U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

56–018 PDF 2010

PROPOSALS FOR A WATER 

RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 

2010, PART II 

(111–102) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

April 15, 2010 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

VACANCY 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland Vice Chair 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

BOB FILNER, California 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

JOHN GARAMENIDI, California 

VACANCY 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

VACANCY 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Bendick, Robert, Director, U.S. Government Relations, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia ................................................................................... 8 

Brown, Theodore, Chief of Planning and Policy, United States Army Corps 

of Engineers, Washington, D.C. .......................................................................... 8 

Fitzgerald, Steve, PE, Chief Engineer, Harris County Flood Control District, 

Houston, Texas ..................................................................................................... 8 

Fordham, Kirk, Chief Executive Officer, Everglades Foundation, Palmetto 

Bay, Florida .......................................................................................................... 8 

Holliday, Barry, Executive Director, Dredging Contractors Of America, Washington, D.C. ........................................................................................................... 8 

Little, Stephen, President, Crounse Corporation, Paducah, Kentucky ............... 8 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, a Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri ....................................................................................................................... 83

Larsen, Hon. Rick, a Represenative in Congress from the State of Washington .................................................................................................................... 84 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona 85 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Bendick, Robert ........................................................................................................ 86 

Brown, Theodore ...................................................................................................... 96 

Fitzgerald, Steve ...................................................................................................... 100 

Fordham, Kirk ......................................................................................................... 107 

Holliday, Barry ........................................................................................................ 110 

Little, Stephen ......................................................................................................... 114 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Brown, Theodore, Chief of Planning and Policy, United States Army Corps 

of Engineers, Washington, D.C.: .........................................................................

Response to request for information from Hon. Boozman, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arkansas .......................................... 58 

Response to request for information from Hon. Garamendi, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ............................. 76 

Response to request for information from Hon. Oberstar, a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota ........................................ 63 

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas: ................................................................................................................

American Rivers, Andrew Fahlund, Senior Vice President for Conservation, letter to the Subcommittee .............................................................. 3 

Water Resources Coalition, written testimony ........................................... 5 

Little, Stephen, President, Crounse Corporation, Paducah, Kentucky: ..............

‘‘Inland Waterways Users Board 23rd Annual Report to the Secretary 

of the Army and the United States Congress’’ ........................................ 18 

Response to request for information from Hon. Baird, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Washington ............................................. 52 

ADDITION FOR THE RECORD 

Association of State Floodplan Managers, Inc., Larry A. Larson, Executive 

Director, written testimony ................................................................................. 130 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 56018.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 56018.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 56018.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 56018.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 56018.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 56018.006
(1) 

HEARING ON PROPOSALS FOR A WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2010, 

PART II 

Thursday, April 15, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eddie Bernice 

Johnson [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. JOHNSON. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment will come to order. 

Today, our Subcommittee continues working toward the creation 

of a Water Resources Development Act of 2010. This bill, last enacted in 2007, is most productive when it is passed every two 

years. Adhering to this schedule allows Congress to evaluate and 

modify Army Corps of Engineers projects and policy in a timely 

manner. 

As you know, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure began crafting a Water Resources Development Act last year 

to consider any project requests that have arisen since 2007. It is 

crucial that we maintain a regular schedule by passing a bill this 

year. Currently, the Committee is evaluating over 2,200 project requests from both Democratic and Republican Members of Congress 

for consideration in this year’s bill. 

I remain committed to this Committee’s tradition of transparency 

as was evident in the formulation of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. I expect to uphold that tradition through a similar process in the formulation of a new water resources bill and 

will work to ensure public disclosure of all projects that are included in the upcoming bill. I look forward to continuing to work 

with the Ranking Member, Mr. Boozman, on this legislation. 

Historically, water resources bills have been drafted and debated 

in a cordial and bipartisan manner. These flood control, navigation, 

environmental restoration, and other water related projects are 

critically important to our constituents, our local economies, and 

the American people’s lives and livelihoods. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to hear from various interest 

groups on their ideas for any policy considerations that they would 

like us to take into account when drafting the bill. I look forward 

2 

to hearing the thoughts and ideas that our witnesses will be putting forward today. 

Additionally, let me say that this Committee’s oversight hearings 

regarding implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act have demonstrated that the Army Corps of Engineers is 

a crucial entity that is capable of driving economic and environmental success in our Country. The sooner we advance legislation 

directing and guiding them into the future, the better. 

I now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Boozman, for any comments you have. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think, in the interest 

of time, I will have a statement that we are going to put into the 

record, but I really appreciate the Chair having this very important 

Committee hearing. The infrastructure of our Nation’s water 

projects is so important, and this is something that needs to be discussed and we need to figure out how we can move forward and 

address the challenges that we have, not only in the new infrastructure that we need to create, but also in the big picture of all 

of this, maintaining what we have. 

So, again, like I said, I look forward to the testimony today and 

getting your input. We appreciate your being here, and hopefully 

we can have a good discussion today and really figure out how we 

can go forward and, again, continue to work on improving the Nation’s waterways and all of the projects that are involved as we discuss the WRDA bill. 

So thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Before we go to opening statements and to the witnesses, I ask 

unanimous consent that the statements from American Rivers and 

Water Resources Coalition be entered into the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

3 


Insert offset folio 7 here 56018.007
4 


Insert offset folio 8 here 56018.008
5 


Insert offset folio 9 here 56018.009
6 


Insert offset folio 10 here 56018.010
7 

Ms. JOHNSON. Congressman Brown? 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Madam Chair and 

Ranking Member Boozman, for holding this hearing today. I applaud your leadership in moving forward with the efforts to get 

Congress back on track and regularly passing a WRDA bill. I look 

forward to working with my colleagues as we develop this critical 

piece of legislation. 

Unfortunately, most of the projects authorized in 2007 WRDA remain unfunded due to lack of appropriations. I do not fault my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee; I know they have done 

their best to allocate any available funding towards water resource 

projects. However, it is hard not to blame those who submit budgets that cut the core construction account by $341 million, or almost 17 percent, and the investigative account by $56 million, or 

35 percent. 

I applaud the Administration for making a commitment to fiscal 

responsibility. For far too long both Republicans and Democrats 

have forsaken our fiscal duties. However, it appears that in the Administration’s effort to rediscover fiscal order, we have lost our priorities. Just as we cannot leave a monetary debt to our children, 

we also cannot leave an infrastructure debt to future generations. 

I hope that as we write the next WRDA bill, the Administration 

does not continue this adversarial relationship with the Corps of 

Engineers and, instead, collaborates with us on a WRDA bill that 

balances fiscal restraints and funding for projects that provide an 

economic benefit. 

I also hope to collaborate with the Administration on the update 

of the principles and guidelines. I am concerned that the Administration’s draft principles forces the Corps to recommend a nonstructural alternative, regardless if the nonstructural option actually accomplishes the goals of the project. How does the Administration plan to rectify this nonstructural bias with the need to conduct important projects such as harbor deepening? This is important to my district because South Carolina is dependent upon the 

Port of Charleston. This resource is responsible for $44.8 billion in 

total economic output and over 260,000 jobs across our State. 

A key component in the Port of Charleston’s success is its harbor 

depth. However, even its 45-foot depth is only able to accommodate 

deep draft ships under the most optimal conditions. This will have 

a negative impact on South Carolina’s economy, as these larger 

ships are set to dominate world trade routes. 

I hope that Mr. Brown from the Corps of Engineers will explain 

to the Committee how the update to the principles and guidelines 

will not encumber projects such as the Charleston Harbor upgrade 

during his testimony. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

We will now move to our witnesses. We have the following witnesses present today: 

Mr. Theodore Brown, the Chief of Planning and Policy of the 

United States Army Corps of Engineers in Washington; Mr. Steve 

Fitzgerald, the Chief Engineer of Harris County Flood Control, 

Houston, Texas; Mr. Robert Bendick, Director of U.S. Government 

Relations of The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia; Mr. 

8 

Barry Holliday, Executive Director of the Dredging Contractors of 

America, in Washington; Mr. Kirk Fordham, Chief Executive Officer of the Everglades Foundation, Palmetto Bay, Florida; Mr. Stephen Little, President of Crounse Corporation, Paducah, Kentucky. 

I will now recognize you in the order that I called your names, 

and we will start with Mr. Theodore Brown. 

TESTIMONY OF THEODORE BROWN, CHIEF OF PLANNING AND 

POLICY, UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, 

WASHINGTON, D.C.; STEVE FITZGERALD, PE, CHIEF ENGINEER, HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, HOUSTON, TEXAS; ROBERT BENDICK, DIRECTOR, U.S. GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA; BARRY HOLLIDAY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

DREDGING CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, WASHINGTON, D.C.; 

KIRK FORDHAM, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, EVERGLADES 

FOUNDATION, PALMETTO BAY, FLORIDA; AND STEPHEN LITTLE, PRESIDENT, CROUNSE CORPORATION, PADUCAH, KENTUCKY 

Mr. BROWN. Madam Chair, distinguished Members of the Committee, I am Theodore Brown, Chief of Planning and Policy Division, and I am honored to be testifying before you today. My testimony will briefly describe three proposed projects that have received favorable completion of Executive Branch review since the 

enactment of WRDA 2007. These proposals include Topeka Flood 

Risk Management Project, the Mississippi Coastal Improvement 

Program, and the West Onslow Beach Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction Project, all falling within the major mission 

areas of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which are commercial 

navigation, flood and storm damage risk reduction, and aquatic 

ecosystem restoration, and all will provide net benefits to the Nation. 

