 I think needs some additional work. 

Much of the value of an IEPR is lost if the reviewer’s comments 

on designs are not resolved before the designs are sent to the field 

for construction. And to assure independence, the Corps should revise existing policy to clearly define the role of a non-Federal sponsor in the IEPR process. The non-Federal sponsor should have the 

same access to the review process and the review panel members 

as the Corps. 

Requirements placed upon the non-Federal for documenting and 

applying for credit for a work in-kind are extremely complex and 

very confusing. We recommend that the Corps develop a single document or guide for the non-Federal sponsor to guide us in the collection and presentation of the data necessary to support in-kind 

credits. The document should clearly define what is and is not creditable and include examples of acceptable submittal packages and 

suggested templates for use in data collection and presentation. 

My authority supports the development of a national levee safety 

standard. The development and use of levee safety standards will 

ultimately provide a means to measure the level of risk reduction 
105 

provided by existing levee systems and improve the reliability of future levee projects and help communicate the flood risk for those 

living behind levees. But two major factors must be considered as 

national standards are developed. 

First, the standards must be well-founded in the best available 

science and informed by input from levee owners and operators and 

other Federal and non-Federal stakeholders. Second, there must be 

a clear recognition that a one size fits all approach is inappropriate. For example, some criteria established for levees protecting 

densely populated urban areas should be quite different from criteria used for levees protecting low density rural areas. Standards 

should be developed with this in mind and should be structured to 

allow for decisions regarding the selection of project criteria to be 

informed by risk. 

Rising sea levels, coastal erosion and areal subsidence are continuing to cause rapid loss of our coastal wetlands and barrier islands in Louisiana. We believe that compensatory mitigation is 

necessary when there are unavoidable impacts to wetlands, even 

when those impacts result from levee owners acting to fulfill their 

mission. But 18 months ago, the New Orleans District adopted a 

new method for determining compensatory mitigation called the 

Modified Charleston Method. It appears that in its current form 

the Modified Charleston Method will in some cases greatly increase 

the cost to mitigate for unavoidable wetland impacts associated 

with flood risk production projects. 

So we would recommend that the New Orleans District revisit 

and review the ratios and calculations used in that method in coordination with the local stakeholders to confirm that they are correct and appropriate for use along the Louisiana coast, and that 

they properly take into account any positive impact such flood protection projects might have in prolonging the existence of wetlands 

that would otherwise quickly disappear due to exposure to wave 

and storm surge. 

In closing, on behalf of myself and the Board of Commissioners 

of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority—East, I 

would like to thank you once again for the opportunity to come 

here and testify before you. We hope the information provided will 

be helpful in your work and we look forward to answering any 

questions you may have and assisting the committee in any way 

that you might find helpful. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Turner follows:] 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 

Senator VITTER. Thank you very much, Bob. 

Now, Collin O’Mara. 

STATEMENT OF COLLIN O’MARA, SECRETARY, DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 

Mr. O’MARA. Thank you, Ranking Member Vitter. I would like to 

thank Senator Carper also for having me here today. 

I would like to begin by thanking the committee for the incredible support they have provided to coastal States like Delaware 

over the past several years. The 3 million cubic yards of sand that 

was put onto our beaches just prior to Hurricane Sandy, in the 12 

months before it, prevented hundreds of millions of dollars worth 

of damage for a very small fraction of that price. So I just want 

to thank this entire committee, particularly some folks from the 

delegations in New York, New Jersey and Delaware and Maryland 

that have been working closely on storm recovery. 

For Delaware, the work that the Army Corps performed to improve resiliency, to improve navigation, to improve wildlife habitat, 

is absolutely critical. Like many States, we have found at times 

working with the Corps and their policies can be challenging. We 

have had our battles over permits and projects. But overall, I can 

say with confidence that the Corps is an extremely important partner for our small State. 