Also, I will address two other proposed projects that have reports 

to the Chief of Engineers but are still under review. 

First, my testimony covers the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet 

Deep Draft Deauthorization Project that has favorably been completed Executive Branch review and has been implemented. In January 2008, the Chief of Engineers signed a report on deauthorization of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, known as MRGO, deep 

draft navigation in Louisiana. 

The report is a final response to the authority provided in the 

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, for the 

Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery 2006 and Section 

4304 of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act 2007. Public Law 

109-234 authorized a comprehensive plan at full Federal expense 

to deauthorize deep draft navigation on the MRGO extending from 

the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Public Law 

110-28 directed accelerated completion of the final report of the 

Chief of Engineers. Construction to close the MRGO was completed 

in July 2009. 

Topeka Flood Risk Management Project. In August 2009, the 

Chief of Engineers signed a report on flood risk management improvements on the Kansas River in the vicinity of Topeka, Kansas. 

9 

The report is in response to the authority contained under Section 

216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970. 

The report recommends modifications to four existing levee units, 

as follows: the South Topeka Unit, a control berm and modifications to the Kansas Avenue Pump Station and three manholes, and 

replacement of 2,000 linear feet of floodwall; for the Oakland Unit, 

a control berm, a stability berm, and pump station modifications; 

North Topeka Unit, a control berm, a series of pump relief wells, 

and the removal of an unused pump station; for the Waterworks 

Unit, a stability berm. 

The levee improvements will provide greater than 90 percent reliability against damages from the base flood, which has a 1 percent chance of occurrence in any year, formerly known as the 100- 

year flood. Based on October 2008 price levels, the estimated first 

cost of the project is about $21.2 million and will be shared 65 percent Federal and 35 percent non-Federal. At a 4.625 percent discount rate, the benefit-cost ratio is 13.2 to 1. 

Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program. In September 2009, 

the Chief of Engineers signed a report on comprehensive water resources improvements associated with hurricane and storm damage 

reduction, flood damage reduction, and ecosystem restoration in the 

three coastal counties of Mississippi. The report is in response to 

the authority under the Department of Defense Appropriation Act. 

The comprehensive Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program, 

known as MsCIP, is a systemwide approach linking structural and 

nonstructural risk reduction appropriates and environmental restoration features. To address the most critical needs, the report recommends 12 near-term elements which would restore over 3,000 

acres of coastal forest and wetlands, restore about 30 miles of 

beach and dunes, and flood proof or acquire about 2,000 tracks 

within the 100-year floodplain. Based on October 2008 price levels, 

the estimated first cost of the project is just over $1 billion, to be 

cost shared 65 percent Federal and 35 percent non-Federal. However, in Public Law 111-32, the Supplemental Appropriations Act 

for 2009, Congress appropriated all the funds for the barrier island 

element in the amount of $439 million at Federal expense. 

West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet, Topsail Beach. In September 2009, the Chief of Engineers signed a report on hurricane 

and storm damage reduction along a five mile reach of Atlantic 

Ocean shoreline at Topsail Beach, North Carolina. This report is a 

final response to the Energy and Water Development Act of Fiscal 

Year 2001, which included funds for a General Reevaluation Report 

for West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet, Topsail Beach, Shore 

Protection Project and the remaining shoreline at Topsail Beach. 

The Report recommends a locally preferred 26,200-foot long dune 

and a berm system including a dune three feet lower than the National Economic Development Plan and extends 400 feet southwest 

to include additional properties that are vulnerable to coastal 

storm damage. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 

Works approved a policy exception in May 2008 allowing the Corps 

to recommend the locally preferred project. The 400-foot extension 

costs an additional $320,000 and would be funded entirely by the 

non-Federal sponsor. 

10 

Based upon October 2008 price levels, the initial cost of the recommended project is $42.6 million, to be cost shared 65 percent 

Federal and 35 percent non-Federal. It also includes 50 years of 

periodic nourishment to be shared equally at $113.9 million based 

on October 2008 price levels. At a 4.625 percent discount rate, the 

benefit-cost ratio was 3 to 1. 

In accordance with Executive Order 12322, OMB has found these 

projects consistent with policy and programs of the President. 

There are two other proposed projects with Chief reports that are 

still under review: the Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Project, signed in August 2009, and the C-43 West Basin 

Storage Reservoir Project for the Everglades, signed in March 

2010. 

This concludes my statement. Again, I appreciate the opportunity 

to testify today and would be pleased to answer any questions you 

might have. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

One of the things I failed to say earlier is that all of your testimony will be placed in the record, and if you could keep your remarks to five minutes, we would appreciate it. 

Thank you. Mr. Fitzgerald. 

Mr. FITZGERALD. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Committee Members. On behalf of the National Association of Flood 

and Stormwater Management Agencies, or NAFSMA, we want to 

thank you for your leadership and efforts to move a Water Resources Development Act forward this year. Not only does this necessary legislation provide an opportunity to review and shape the 

policies and programs of the Corps of Engineers, it is needed to 

strengthen the partnerships necessary to achieve the flood damage 

reduction goals of this Nation. 

Our members are on the front line every day reducing loss of life 

and property damage from floods, improving the quality of the Nation’s surface waters, and helping guide the design and construction of low flood risk and affordable communities. Many of our 

members are non-Federal partners on flood damage reduction and 

ecosystem restoration projects with the Corps of Engineers. 

During these tough economic times, it is important that we all 

find ways to reduce costs, expedite studies, and minimize review 

and permitting so we can build and maintain projects that reduce 

loss of life and property from floods, while at the same time using 

public dollars to put people to work. 

Now I am going to present our recommendations. 

Many non-Federal sponsors and their congressional delegations 

held back new projects or amendments to existing projects from 

consideration in WRDA 2007 at the request of Committee leadership and staff in an effort to move that bill forward. These projects 

now need to be considered as they are necessary to protect lives 

and critical infrastructure and reduce flood damages. 

Next, we have five suggestions related to the recommendations 

of the National Committee on Levee Safety. 

First, provide the necessary authorizing language to expand and 

complete the national levee inventory to include non-Federal, as 

well as Federal, levees. 

11 

Second, authorize the Corps of Engineers, when requested, to 

carry out levee certifications for federally partnered projects. We 

believe the Corps has the expertise and a shared responsibility to 

actively participate in FEMA’s certification process with non-Federal partners. 

Third, establish a national levee rehabilitation, improvement and 

flood mitigation program to address critical levee situations and 

make funding available on a cost-shared basis to owners and operators of levee systems. 

Fourth, explore expanding incentives for flood levee repairs or 

strengthening of levees by non-Federal partners. In some instances 

the non-Federal partner needs the ability to start work prior to the 

next flood threat and have the opportunity to work with the Corps 

and Congress to receive needed and appropriate credits or reimbursements for the Federal share. 

Fifth, develop and implement measures to more closely harmonize levee operation and maintenance activities with environmental protection requirements. Non-Federal partners wants to 

maintain the integrity and strength of existing levees without significantly impacting the environment. There are situations where 

inconsistencies between Federal regulators and environmental 

agencies in the permitting and guidance of levee maintenance are 

resulting in unpredictable requirements and delays. 

Our specific recommendations for WRDA are: require the Corps 

to report to Congress within 180 days of passage on the impediments and suggested changes required to improve environmental 

permitting for operation and maintenance of federally partnered 

flood damage reduction projects, and authorize the updating of existing operation and maintenance manuals for federally partnered 

projects to include Section 404 permits, if necessary, or otherwise 

allow local sponsors to perform the required maintenance without 

the need to obtain Federal permits and without requiring costly 

mitigation measures. 

Our remaining recommendations apply to all flood damage reduction projects, not just levees. 

First, make Section 214 of WRDA 2000 permanent, which allows 

non-Federal public entities to contribute funds toward additional 

permit staff for the Corps. Permit process times are reduced not 

only for the funding entity, but for all other applicants as well. 

Next, provide sound floodplain management incentives to nonFederal sponsors for federally partnered flood damage reduction 

projects. For example, where a community is carrying out sound 

floodplain management activities, as reflected in FEMA’s Community Rating System or similar system, you could reduce the 35 percent local cost share accordingly. 

And, finally, NAFSMA requests the Committee to support any 

and all means to expedite the planning process, including authorization changes, if needed. It will take a considerable and collaborative effort from local sponsors, the Corps, and Congress to make 

any significant and worthwhile changes. 

In closing, NAFSMA urges Congress to enact WRDA 2010 to 

move needed water resources policies, programs and projects forward for the benefit of the communities we serve. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

12 

Mr. Bendick. 

Mr. BENDICK. Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on proposals for 

the Water Resources Development Act of 2010, and particularly the 

need to protect our Nation’s rivers, lakes, and coastal areas, and 

the benefits they provide to people. 

I am Bob Bendick, Director of U.S. Government Relations at The 

Nature Conservancy. Prior to coming to my current job in our Arlington office, I worked on water resources issues for State government and the Conservancy’s field programs for more than 30 years. 

A 2009 bipartisan public opinion survey found that 78 percent of 

American boaters are seriously concerned about the health of our 

Nation’s rivers and lakes. The Conservancy shares their concerns 

and we offer here five specific recommendations that will help improve our waters and benefit communities across the Country. 

As the Conservancy has increased its engagement in a variety of 

restoration projects, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has become 

an important and valued conservation partner. By number of 

projects, the Conservancy is now the Corps’ largest non-Federal 

sponsor of ecosystem restoration projects. 

The Conservancy’s objective in this is to help protect and restore 

the key physical and ecological processes that sustain freshwater 

systems, including the flow of water through these systems, the 

movement of nutrients and sediments within these systems, and 

the function of floodplains and river corridors that maintain these 

processes. We believe that by focusing public management on returning these processes to within the range of natural variability, 

it will help ensure the long-term viability of the Nation’s freshwater systems to meet the needs of people and nature. 

By definition, protection and restoration of these processes requires a system-scale, watershed-scale approach to provide the 

framework for short-and long-term decision-making. 

With this as background, here are our five priorities for building 

upon the important ongoing restoration work of the Corps: 

First, support the request of a new authority to establish a national sustainable rivers program within the Corps to implement 

science-based environmental flow requirements and the protection 

and restoration through easements and acquisition of floodplains 

downstream from Corps dams. This program, now a pilot partnership with the Conservancy and the Corps in eight watersheds, can 

improve community flood protection, restore environmental health, 

including water quality and fish and wildlife habitat, and enhance 

resiliency to climate change. Of course, new SRP projects need not 

be with the Conservancy; there could be many, many partners. The 

initial projects have simply been moved forward to demonstrate the 

viability of this concept. 

Second, authorize regional restoration authorities that allow the 

Corps to engage stakeholders across watersheds, river basins, and 

coastal regions to set priorities and implement projects that will result in the most ecological return on Federal dollars invested. Specifically, we ask that you support requests to authorize the North 

Atlantic Division Marine and Coastal Program and reauthorization 

of the Ohio River Ecosystem Restoration Program. Particularly in 

this area of climate change and sea level rise, isolated project-byVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:31 Dec 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\56018.0 KAYLA
13 

project decisions are not likely to produce the best long-term results. 

Third, as you review WRDA projects overall, identifying and approving projects that serve multiple needs across whole ecosystems 

is an effective way to meet water resource goals. Examples of this 

approach already authorized include in the Mississippi Basin the 

Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program, or NESP, in the 

upper Mississippi, and the Hamilton City Combined Flood Risk Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project in California. 

Fourth, support changes in the continuing authority programs to 

further emphasize those projects that result in the greatest ecological return on the dollar invested by setting clear science-based criteria for allocating program funds. In practice, this means concentrating limited funding on the best Section 1135 and 206 projects, 

getting them done in a timely way, and deferring action entirely on 

other projects. 

And, finally, support the request to amend Section 234 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1996 to enable the Corps to 

partner with and accept funds from the non-Corps elements of the 

Department of Defense and to partner with nongovernmental organizations outside the U.S. This authority enables the Corps to participate with Federal or international organizations and foreign 

governments to address problems of national significance related to 

water resources in other countries. Such actions can be an important element of national security and international stability. The 

amendment also ensures that any use of this authority would require the approval of the Secretary of State. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the 

Conservancy. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Holliday. 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Boozman, 

and Subcommittee Members, I am Barry Holliday, Executive Director of the Dredging Contractors of America. Thank you for providing me this opportunity to testify today. 

I would first like to discuss the positive results from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act work accomplished by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the dredging industry. I would 

like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the outstanding cooperation and leadership by the Corps of Engineers in managing 

the execution of the additional dredging work funded by the ARRA. 

As a result of preliminary regional discussions with the Corps, the 

dredging industry was able to effectively ensure equipment and resources were available to get the job done. In my written testimony, I have included a full listing of all the new equipment and 

the new dredges that were acquired as a result of the ARRA. 

The Corps and the dredging industry have effectively demonstrated that they can execute on rather short notice. During fiscal year 2009, the dredging industry accomplished an additional 

$117 million of dredging work as a result of ARRA and an additional $212 million as a result of hurricane supplemental and other 

emergency dredging work in the Gulf of Mexico. But this additional 

work is only a short-term band-aid against larger long-term dredging needs. 

14 

There continues to be a major shortfall of funds appropriated to 

adequately maintain our ports and harbors. For this purpose, I 

speak not only for the Dredging Contractors of America, but also 

as Chairman of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Fairness Coalition. In that capacity, I would like to address the current situation regarding the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and our Nation’s ports and harbors. 

The Coalition many of you also know as RAMP, Realize America’s Maritime Promise, formed in March 2008 and represents a 

very broad spectrum of maritime interests. In 2009, the harbor 

maintenance tax collected approximately $1.3 billion from shippers 

for the purpose of funding dredging projects. However, only $808 

million of the dredging and related maintenance costs were reimbursed from the fund through regular appropriations. At this funding level, most ports and harbors were unable to be dredged to 

their authorized project dimensions. 

Our ports and harbors are gateways to domestic and international trade. Connecting the United States to the world, U.S. 

ports and harbors handle more than 2.5 billion tons of domestic 

and international trade annually and are responsible for moving 

more than 99 percent of the Nation’s overseas cargo. That volume 

is projected to double within the next 15 years. With the expansion 

of the Panama Canal in 2015, many of our ports should realize 

substantial volume growth if these ships can get into our harbors. 

Without a navigation channel dredged to its authorized width 

and depth, a port’s economic viability is threatened. The United 

States will lose existing business and potential new business to foreign ports, and history has shown that, once lost, it is rarely regained. 

During this time of economic stress on our Nation, we cannot afford to threaten these water highways that are so important to our 

Nation’s commerce. A fully funded dredging program would keep 

our Nation’s maritime commerce flowing and ensure that the Corps 

could properly plan and manage dredge material for potential beneficial uses and environmental restoration applications. 

Similar problems with Highway Trust Fund and Airports and 

Airways Trust Fund were addressed by past Congresses by enacting legislation to more closely tie trust fund expenditures and revenues through a guarantee and a point of order. The RAMP Coalition is extremely pleased that Congressman Charles Boustany and 

Congressman Bart Stupak and Congressman Laura Richardson 

have introduced H.R. 4844 to do the same for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Since this bill addresses program-wide funding, 

not specific projects, it is not considered earmark legislation. Also, 

as with the AIR-21 provision, after which it is modeled, H.R. 4844 

should not score as violating pay-go rules. 

All of the members of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Fairness Coalition respectfully request that this Subcommittee use this 

unique opportunity to enact legislation that is needed now so that 

future port navigation channel capacity affecting trade, American 

jobs, and our national defense, will not be compromised. We urge 

you to pass a Water Resources Development Act this year, with the 

H.R. 4844 language included, and restore the trust to the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund. 

15 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Fordham. 

Mr. FORDHAM. Thank you. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thanks again for having us here today to testify on this important bill. For those of you who aren’t familiar with The Everglades Foundation, we are a collection of individuals, families, businesses, all folks that depend on the Everglades for our livelihood 

and just who enjoy the natural resources that make it such a spectacular place. 

Needless to say, all of us here at this table are counting on 

speedy passage of WRDA this year. But I want to speak a little bit 

today about the Florida Everglades, an ecological wonder that is 

found nowhere else in the world. 

For over two decades, this interconnected series of parks and 

wildlife refuges has been limping along in critical condition. As 

Members of this Committee know well, the Everglades have been 

diked, drained, divvied up, developed, and degraded through years 

of poorly conceived government and private sector schemes. We 

have lost over half of the original Everglades, and scientists estimate that over 90 percent of the wading birds are now gone. The 

few remaining Florida panthers, Southern Bald Eagles, and other 

great American wildlife species are struggling to survive. 

But there is actually good news to report today. We have actually 

turned a corner. Over the last two years, we have witnessed more 

progress on Everglades restoration than we have seen since the 

passage of the bipartisan Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan back in 2000. Thanks to the work of this Committee, a bipartisan support in Congress, and several major restoration projects 

are now underway. 

For instance, the first phase of bridging along Tamiami Trail, 

that is, a bridge that will raise that road the highway that acts as 

an artificial dam, is under construction. It will allow the flow of 

fresh water to move into the Everglades, which is now parched and 

struggling to survive. 

In Southwest Florida, an astounding 55,000 acres of wetlands 

and wildlife habitat are currently being restored in an area known 

as the Picayune Strand. 

The Kissimmee River restoration project, at the headwaters of 

the Everglades, is nearly a third complete and has been a tremendous success story. Wetlands are rebounding, wildlife is returning, 

and fishing, boating, and recreational opportunities are multiplying 

in the restored Kissimmee River Basin. 

With this newfound momentum, there has never been a better 

time to continue advancing the world’s largest ecosystem restoration initiative. But this isn’t just an initiative about restoring the 

environment. The Everglades are a powerful economic engine that 

sustain one of our most populous States and provide economic benefits throughout the Nation. 