It has never been more important for the Army Corps to fulfill 

its mission efficiently and cost effectively as we face more extreme 

weather, more regular flooding, sea level rise. It is absolutely critical to improve the resiliency of at-risk communities and vulnerable 

natural resources. The provisions on extreme weather preparedness 

drafted by Chairman Boxer are an absolutely key component of 

this, and we fully support them in Delaware. 

We believe that modernizing the Corps’ business model and rethinking the current way that we approach projects on an individual basis would both improve product outcomes but also significantly reduce project costs. This includes more flexibility to work 

with State and local governments, as my colleagues have mentioned, better coordination with other Federal agencies, especially 

FEMA, the Fish and Wildlife Service and even EPA on infrastructure projects, and much broader thinking that breaks down the 

silos within the Corps and links projects and corporate benefits of 

multiple business lines. 

There are many ways we can accomplish this. For example, 

many of my colleagues in Delaware and across the region have supported a proposal to develop a North Atlantic Coastal Marine Management Plan. This would allow the Army Corps’ entire North Atlantic Division to work with States to develop an integrated management plan that is essential for ecosystem needs in Delaware 

and along our neighboring States. Such an approach acknowledges 

that our coast and coastal waters operate as a system and should 

be treated like one when prioritizing projects. 

A similar systems-based approach could also help the Corps 

maximize benefits between business lines. Right now, the Army 

Corps has three separate lines of business: navigation, flood and 

coastal storm damage reduction and environmental enhancement. 
115 

The Congress has traditionally authorized these projects individually and then appropriated funding to these three separate lines 

individually as well. 

With growing needs and diminishing resources, it is absolutely 

critical that we break down these silos between these business 

lines to more formally and strategically connect navigation and 

flood mitigation and habitation restoration projects, as well as 

break down the divisions between different levels of government. 

We recommend for the committee to consider the formal adoption 

of an approach called regional sediment management. Most States 

along the east coast have multiple projects going on in the same 

region. You might have an inlet and a harbor that needs to be 

dredged, a protective beach or dune system that needs additional 

nourishment work, an adjacent salt marsh for wildlife habitat that 

is starved of sediment and that is drowning. 

Each of these elements acts as a system with the sand, silt and 

sediment moving from one area into another based on natural processes. Under current policies and practices, and the stove-piped 

funding, the Corps could receive separate funding to maintain the 

channel, to nourish the beach or restore the coastal wetland, but 

these projects would each be managed separately. 

Now, not only would a systems-based approach improve the management of each of these projects, but it would lower the price tag 

significantly. Individually, for example, these projects might cost $5 

million each for a small State like Delaware and maybe $15 million 

total if you did all three projects. But collectively, if you did them 

together, you might be able to safe half that amount of money by 

just avoiding the mobilization costs for dredging alone. 

The Corps has already implemented some of these projects in 

other places. But too often, the least-cost mandate that they have 

prevents this type of efficiency, unless the authorization and the 

appropriations for multiple projects happen to align perfectly, 

which rarely happens. 

Too often, clean and safe dredged material is treated like a waste 

byproduct and is shipped overboard or sequestered into a contained 

disposal facility. We really need to adopt a systems-based approach 

that treats this clean sediment like the valuable resource that it is, 

and then use it where it is absolutely most valuable. 

With a few changes in Corps authorization, we believe it is possible to accomplish exactly this and save millions of dollars. We are 

extremely grateful to Senator Carper for his efforts in this area, 

and we encourage the committee to work with him to improve regional sediment management practices. We respectfully recommend 

five things. One, provide the authority to prioritize regional sediment management projects within WRDA, including recognizing 

and rewarding projects that have these multiple benefits that cross 

business lines. 

Second, formally recognize the link between storm damage mitigation projects, environmental enhancement projects and navigation projects, and the value of sediment in completing all three. 