Most people don’t realize this, but over 7 million Americans living in the region directly depend on the Everglades for their supply 

of fresh drinking water. Without the Everglades, one in three Floridians would have to look elsewhere for their water supply. 

16 

At the same time, some of our most critical industries have a 

major presence in Florida and depend directly on the Everglades 

for their survival. Think about our tourism, our boat manufacturing, dockage and marine services industries, all providing tens 

of thousands of jobs to our region. A $5 billion commercial and recreational fishing industry supplies Americans with an abundant 

food supply and really some of the best angling opportunities in 

America. But all of these businesses are threatened as fishing populations of grouper, snapper, stone crab, bonefish, and tarpon have 

all continued to plummet. 

Today I am asking you, on behalf of a wide range of national 

business conservation, civic, sporting, and fishing groups to authorize four key projects, all part of the Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan. 

First is the C-111 Canal project. It will help recover portions of 

Florida Bay and Everglades National Park, both of which have 

been starved of their normal supply of fresh water. If you have ever 

visited the Florida Keys, you know all the folks that live along 

those communities depend on the water for their livelihood and 

their survival, as the water flows from the southern peninsula into 

the bay. 

Second, we urge the Committee to authorize the Biscayne Bay 

Coastal Wetlands project, to save a great national park that sits 

alongside one of our largest metropolitan areas, the City of Miami. 

Another key Everglades restoration, the C-43 West Basin Storage Reservoir, is a project geared toward the protection of the tremendous ecological and economic resources of the Caloosahatchee 

River and all the communities along the Gulf of Mexico. 

Finally, the successful Kissimmee River Restoration project I 

mentioned earlier is in need of an increase in its authorized level 

of funding since its initial approval in 1992. 

By authorizing these projects, Congress has the opportunity to 

build on these early successes and demonstrate that we can in fact 

restore ecosystems of high economic value to the Nation. 

Folks, the Everglades encompass some of America’s most treasured special places. Just as we value great national treasures like 

Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, and the Rocky Mountains, Americans 

recognize the Everglades as a place worth protecting. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I thank you for 

this opportunity to speak to you today. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Our last witness, Mr. Stephen Little. 

Mr. LITTLE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for providing me 

with this opportunity to testify concerning the Water Resources Development Act of 2010. We are encouraged by the Committee’s efforts to begin to develop this year’s bill. Water Resource Development Acts, or WRDAs, as many of us have come to refer to them, 

are very important to both the economy and the environment of the 

Nation, a reality that is even more important today as we struggle 

to emerge from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. 

I am Stephen Little, President and CEO of Crounse Corporation. 

Crounse is a leader in the river transportation industry. In addition to my position with Crounse, I also serve as a member of the 

17 

Board of Directors and on the Board’s Executive Committee of Waterways Council, the national public policy organization advocating 

in support of a modern and well maintained national system of 

ports and inland waterways. 

Madam Chair, I also have the distinct honor and privilege of 

being the current Chairman of the Inland Waterways Users Board. 

The Users Board is a Federal advisory committee established by 

Congress in Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1986, one of this Committee’s many significant legislative 

achievements. 

On behalf of Crounse Corporation, I am pleased to appear before 

the Subcommittee this morning to testify in strong support of the 

recommendations developed by the Inland Marine Transportation 

System’s Capital Investment Strategy Team, or, as we refer to it, 

the CIS Team. These recommendations have been approved unanimously by the Users Board. They also have the broad and growing 

support of the waterways industry, as evidenced by unanimous endorsement by the Board of Directors of Waterways Council, the 

American Waterways Operators, and National Waterways Conference, and by similar expressions of support from more than 150 

other associations and companies throughout the Nation. 

At this time, Madam Chairwoman, I would ask that the entire 

IMTS report, as approved by the Users Board just two days ago, 

be included in the record of this hearing. 

Mr. BAIRD. Madam Chair, if I may. 

What is the length of that, Mr. Little? 

Mr. LITTLE. It is about—the report itself is about 75 pages. 

Mr. BAIRD. I actually am well familiar with the report; I think 

it is a great piece of work. I just don’t want to have the printing 

office have to retype that, with no disrespect to the report. 

Mr. LITTLE. If I may, we also have an Executive Summary. I 

don’t have it with me. It is obviously shorter, if that pleases the 

Committee. 

Mr. BAIRD. I would be more comfortable with that. I know the 

report. I was going to ask you about it, but there is sort of a limit 

for UC requests on length of reports to get entered into the record. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

18 


Insert offset folio 11 here 56018.011
19 


Insert offset folio 12 here 56018.012
20 


Insert offset folio 13 here 56018.013
21 


Insert offset folio 14 here 56018.014
22 


Insert offset folio 15 here 56018.015
23 


Insert offset folio 16 here 56018.016
24 


Insert offset folio 17 here 56018.017
25 


Insert offset folio 18 here 56018.018
26 


Insert offset folio 19 here 56018.019
27 


Insert offset folio 20 here 56018.020
28 


Insert offset folio 21 here 56018.021
29 


Insert offset folio 22 here 56018.022
30 


Insert offset folio 23 here 56018.023
31 


Insert offset folio 24 here 56018.024
32 


Insert offset folio 25 here 56018.025
33 


Insert offset folio 26 here 56018.026
34 


Insert offset folio 27 here 56018.027
35 


Insert offset folio 28 here 56018.028
36 


Insert offset folio 29 here 56018.029
37 


Insert offset folio 30 here 56018.030
38 


Insert offset folio 31 here 56018.031
39 


Insert offset folio 32 here 56018.032
40 


Insert offset folio 33 here 56018.033
41 


Insert offset folio 34 here 56018.034
42 


Insert offset folio 35 here 56018.035
43 


Insert offset folio 36 here 56018.036
44 


Insert offset folio 37 here 56018.037
45 


Insert offset folio 38 here 56018.038
46 

Mr. LITTLE. Okay. Thank you. 

Resuming my statement, for roughly a year and a half, approximately 50 key Corps of Engineers and industry representatives 

have worked diligently to develop together a comprehensive solution to the challenges facing our inland waterways system, a solution that improves the project delivery system, that dimesnsions 

the most critical physical needs of the system, and figures out what 

it will cost to address those needs and addresses how to pay for it. The CIS Team proposes a $7.6 billion 20-year inland waterway 

Capital Investment Program. The Program would entail an average 

annual investment of about $380 million, $320 million of which 

would go for new construction, $60 million would go for major rehabilitation projects. The CIS Team’s proposal would preserve the existing 50 percent industry/50 percent Federal cost-sharing formula 

for new lock construction and major rehabilitation projects costing 

$100 million or more. 

The plan would adjust the current model to provide 100 percent 

Federal funding for dam construction and major rehab projects and 

for smaller lock rehab projects. 

The proposal also includes a cost-sharing cap to provide some 

protection to the industry from unreasonable cost escalation and 

project delays. 

After reviewing alternative options for generating additional revenue for the Trust Fund, the CIS Team proposes a 30 percent to 

45 percent increase, which is about 6 cents to 9 cents per gallon, 

in the current diesel fuel tax, to a level between 26 cents and 29 

cents a gallon. 

A fundamental assumption of the Team’s recommendations, in 

fact, the Team’s underlying premise, is that the Federal Government will provide funds envisioned in the plan in an efficient manner. 

In conclusion, Madam Chair, the Corps has conservatively esti- mated that this plan is expected to avoid cost growth between $600 

million and $2.1 billion over the next 20 years, and there will be 

other economic benefits as well, in addition to the environmental 

and societal benefits to the Nation. 

Finally, and lastly, Crounse Corporation and the Users Board 

urges the Committee to include into the next WRDA bill the provisions that are necessary to fully implement this comprehensive inland waterway system modernization plan, and I thank you for this 

opportunity to testify today. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Now we will go right to questions and I will begin the first 

round. 

Mr. Holliday mentioned that funds from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act advanced important dredging projects, and 

I would like to know if there were other beneficial advances in the 

projects that any of you might be aware of, such as the Everglades 

or any waterways. 

Mr. FORDHAM. I could tell you that over the last year and a half 

we have seen significant infusion of dollars from the American Recovery Act and regular appropriations in Everglades restoration. 

Frankly, you have put over 600 folks back to work in Florida due 

to those restoration funds. Frankly, the Recovery Act has jumpVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:31 Dec 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\56018.0 KAYLA
47 

started this project and it has built a new sense of momentum in 

Florida, and I think we are now seeing a renewed focus in the 

State legislature because of that. 

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Chairwoman, there is also some of our 

members, local sponsors, doing flood damage reduction projects 

with the Corps, there was some ARRA money that was designated 

for flood damage reduction projects, and they were very important 

to promoting reduced flood damages in the United States, and that 

was very much appreciated by our members. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Fordham, will construction of the C-43 project have immediate benefits to the Everglades and the people surrounding it? 