Third, continue making progress toward modernizing the Corps’ 

approach to fulfilling their mission, and by encouraging systems 

management approaches rather than the current project by project, 

line by line approach. 
116 

Fourth, expand the definition of the least-cost mandate for navigation projects to include a full benefit analysis for regional sediment management projects, to provide a true and clear picture of 

what is gained by the Corps’ work. And fifth, provide greater discretion to the Secretary to expand the boundaries of authorized 

projects if greater cost efficiencies are possible. 

We are extremely grateful for the tireless work of this committee 

to improve the resiliency of our coastal assets and we look forward 

to working with you as you consider WRDA reauthorization in the 

year ahead. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Mara follows:] 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 

Senator VITTER. Thank you very much, Collin. I am particularly 

glad you are here, so that Garret now realizes that he is old. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator VITTER. Garret Graves. 

STATEMENT OF GARRET GRAVES, CHAIR, COASTAL 

PROTECTION AND RESTORATION AUTHORITY OF LOUISIANA 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Senator, I appreciate that. 

Senator, I want to ask if a corrected version of my testimony 

could be submitted for the record. 

Senator VITTER. Absolutely. 

Mr. GRAVES. Senator, I am Garret Graves with the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana. I want to thank 

you for the opportunity to be here today. 

I want to commend the committee, as other folks have said, for 

working in a bipartisan manner on a number of important issues, 

including vegetation policy, levee safety, 902 limits and of course, 

crediting. But also I want to ask you to take a step back and remember the critical role that the WRDA bill and natural Water resources play in our day to day lives. 

Whether it is the wetlands and ecological productivity, coastal 

Louisiana being one of the most productive estuaries on the North 

American continent, whether it is the buffer role that it plays. The 

Senator was here from Arkansas earlier. Louisiana is the buffer for 

Arkansas in regard to hurricane storm surge. And our buffer is 

those wetlands. And those wetland are being lost at an extraordinary rate. 

In fact, over the last several decades, we have lost approximately 

1,900 square miles of those wetlands, which is equivalent to Senator Whitehouse’s entire State, and virtually the land area of the 

State of Delaware, with few efforts by the Federal Government to 

actually restore those wetlands. And of course, the seafood productivity associated with it, which makes Louisiana the top producer 

of commercial seafood in the continental United States. 

On the navigation side, it is crystal clear that the most efficient 

means of transportation from an ecological or an economic perspective is maritime shipping. The Mississippi River is America’s commerce superhighway. It provides maritime commerce for 31 States, 

and again, the most efficient means of transportation. 

On the flood control side, it is absolutely fundamental, things 

like roads, hospitals, schools are very, very important. But when 

you are trapped in your attic and your house is underwater, those 

things become a lower priority. So it is absolutely fundamental that 

flood control be prioritized. 

Senator, the current project process for water resources, by our 

estimation, but by the time you do a study, have it authorized, you 

get new start funding, you have your reconnaissance, your feasibility, your chief support, your second authorization, and then your 

new start construction funding. Our estimate is that that process 

takes approximately 40 years from conception to completion of a 

project. 

In Louisiana, with the rate of land loss we are experiencing, with 

the vulnerability of many of our communities, as we recently saw 

in the northeast with Hurricane Sandy, our communities don’t 
127 

have that kind of time. They don’t have 40 years to be protected 

and to have that type of fundamental importance. 

In Louisiana, we have two projects that are indicative of that 

process. One of them is Morganza to the Gulf, that you noted. We 

have been studying that project for 21 years, have spent $72 million without putting a shovel in the ground. In this era of budget 

challenges, I don’t know how behavior like that can be allowed to 

continue. 

In regard to the Louisiana Coastal Area program, since about 1995 or 1996, the Corps of Engineers has spent $100 million without building an acre of wetlands. I will say it again. We are losing 

up to 20, 25 square miles of wetlands per year. Much of that, the 

majority of that loss is the result of Corps of Engineers actions. 

As you noted earlier with mitigation policies, if that were a private citizen, if it were the State of Louisiana government, they 

would be required to mitigate for those actions. The Corps is taking 

little to no action. 

In addition, as Secretary O’Mara noted, the inflexibility or the 

rigidness associated with these Corps projects is very challenging. 

It actually prevents adaptive management and makes us in many 

cases implement lower efficacy projects because of the need to go 

back through the post-authorization change process to come back 

and wait for another WRDA bill, we give up and we say, look, we 

are just going to go implement a less efficient project. It is backward, and it is not how any other project process in the Federal 

Government is done. 

If this process is so sacrosanct, if it makes so much sense, if it 

is perfect, then let’s use it for everything else. And I assure you 

that the Federal Government would be shut down very quickly if 

that were to occur. 

Today in Louisiana we have areas that are vulnerable, just as 

vulnerable as they were before Hurricane Katrina. We are losing 

approximately a football field of wetlands every hour in our State. 

The Corps of Engineers is having an extraordinary challenge maintaining navigation channels in Louisiana, including the Mississippi 

River, which is the most important navigation channel in this Nation in regard to the volume of hundreds and millions, billions of 

dollars in global commerce that traverses that river. 

We strongly support efforts by you, Senator, and other members 

of the committee, to dedicate the harbor maintenance tax to ensure 

that those channels can be maintained and to also use those funds 

for beneficial use dredged materials, as Secretary O’Mara noted. 

Senator, one of the other issues that I think is important to address is the accountability that you noted with the Corps of Engineers. In many Federal laws, including WRDA 2007, the Corps was 

directed, they shall perform certain actions by certain dates. The 

State of Louisiana, in many cases, depended upon those schedules. 

The Corps has had absolutely no accountability. In fact, since Hurricane Katrina, they have missed every single statutory deadline in 

WRDA or in appropriations laws, which total somewhere around 15 

or 17 different deadlines, again, with no accountability, therefore 

disrupting our schedules and our budgets in the State of Louisiana. 

As Mr. Turner noted, the role of partnership of the non-Federal 

sponsors is often relegated to a bystander. Yet we are responsible 
128 

for operations, maintenance, repair and rehabilitation and replacement of many of these projects, in fact, most of these projects. And 

we are forced to pay, or we do pay a most share on the construction 

of the projects. But again, largely relegated to a bystander status. 

The last comment I want to make, Senator, this current project 

process and the tens of billions of dollars in backlogs in Corps 

projects, it leads folks in our States to a false assumption that 

these projects are going to be built. People have to make decisions 

on their homes, on their businesses, on their families. If there is 

a belief that the Morganza to the Gulf hurricane protection project 

is going to be built, people make decisions based upon that. And 

this whole situation of being in limbo I believe is even more dangerous than just telling folks, you are not getting a project. And 

this entire process needs to be expedited. 

As you have said many times, Senator, the dollars are going to 

be spent, and they can be spent proactively with a much lower 

rate, or they can be spent exponentially more dollars coming in 

after the hurricanes and responding to those disasters in 2005, 

$150 billion and so far with Hurricane Sandy an estimated $60 billion. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. I 

would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Graves follows:] 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Garret. 

I have a few questions and then we will wrap up. Garret, you 

correctly noted that the normal Corps project authorization and 

construction process is the most cumbersome, the most multi-layered of any model I know of, Federal Government, any other type 

of entity. 

To all of you, what would be an alternative model, from government or from any other appropriate sector, to use instead? That is 

No. 1. No. 2, specifically, react to this thought because Senator Bill 

Nelson and I have been working on it, which is, for appropriate 

Corps projects, to allow the State and/or local sponsor, non-Federal 

sponsor, to be the lead agency, to be the project manager, if you 

will, rather than the Corps, much as we do almost always with 

highway projects. We have a Federal Highway Administration. It 

is not the lead agency or the project manager for Federal highway 

projects. The State DOT or a local entity is. If anybody wants to 

respond. 