Mr. FORDHAM. Absolutely, Madam Chairwoman. We expect that 

when that project is online, that it will help reduce the flow of polluted water from Lake Okeechobee into the Caloosahatchee River 

Basin. As you know, those communities on the west coast of Florida—in Fort Meyers, Bonita Springs, Naples—all of their economies suffer when those freshwater releases basically blow out their 

estuaries, they produce fish kills, algal blooms, red tide on our 

beaches. If you talk to our tourism authorities down there, back in 

2004, 2005, when we saw these very significant and damaging releases, it had a profoundly negative impact on their economies. So 

this project is really critical to saving not just the ecosystem, but 

also protecting some vital industries on the west coast. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Now I will call on Mr. Boozman for his questions. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. With your permission, 

I would like to go to Mr. Brown first, and then we will come back 

to me. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Brown is recognized. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Madam Chair, and 

thank you, Mr. Boozman, for yielding. 

This has been a good discussion. I represent the coast of South 

Carolina, and we have a lot of needs down there as far as the harbor deepening the Intracoastal Waterway, keeping it from filling in, 

and I am glad that one of you alluded to the fact that the shipping 

channels will change when the Panama Canal is going to be deepened and widened, so those ships that stop over in Los Angeles will 

be coming to Charleston. But every year we have to compete to get 

funding to keep that harbor either from silting in or from deepening in. 

Mr. Holliday, I was interested in hearing your testimony about 

the reserve fund that is created by the shipping community yourself. I noticed that you said that there was a deficit last year—not 

a deficit, but a surplus, I guess, created by some half a billion dollars, and I guess just last year. I would be interested to know how 

much has accumulated in that fund through the years. 

Mr. Brown, do you have an answer to that? Because it seems like 

to me it is a user fee that is not being spent. 

Mr. BROWN. According to the information I have right now, Congressman, at the end of the last fiscal year, fiscal year 2009, the 

balance in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund was $5.1 billion. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Every year we have to extend 

our credibility, I guess. A lot of the folks around the Nation believe 

48 

that earmarks are some kind of bad word, so we have to appeal to 

the appropriators to try to get funding to deepen the harbor in 

Charleston, and also in Georgetown, which is not as active a harbor, but the authorized depth is 27 feet, and we have a depth of 

about 22 feet. 

And we have industry that would like to come in and use that 

harbor, but they can’t get in because of the depth of the harbor. So 

the Corps tells us, well, if you don’t have the tonnage coming in, 

then you can’t justify spending the funds. But apparently there are 

funds available. 

Mr. Brown, how does the Corps go about allocating those funds? 

Why would we have such a deep reserve with such a great amount 

of need out there? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, obviously, there are Administration priorities 

that get laid out. The specifics in terms of the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund, I probably would have to get back to you in terms of 

the details, sir, just so we have the record clear. I would be happy 

to do that. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Okay. Because there must be 

some reason for the Corps to accumulate those funds. Somebody, 

maybe OMB or whoever it is, is reserving those funds for some 

other purpose, and in South Carolina, we have probably over 

200,000 jobs depending on that port, and if we are not going to be 

ready—in fact, we had to put an authorization request in. 

I know our conference Republicans said we are not going to request any earmarks, and we had to put in a $2.5 million request 

to do a study to deepen that harbor from 45 feet to 50 feet that 

would be able to accommodate those larger container ships when 

the Panama Canal does come open, even the ones that come in now 

from the other ports. But we certainly would appreciate any consideration for that. 

Also, the Intracoastal Waterway, I know Mr. Little alluded to 

that, and that is a big issue for us. I noted some of the stimulus 

funds were used to deepen the Intracoastal Waterway, so we will 

go on record and state we appreciate those funds, because we had 

some parts of that Intracoastal Waterway that were probably 4 feet 

deep, and it was authorized at 12 feet. 

I know there are some user fees even used in the Intracoastal 

Waterway. What happens to those user fees, Mr. Little, do you 

have any idea on that? 

Mr. LITTLE. Are we referring to the fuel tax the inland waterways pay? 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Right. 

Mr. LITTLE. Yes, sir. The inland waterways industry pays a fuel 

tax of 20 cents a gallon currently, and that goes into not the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, but it goes into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and those dollars are supposed to be used to 

build new projects on the inland waterways. For years we saw a 

surplus in that trust fund as well, and that concerned the industry. 

Even though it was not as large of a surplus as the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, it was still big dollars to us. We saw about $400 

million of surplus build up in our trust fund for several years. 

49 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Why would it just be restricted 

to new construction? Why wouldn’t it be used for maintenance of 

the dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway? 

Mr. LITTLE. Well, the Inland Waterways Trust Fund was set up 

by Congress to address the inland waterways only, and the fuel tax 

collected from the users of the inland waterways went into the 

trust fund, still continue to go into the trust fund, for those inland 

waterways which we consume fuel on. So it was dedicated to the 

inland waterways. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. I understand. But why would 

it just be construction, and why not be able to used for maintenance of the Intracoastal Waterway? 

Mr. LITTLE. Well, that is the way Congress prescribed the program at the time, so that we could rehabilitate and add to the 

structures we have out there. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Well, maybe we ought to go 

back and amend it, what you recommend. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. 

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent the gentleman’s time be 

extended. 

Mr. Brown has touched on a very critical issue in the valuation 

by the Corps of Engineers of waterway projects in saying the Corps 

has made a determination that your port doesn’t have the cargo to 

justify deepening of the harbor, maintenance dredging or improvement to new depth. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Yes, sir. Well, not the new 

depth, but just the current—the one port does, Mr. Chairman, I am 

sorry. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Or even the current. Yes, but it is both. It is both 

that the Corps has a problem with. This is a fundamental issue 

that we have had to deal with for many years, and not only in recent times, but going back to 1848, when President James K. Polk 

proposed a fee for the development of canals, that a fee would be 

imposed on goods, and the fee collected and the canals dredged and 

dug. 

And a first term Member of Congress rose in the House to object 

to that fee, saying that we must first build the canal so that the 

cargo can be in it for a while and generate the revenue from which 

a toll can then be extracted. That Member of Congress was Abraham Lincoln, and his speech—rarely does a speech change votes, 

but his speech changed the whole course of canal development and 

construction, and the Congress refused to proceed on President 

Polk’s toll proposal and affirmed the principle of the free waterways going back to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. And that continues to be a vexatious issue for us. 

On the one hand, the Corps is directed by Office of Management 

and Budget. And this goes back over several administrations; Democrat, Republican, makes no difference. The same people over at 

OMB put on their green eyeshade and they treat things just as if 

presidents didn’t exist and congresses are an afterthought, and 

they insist on showing that the cargo—well, you can’t get the cargo 

if you don’t develop the port and the capability. And we need, as 

50 

the gentleman has said, more clarity on this issue, and that is 

going to be the purpose of our deliberations in the future. 

I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Baird. 

Mr. BAIRD. I thank the Chair and I thank our witnesses. I want 

to start by noting the numbers of projects. I think, Mr. Holliday, 

you particularly talked about the things that had been done under 

the stimulus bill. The reason I raise that is twofold: one, it is not 

uncommon for certain pundits, and even Members of this body, to 

suggest that no jobs were created. Do you have an estimate, or does 

anyone on the panel have an estimate, of the numbers of jobs that 

were in fact created by stimulus spending within your industries? 

Created or preserved. 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. I will address from the dredging perspective. We 

added additional dredges. In my written testimony I have a list of 

those. It would certainly have to be accrued. But more importantly—and I think this is may be one of the shortcomings of the 

accounting of the whole stimulus process—when you dredge a port, 

you create a tremendous amount of jobs on the docks, on the support facilities in that port. So the multiplier of that action is significant. And I think Congressman Brown alluded to the kind of economic engine that a port generates. Clearly, there were a lot more 

jobs than maybe the numbers really allude to. 

Mr. BAIRD. That is an excellent point. 

The other point I wanted to make is if the only metric we look 

at in terms of the benefit of the stimulus bill is jobs created, we 

forget that you actually did some work, that we actually have tangible results, things that needed to be done at some point. We have 

a huge infrastructure deficit, and by spending money on infrastructure, which the Chairman, Chairman Oberstar championed so vigorously in the stimulus bill, we not only put people to work; we accomplished tasks and created tangible good that will last for a 

very, very long time. And I want to get that on the record because 

I am actually pretty tired of hearing people say that the stimulus 

didn’t create jobs, when it in fact clearly did create jobs; and, secondly, it created tangible infrastructure benefit 

I want to return to Mr. Little for a second. There was no discourtesy at all reflected in my comments that we have a process of how 

lengthy things can be before they are entered into the record. The 

fact is I think your report, from my knowledge of it, from the American Waterway Operators, is an outstanding piece of work. You 

have a long-termed time frame, you have a reasonable expenditure, 

a clear public benefit, and a mechanism to pay for it. It is actually, 

I think, a model, and I would hope we could actually use it. 

And I want to give you a chance to elaborate a little bit on that, 

Mr. Little, but I want to also invite you, if you choose, to mention 

briefly something that is not before the Committee today, but it 

has to do with the matter of regulations concerning deck runoff 

from your vessels and some pending time frames that might create 

a problem that we need to address here. 

So let me open that on both fronts for you. 