Mr. GRAVES. Senator, I would just quickly say that I think the 

Federal Highway Administration model that you noted, and in fact, 

this committee has jurisdiction over, is a perfect example of an alternative approach that yields much greater efficiencies in terms of 

schedules and dollars. I have reviewed draft legislation and I think 

the approach that you and Senator Nelson are working on, it is extraordinary, it is exactly what needs to happen and will result in 

saving lives and saving millions of dollars for this Nation. 

I also want to make note, Senator, even alternative Corps project 

implementation processes, like currently being put in place in Hurricane Sandy, and also after Hurricane Katrina, the Corps of Engineers actually did a pretty good job under the alternative process. 

But the current one is clearly broken. 

Senator VITTER. Anyone else? 

Mr. O’MARA. I would like to agree with my colleague, because I 

think Mr. Graves is exactly right. Some existing authorities that 

we have been able to relax a little bit after some of these storms 

to get projects on the ground quickly have worked. We have seen 

some good projects come out of it. This process that I am talking 

about, this regional sediment management idea, we have been 

working very closely with our shoreline administrator, Tony Pratt, 

who is sitting behind me. This idea of trying to look at the region 

and identifying multiple needed at the same time, run the projects 

together and move toward more of a design-build type of approach 

like we used for all kinds of local projects, can make a lot of sense. 

The analysis is extremely important, but if it leads to paralysis 

and avoids putting a project on the ground, as Mr. Graves said, 

that is actually impacting the local residents’ ability to make decisions. 

Then the idea of the lead agency, it is an interesting idea. We 

are finding ourselves more and more having to take that kind of 

responsibility for navigation projects as secondary waterways in 

Delaware that have traditionally been under the Corps’ auspices, 

there is no funding for those projects, but yet there are still local 

needs. So I think there is a conversation to be had there on the 

transportation ideas are interesting. I think we do have the ability 

to deliver projects very quickly at the local level, if we had some 
140 

Federal support, Federal permits, things like that. So I appreciate 

the suggestions. 

Senator VITTER. Great. Thank you. Anyone else? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would just like to add, over the years, the Corps 

has put in so many checks and balances in their process that they 

have kind of added up and I believe added to the time and process. 

We have reached a point where we are making all of our decisions 

based on a benefit cost economic decision instead of also including 

other factors that need to be involved. 

I think if we were to reduce the amount of time, just nailing 

down all the little details on the benefit cost ratio and include 

other things like loss of life, other factors that are very important 

in there, that we should be able to reduce that time in the process 

and reach conclusions quicker, then make those decisions and move 

forward. 

Senator VITTER. Great. Bob. 

Mr. TURNER. I would like to also strongly agree with the others 

that have spoken about this. I really like the idea of using that 

transportation model for a number of reasons, one of which is it 

brings a lot of focus to the flood control work projects. In particular 

it makes it clear that they are part of our infrastructure and perhaps would give us a better way to dealing with the long-term operations and maintenance of those types of things. 

Senator VITTER. Great. Several of you also talked about wetlands 

mitigation, huge challenge for us in Louisiana, particularly with 

this new Modified Charleston Method. Do you think it is appropriate that when you all are building a flood control or wetlands 

protection project, you don’t get any credit for that, you essentially 

have exactly the same burden as, say, a private developer, paving 

over and creating a huge new parking lot for a shopping center? 

Do you think you should get any credit for the fact that your 

project is protecting against flooding and preserving valuable wetlands, which clearly just won’t be there but for doing this work? 

Mr. TURNER. I would like to address that. We have jurisdictional 

authority over several levee districts that are in the coastal area 

and border on the coast. Some of those districts are losing wetlands 

at an alarming rate, which will impact the new flood protection 

system that we have in the New Orleans area and is going to, over 

time, as those wetlands degrade, the level of protection that they 

are providing today will not be there. 

So I think we all recognize that we have to do something to protect Louisiana’s coast. But we also have to protect the people that 

live there. I think it is a matter of setting priorities, when we look 

at the tradeoffs between building flood control projects and dealing 

with some of these issues of coastal protection and restoration. 