51 

Mr. LITTLE. Well, thank you very much, Congressman. No offense was taken at all. I fully understand and appreciate that, and 

I appreciate the fact that you have looked at the report and you 

are familiar with it. We are very proud of that. As I mentioned in 

my statement, I am Chairman of the Inland Waterways Users 

Board, a Federal advisory board that Congress created to look at 

issues like this. 

I have personally spent a lot of time, in addition to trying to run 

my company, in working on this report for the past year and a half, 

and we are very proud of the work that has been done. The Users 

Board approved that report two days ago, as I mentioned. It outlines a plan for the next 20 years and how we get there with the 

funding. 

I will refer to one page of my testimony just to try to respond 

to your question, and that is on page 10. I have included a chart 

which shows where we think we will be if we continue to do business the way we are doing it now, and that is projects will not be 

completed in an expeditious way. We think that with the plan that 

we have proposed we will see a significant improvement in the way 

that projects are completed because we will finish what we have 

started and then move on to the next project, finish it, move on to 

the next one. Unfortunately, we are spreading money around too 

thinly and we are not finishing projects the way we should. 

Mr. BAIRD. Does the plan add to our deficit at all? 

Mr. LITTLE. We actually think—and this is also pointed out on 

the same page—that we will save the Government money because 

we will be performing, under this program, more efficiently as a 

Nation than we currently are. 

Mr. BAIRD. And it is paid for by the user fees. 

Mr. LITTLE. That is right. It is paid in part by users fee and part 

by the Federal Government, the way it is now, with some adjustment in the cost sharing. But still it is user paid; users will be paying a part of it. And, in fact, there will be a fuel tax increase that 

the industry would be paying of about 6 cents to 9 cents a gallon. 

We recommend that fuel tax increase only as long as we get all of 

these other fixes. 

Mr. BAIRD. A fair point. And I commend you for it. 

Madam Chair and Chairman Oberstar, I hope we will look very 

seriously at this report; I think it is a fine piece of work. I don’t 

think my time allows to deal with this runoff issue of the vessels, 

but it is of major importance. Can the gentleman have maybe 10 

seconds to talk about that? 

Mr. LITTLE. Well, and I won’t need that much because I have 

spent so much time on this issue that I am not—— 

Mr. BAIRD. Okay. 

Mr. LITTLE. But I would be glad to provide that for the record, 

a written response. 

Mr. BAIRD. I would welcome that. Thank you. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

52 


Insert offset folio 39 here 56018.039
53 


Insert offset folio 40 here 56018.040
54 

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. And 

certainly always appreciate Chairman Oberstar’s history. I always 

learn a lot not only of history, but also the current situation of 

things we are dealing with in this Committee from him. 

Mr. Brown, I have to ask you about the Chickamauga Lock. That 

lock is in Congressman Wamp’s district, but it is very, very important to my district and, indeed, to the entire southeast. Construction work on that lock has the best cost benefit analysis ratio of 

any of these locks that are budgeted for construction. 

Also, by the Corps’ own estimates, because that is one of the fastest growing areas in the Country, the estimates of the tonnage that 

is expected to come through, the growth in that expected tonnage 

is just tremendous. Yet, there is zero budgeted for construction for 

that lock, either from the Treasury or from the Inland Waterways 

Trust Fund, and I have to ask you about that. 

It also has national security implications, because not too far 

above that lock is a major nuclear plant. There are concerns that 

if work isn’t done on that—we have spent a tremendous amount of 

money over the last few years getting that lock ready for construction, the necessary construction that has been talked about or 

planned years, and there is concern that the TVA safety officials 

may have to close down the river if that construction work is not 

done in the very near future. Then you have all the Oak Ridge operations not too far from where that lock is. 

So what is your report on that and why are we not having any 

money budgeted for construction on the Chickamauga Lock? 

Mr. BROWN. Congressman, in my former life I was the Chief of 

Planning and Policy in the Lakes and Rivers Division, so I was 

very familiar with Chickamauga Lock and all the details. Matter 

of fact, came up here to defend it when we had to report in on it. 

Unfortunately, right now, I don’t know all the latest, and what 

I would be happy to do is get you—submit for the record kind of 

a detailed lay-down in terms of the status of the Chickamauga 

Lock with respect to the funding. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I have always supported the work of the 

Army Corps and the work that is being done on these various 

water projects around the Country, but I really don’t know if you 

could find one that affects more people, more money, and that is 

more behind schedule or more necessary at this time than the 

Chickamauga Lock. Like I said, it is not in my district, but it is 

very close, and it is important to my district and it is important 

to that entire region. I think you would agree with that, wouldn’t 

you? 

Mr. BROWN. Yes, it is a very important construction and it has 

some significant issues with alkali-aggregate concrete, growing concrete; it is a reaction that is occurring. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I hope you will go back and talk to some of 

the higher-ups there in the Army Corps and have a discussion 

about this, because we need to move on that. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

55 

Mr. Hare. 

Mr. HARE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Brown, thank you for coming today and for testifying and for 

your service. I appreciate your being here. Last November, this 

Subcommittee heard a bipartisan panel of Members of Congress on 

what their thoughts of the 2010 WRDA bill ought to look like, and 

I just wonder if you have had a chance to review that and, if you 

have, are there any particular aspects of their testimony that the 

Corps would really like the Subcommittee to consider that currently is not currently in law. 

Mr. BROWN. I am somewhat familiar with that. I guess what I 

would say, Congressman, is that currently the Administration is— 

that WRDA proposal is under consideration. Obviously, the details 

of that would be subject to any Administration decisions. I can’t 

speak on the particulars at this point in time, though. 

Mr. HARE. I appreciate that. Well, I have the rare distinct privilege of having seven locks in my congressional district and have 

worked with the Corps, and the Chairman as well, and he has been 

incredibly good to work with me on this. But I encompass two 

Corps districts, Rock Island and St. Louis, and I have been supportive of the actions by both the districts and have been briefed 

on the projects that the Corps wants to complete. 

But I am not sure I agree with the funding distribution for Corps 

projects and the shifting of necessary fundings for my two districts. 

It seems that the projects that are going to be completed, the 

money got shifted from the Rock Island district down into the Louisiana area, which I understand that, but funding is always an 

issue when we have to appropriate money. But in my district the 

annual funding appears to simply maintain the operations and not 

really take on new ones. 

So I realize this isn’t an oversight hearing, and I am not trying 

to nail you here, but I thought I would ask you if you could provide 

an update of what the Corps is doing regarding the new initiatives 

and existing priorities in the Rock Island and St. Louis districts. 

And, by the way, I have to tell you I am a strong supporter of the 

Corps of Engineers; they do wonderful work. And I know they need 

more money to do more wonderful work, but I am trying to figure 

out what the shifting of the resources, what affect that has or if 

you know what the status of that is. 

Mr. BROWN. I would be more than happy to provide you the details for the record. 

Mr. HARE. Thank you. 

Mr. Fitzgerald, if I could, on the last page of your written testimony you called for a more improved planning process for the 

Corps, and I understand the need to ensure a thorough planning 

process when the Corps plans for flood reductions. Do you have any 

particular thoughts on how Congress could streamline the process 

in the next WRDA bill without losing the quality of work being 

done? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes. NAFSMA and our members, we have been 

studying that along with the Corps in the last couple year, primarily working with them on the update of the principles and 

guidelines, kind of a parallel process, and we have identified—we 

56 

wanted to identify the areas that needed to have attention first. 

What is the real problem, not what are the symptoms. 

And we kind of isolated those to four areas—this is the NAFSMA 

group—the process itself, the people that are involved in making 

it work, and then the guidance. There has been a lot of guidance 

written over the years and a lot of new laws put in, and it has gotten pretty voluminous. And then finally funding, of course, the bottom line for all projects. 

We haven’t come up with things specifically for WRDA 2010, but 

I think what we are trying to look at is coming up with something 

that is simpler and more direct. What we have now has been accumulated over the years, for many, many, many years, and it is our 

opinion to step back and try to simplify. So I can see the opportunity for some authorization to help with that simplification. 

Also, one of the ideas we initially talked about is trying to reduce 

the number of projects that go through the long planning process. 

If there is a way to evaluate them earlier and say is there a Federal interest or not earlier, and not have to go through the long 

several year process to do that, but do it on a fair basis and for 

everyone concerned. 

Mr. HARE. Thank you. Just lastly, a few times in your testimony 

you mentioned how your national association works closely with 

the Corps and with FEMA. In my district, there has been, at times, 

a lack of efficient coordination between the two bodies regarding 

flood activities. From a national association standpoint, do you 

have any suggestions on how the next WRDA bill can better guide 

the working relationship between FEMA and the Corps? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. I can’t think of anything specifically off the top 

of my head. I think there has been an effort with NAFSMA and 

ASFPM to work with the Corps and FEMA together at the very 

high senior level, and those have been productive, and trying to 

find where that can be improved. I am not, right now, familiar with 

anything specifically that would have to do with authorization to 

help that. 

Mr. HARE. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Brown, what is the current backlog of unconstructed, yet authorized, Army Corps of Engineers projects? 

Mr. BROWN. The total construction backlog for fiscal year 2011 

for active projects is $59.6 billion, sir. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. How long would it take to complete the backlog 

if no new projects were authorized? 