I think, and I have seen things that have been done that I believe will work to accomplish both, where we can actually build 

flood control projects and, at the same time, protect those really 

vulnerable areas of our coast that, without a doubt, in 10 years will 

not be here unless we do something to provide some type of barrier 

against the storms that come in on a regular basis, and just the 

normal everyday wave action. 

So there is feeling among many of the coastal levee districts that 

not enough emphasis is given to the value of food control projects 
141 

in that regard, as far as being able to protect wetlands. I think that 

is one of the things that the Corps should take a look at when they 

go back and look at the Modified Charleston Method, to make sure 

they can capture that when they determine what exactly needs to 

be done in order to mitigate for those unavoidable impacts. 

Senator VITTER. Anybody else? 

Mr. GRAVES. Senator, I think that Secretary O’Mara noted the 

role of the various types of projects. I think that wetlands certainly 

play an important role and shouldn’t be discounted. But at the 

same time, it is fascinating to see how important wetlands are to 

the Corps of Engineers in their regulatory program, yet on their 

operations and maintenance they cause literally a dozen square 

miles per year in loss and they don’t do anything about it. So the 

hypocrisy here is rather extraordinary. 

I do think that there are better ways to approach this, perhaps 

more holistically. There are a number of ecosystem restoration 

projects that are designed to restore wetlands and I think that perhaps looking at more of a polling approach of resources could be a 

much more efficient model, while resulting in lower costs to the 

Federal Government and greater overall ecological productivity. 

Senator VITTER. To follow up on that, shouldn’t there be some 

way, at least for coastal parishes or counties, to be able to put mitigation requirements on the coast, to be able to fund those projects 

you are describing, which at least in the case of Louisiana are 

keyed up and ready to go? Unfortunately, under the present system, those two worlds hardly ever meet. There are enormous mitigation requirements for everything you do in South Louisiana. 

But rarely, if ever, does it have any impact on the leading true 

wetland crisis in Louisiana, which is a vanishing coastline. There 

must be a way to marry those two. 

Mr. GARRET. Again, it is great to have a good prop here, Secretary O’Mara, who by the way confided in me that he has had 

multiple cosmetic surgeries and he is really 82. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GARRET. He talked about breaking down these stove pipes 

between the various programs. This is a perfect example. We actually have situations where the Corps disposes of sediment through 

their dredging program and then demobilizes the dredge. We hire 

a second dredging company to come pick up and move the exact 

same sediment for restoration projects. 

Mr. O’MARA. We completely echo the same comment. We have 

even had the same experience that Louisiana has had up until fairly recently. Obviously we have had subsidence issues and erosion 

and more intense coastal storms. But I think more and more local 

residents are seeing the value of these ecological restoration 

projects as that front line of defense. 

There are some studies out there that if we just have a halfmeter of sea level rise over the next century, because there is 11 

percent of the land mass in the State of Delaware. So this idea of 

having additional sediment coming into these systems, and Garret 

is exactly right, there are these cases where we are trying to restore coastal impoundments, put additional sediment in, and it is 

the same sediment that right now would go to a disposal facility 

and have no value at all, treated like a landfill, basically. 
142 

So if there was additional authority, a lot of times the cost, the 

additional cost to have that sediment used to protect the wetland 

might be maybe 10 percent of the original project cost. But because 

it doesn’t meet that least-cost alternative, it will either go overboard or into the containment facilities. So if there is any flexibility 

provided through WRDA to let folks make that academic argument, 

because you can avoid the entire other project, which needs mobilization and permits and everything else. We would save millions of 

dollars, easily, every year, in pretty much every State that has this 

kind of work done. 

Senator VITTER. Great. 

I want to thank all of you again, not just for your testimony, but 

for your ongoing work. We will depend on your input and insights 

as we continue to put together the next WRDA. 

Thank you very, very much. With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:04 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:] 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 

Æ