Mr. BROWN. I guess it would really be dependent upon the function of the funding levels on an annual basis. I don’t know if I 

could give you a specific answer, but it would be dependent upon 

the funding levels on the annual appropriation bill. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Okay. So will you do that for us, will you answer 

the question based on the average funding that has been available 

in the past years? 

Mr. BROWN. Sure. 

57 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Of the 46 Chiefs reports authorized in WRDA 

2007, how many of those projects have received construction funding? Not preconstruction engineering and design; how many have 

initiated construction? Of those initiated, how soon after the enactment of WRDA 2007 were they begun? 

Mr. BROWN. I am familiar that four of them have received construction funding or under construction. I have to get you the rest 

of the details in terms of the sequence of when they were funded. 

I can do that, though, provide that for the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

58 


Insert offset folio 41 here 56018.041
59 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Little, some have suggested—and, again, in 

light of that testimony, some have suggested that the Congressional appropriations process is focused too much on project construction, as opposed to project completion. In addition—and this 

is kind of a separate thing—some also have suggested we should 

treat the inland navigation system as a program, and not merely 

as a series of projects. Can you comment on those things? 

Mr. LITTLE. Well, that is what the Users Board has tackled during the past year and a half, to try to look at the inland waterways 

system as a system and as an entire program, and that is why we 

developed the report we did and approved just two days ago. It is 

critical to the well-being of the Nation that we continue to move 

products efficiently through these locks and dams. 

We have seen several projects continue at a snail’s pace in the 

construction, and what we have done is tried to prioritize the work 

that is ongoing to make sure we can finish some of these projects. 

So that strikes at the heart of what we have been looking at for 

the last year and a half, yes, sir. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. So you would agree, then,that you have concerns 

with project construction, as opposed to completion? 

Mr. LITTLE. We need projects to be completed, and that is what 

we have been focused on, is trying to come up with a plan, and I 

think we have come up with a very strong plan to finish some of 

these projects. And when we do that, that allows the other projects 

to move up the line and, in time, and in a shorter period of time, 

they can also be completed, yes, sir. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Holliday, with regard to the navigation channels, one of the complaints that we hear in Congress is that that 

particular problem, as has already been mentioned, but if we enacted Mr. Boustany’s legislation, is the private dredge fleet robust 

enough to ensure that, if adequate funds became available, there 

would be enough capacity to issue the contracts and complete the 

work in a timely manner? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Yes, sir. As we demonstrated in response to the 

ARRA stimulus, our industry, working closely with the Corps of 

Engineers, was able to identify what the requirements were, what 

the resource needs were, and, quite frankly, stepped up to that 

plate, and we could do that again. The critical part of that is a tremendous organization within the Corps that recognizes that there 

has to be that constant dialogue and communication, and the Corps 

operations folks have done a great job with that. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you 

to all of our witnesses today. 

I think it is really important for the Corps to look at nonstructural kinds of alternatives like green infrastructure, in addition to the big structural projects that we have, to best use the 

available climate science that is somewhat new to us and incorporate those ideas into project planning. 

In December, I introduced H.R. 4202, the Green Infrastructure 

and Clean Water Act of 2009, to give incentives for green infrastructure and establish five centers of excellence for these kinds of 

techniques, because I do believe that it is time for us to look at 

60 

both new ways of thinking about water management, but also 

marrying those with traditional techniques; and I think that these 

things are compatible both for industry and for environmental protections. 

Mr. Brown, I note with the Army Corps there are a long list of 

projects that are proposed for WRDA, and they are all under the 

current principles and guidelines, which focus a lot on economic development as a major goal for water resources management. But in 

the last WRDA, Congress instructed the Corps to revise the principles and guidelines to include protection and restoration of natural systems, and avoid the unwise use of floodplains as a national 

objective. 

The rewriting process is currently being undertaken by the Administration, but I wonder, since you described the backlog of 

projects that have been done under the current principles, we know 

that those guidelines are going to be changed, and I wonder how 

the new principles will be reflected in the existing projects and 

planning processes. And as to the projects that are here presented 

today, I am curious as to whether you have begun to incorporate 

some of those things that we know are going to come down the pike 

in your own planning process. 

So, Mr. Brown, I wonder if you could tell me how the Corps is 

planning to ensure that the projects under WRDA reflect the new 

national priorities and don’t really work at cross-purposes to what 

will be the new priorities. 

Mr. BROWN. As a general rule, Congresswoman, the existing 

projects that are under formulation would not necessarily be subject to the existing principles and guidelines. Remember, the Administration hasn’t completed the analysis. The National Academy 

of Sciences is continuing to look at that and won’t be done with 

their review until November of this year. Then there will be a subsequent review of the input from the National Academy of Sciences 

before they finalize the new P&G. 

Just as an example, Mississippi Coastal—you talked about nonstructural. The Mississippi Coastal Improvement Program does factor in nonstructural alternatives and looks at some things. So there 

are other places that we have looked at nonstructural and we have 

incorporated nonstructural projects as a part of our existing planning process, but Mississippi Coastal is one right now where we 

have implemented nonstructural and structural measures to provide solutions. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Fitzgerald, you hinted at this in part of your 

testimony as well, so I wonder if you have some thoughts about 

that, because I get worried that we are going to have to clear up, 

at some point or other, these projects are going to come online, but 

they are sitting kind of on a backlog, so it is not like they are coming any time soon. We will get to November and who knows for 

how long we will be operating under those old principles. 

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes. We, as local sponsors, believe that the nonstructural needs to be looked at equally to the structural. We think 

that a balanced look between economics and environment is very, 

very important, and many of our members have done quite a few 

nonstructural projects. Even in the same community, like in Harris 

County, we look at that and there are some areas where we do 

61 

nonstructural. That is the best answer. But not too far down the 

road a structural approach is the one that is selected. 

People think the new principles and guidelines is going to be a 

lot different than the older one, but even in the older one or the 

one that is in existence now, nonstructural was required to be 

looked at. I think what the new principles and guidelines is doing 

is just emphasizing that, as well as looking at the environmental 

aspects of projects in a little bit more detail. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. 

With that, I yield. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Cao. 

Mr. CAO. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

My first question is directed to Mr. Theodore Brown or anyone 

who might have an answer to the question, and the first question 

concerns the excessive delays exhibited by the Army Corps of Engineers to deepen and maintain a portion of the Mississippi River 

channel adjacent to the Napoleon Avenue container terminal at the 

Port of New Orleans. And my question is what are the Corps’ plans 

to complete the small navigation project study and commence the 

required maintenance dredging near the terminal? 

Mr. BROWN. Congressman, just for clarification, which project 

was this again? 

Mr. CAO. There is a portion of the Mississippi River channel adjacent to the Napoleon Avenue container terminal that needs deepening. The small navigation project, or at least the project to deepen this portion of the river was authorized under the 2007 WRDA 

bill, and it has been two years since the project was authorized and 

the dredging has not been done to deepen the channel. So I am just 

wondering what plans does the Corps have to deepen that portion 

of the river. 

Mr. BROWN. I will be happy to get back with you. I mean, obviously, anything is subject to appropriations prior to—it will require 

authorization and appropriations, but I will provide a detailed answer back to you for the record. 

Mr. CAO. And I would like to ask a question concerning the Inner 

Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, which was built in 1921 in New Orleans, and the lock is well beyond its design life and needs to be 

replaced in order to accommodate the high level of maritime traffic 

in the area of the Port of New Orleans. 

The replacement of the Inner Harbor Canal Lock was authorized 

by Congress in the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1956 and reauthorized in 1986 and 1996. Congress has appropriated approximately 

$100 million to date for this project, but major construction has not 

yet commenced. My question is what efforts are being taken by the 

Corps to ensure the timely execution and completion of this extremely important water project in the 2nd District. 

Mr. BROWN. I believe this is the one, Congressman, that is right 

now under litigation? 

Mr. CAO. I believe that the litigation has completed. The judge 

cleared the Army Corps the way to start the construction of the 

canal lock. 

62 

Mr. BROWN. I would be happy to provide a detailed answer for 

the record. I thought this is the one that is still subject to litigation 

from the environmental impact statement. 

Mr. CAO. My next question I am not sure who I would direct it 

to, but it deals with Asian carp. Now, I guess the States of Illinois 

or Michigan, they are asking for the lock to be closed because of 

the fear of Asian carp that goes into the lake, and potentially it 

could cost the waterway commerce close to $5 billion. Now, I have 

a couple of recipes for Asian carp if anybody is interested. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CAO. Is there a better way for us to address this? 

Mr. BROWN. I think those alternatives are underway. There is an 

efficacy study that is ongoing. There are some temporary measures 

that are also ongoing, being looked at to be implemented. So I 

think the efficacy study will address some of those questions, Congressman. 

Mr. CAO. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. 

The distinguished Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Oberstar. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for this 

hearing, this review of Corps programs and policies, and getting 

this very distinguished panel together, and thank you for risking 

your voice to undertake this hearing. 

Chairwoman Johnson has been through a very long ordeal with 

the most precious commodity that we Members of Congress have, 

our voice. Her voice is very strong, but the decibels have been reduced because she has been through a long rehabilitation, and we 

are glad to have her here and glad to have her out of that collar 

that was necessary. Thank you for your perseverance here. You are 

a treasure for our Committee and for the work of the Corps of Engineers. 

Now, I want to follow up on a few things. Mr. Boozman very 

properly, very pointedly inquired, Mr. Brown, of the construction 

backlog of the Corps and the ongoing program, and that $59 billion 

construction need, and the list that he requested of you. I want to 

be sure that you also submit for the Committee where the funding 

has gone by Corps district over the last five years. 

Mr. BROWN. Certainly, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I think it is going to show that there is quite a 

disparity in the allocation of funding from district to district, and 

that there is a very substantial allocation to at least one district 

for a variety of reasons. But I want the facts out and I want them 

in that document you submit. 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chair, just for clarification, so I have it right. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. 

Mr. BROWN. You are looking at appropriations over the last five 

years by district? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. The investments that the Corps has made. 

Not the authorization, but the investments actually made under 

the appropriations provided over the last five years. 

Mr. BROWN. Okay. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

63 


Insert offset folio 42 here 56018.042
64 


Insert offset folio 43 here 56018.043
65 


Insert offset folio 44 here 56018.044
66 


Insert offset folio 45 here 56018.045
67 


Insert offset folio 46 here 56018.046
68 


Insert offset folio 47 here 56018.047
69 


Insert offset folio 48 here 56018.048
70 


Insert offset folio 49 here 56018.049
71 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That Corps budget has averaged under $4.8 bil- lion a year, and in the Recovery Act the Congress allocated $4.6 

billion, one whole year in addition, which was more than the previous year funding, for projects to be completed within the spirit 

of the Recovery Act. Now, here we have the $5.1 billion held up in 

the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and about $1.1 billion, $1.3 

billion collected annually, and it is not being invested. That is intolerable. 

I just discussed with Mr. Boozman the disadvantage Midwest 

soybean, corn, other grain farmers—just to take those commodities—have compared to Brazil. If you look at a map of South 

America, that point of Brazil that sticks out in the South Atlantic 

Ocean, right at that point is the Port of Recife. Under the direction 

of Mr. Shuster, Mr. Duncan led a delegation, which I participated, 

inquiry into port activities and competition from Central and South 

America. 

So we went to Recife and the Port of Santos is the point of export 

for the soybeans and other agricultural commodities that Brazil exports to the same West and East African port ranges, and to the 

Asia Pacific Rim ports to which we ship our commodities. 

They have a 2,500 mile advantage. They have at least a four day 

sailing advantage over the Port of New Orleans. And we have, on 

top of that, a three week disadvantage in moving those goods. 

Now, agricultural commodities move in international markets on 

as little as an eighth of a cent a bushel. If we are adding a transportation cost in delay and delivery, we are noncompetitive in the 

world marketplace. We have to make those investments in the expansion of the locks on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers authorized in the WRDA 2007. 

There is only one lock of 1,200 feet; that is Lock and Dam 26, 

north of the confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. 

That was authorized in 1978 and construction was completed in 

1994. We waited for years to authorize the construction of the 7 additional 1,200 foot lock structures on the Mississippi and Illinois 

rivers; finally we got all those authorizations together, put them in 

the WRDA 2007. We had to override a veto in order to do that. 

This was a bipartisan initiative. Congress together said we have 

waited seven years; we haven’t done these things, we haven’t made 

the investments. And now they are still not being done. Why? Because those costs have escalated. 

I see Mr. Doyle sitting in the audience, John Doyle, my successor 

as Committee administrator, later the Assistant Secretary for the 

Corps, and he is nodding in concurrence. Let it be known for the 

record. He knows. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Excuse me for my frustration and my enthusiasm 

for this subject, but this just drives me crazy that we don’t make 

these investments which are in—they are not just for the waterways, not just for the barge tow operators, not just for the ports; 

it is for all the farmers, all the farm communities that are served 

by the whole watershed of the Mississippi River. It is our international competitiveness. 

You improve those locks; America does better in the world marketplace. We can’t sit back and just twiddle our thumbs and say, 

72 

oh, well, it is big cost, we have a budget deficit. Baloney. If you 

don’t export, you don’t compete, you don’t have the duties; you 

don’t have the duties, we are not competitive in our domestic economy, we are not creating jobs, and we are not competing in the 

international marketplace. That is what this is all about. Let’s get 

our focus fixed right. 

Every one of those Chairman portraits on the wall there has 

been an advocate for investment in the works of the Corps of Engineers and in our inland waterways and our saltwater and freshwater ports. We have to continue doing that. 

So we are going to proceed with the Water Resources Development Act of 2010, but I have to observe that I am troubled by an 

unfortunate decision made by our friends across the aisle on Corps 

projects. At the outset of the 110th Congress, I got together with 

Mr. Mica, the Ranking Member of the full Committee, and Mr. 

Boozman. We worked out a new approach for designation of 

projects in which Members would sign a statement verifying, stating clearly they have no personal or family financial interest in the 

project which they are sponsoring. Second, we put those projects on 

the internet. Third, we included those statements in the Committee 

report on the bill and submitted it during Floor consideration for 

the Congressional Record. 

So in the interest of transparency and accountability, we charted 

a whole new chapter for a project authorization in WRDA 2007. It 

was novel. While there were other changes made in House rules, 

we were way ahead of the curve. So every project was accompanied 

by that certification, that neither the Member nor his or her spouse 

had a personal or family financial interest in the project. We included that also in the conference report on the bill, and it is now 

part of the public law history. 

Now, that transparency and accountability principle continues to 

be the Committee’s policy as we proceed with the WRDA 2010. We 

have received over 2,000 individual requests from both Republican 

and Democratic Members for projects to be included in the upcoming bill. All projects in WRDA 2010 will be accompanied by a 

signed no financial interest certification from the Member who requests the proposed project. The Committee report will list all 

sponsors of project authorizations and, as in the past, the certifications will be made publicly available prior to consideration of the 

bill in the House. 

Now, I know that that decision by the House Republican Conference has created a problem. I have discussed this with Mr. Mica; 

I have discussed it with many individual Members on the Republican side who are torn by the policy of their conference and the 

needs of their district. One hundred twenty Republican Members 

submitted project requests for WRDA 2010. So far, I have received 

a handful of letters transmitted from Mr. Mica, as directed by the 

Republican conference, to me from Republican Members requesting 

that their project proposals be withdrawn. 

Now, in each case where a Member requests his or her project 

to be withdrawn, I regret we will not be able to consider the project 

for inclusion in WRDA 2010. We are not just going to give a blank 

check. 

73 

Now, I also understand, one by one, sort of like Nicodemus in the 

night, Republican Members coming to say, look, I don’t intend to 

comply with the directive because of the importance of these 

projects to my district, including flood control, navigation, environmental restoration projects. 

Never in the history—I want to make it very clear. Never in the 

history of the House have Corps authorizations been considered 

earmarks. That is a unique term applied to the appropriation process. From the very first Congress works of the Corps of Engineers 

have been designated individually and specifically by the House of 

Representatives and the United States Senate. 

That is the process. From authorization for the Corps to do a survey, called a survey resolution, to evaluate the needs, report back, 

recommending for or against a project. If it is for, then we authorize the feasibility study. When that is completed, then we authorize 

justified projects for construction. And the whole process is governed by a benefit cost analysis, all transparent, open to the public. 

That is the way the Congress and this Committee have conducted this business from the very first Congress in 1789. We have 

never, Congress has never authorized a blank check to the Corps 

of Engineers to invest where they choose. It is not like giving funding to the Department of Education or Health and Human Services 

and said, well, go ahead and use this funding as you think best. 

The works of the Corps are unique; they are project by project, harbor by harbor, lock by lock, levee by levee, dam by dam, recreation 

lake by recreation lake. Every one of these is done specifically in 

a clear, open, transparent process in Committee and on the record. 

So I think it is unfortunate that while there have been problems 

in the appropriation process, the work of this Committee, under 

Democratic and Republican leadership for 225 years, has been 

above-board and open and transparent, and we are going to continue that process. And I welcome Members who submit projects 

and sign the certification. Their projects will be included. And 

those that don’t, I will respect the process chosen by the Republican party and we will just take it from there. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Olson. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Welcome to all the witnesses. Thanks for coming here today. We 

greatly appreciate it. 

Good to see you again, Mr. Fitzgerald. And I am sure it is good 

to be out of Houston with the way our Astros have started their 

baseball season. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OLSON. The only team in the major leagues who have not 

won a game, if anybody is concerned about that. 

Mr. Fitzgerald, I direct one question towards you concerning Section 214 of the 2000 WRDA, which, as you know, allows the Secretary of the Army to accept and expend funds contributed by nonFederal public entities to expedite the processing of permits 

through the Army Corps of Engineers. 

Many benefits to this. By funding additional staff work on permit 

evaluation, existing Corps staff are able to process significant backVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:31 Dec 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\56018.0 KAYLA
74 

logs more quickly. Hiring additional staff results in a reduction of 

permit waiting times not only for the local funding entity, but also 

for any individual organization that makes an application within 

that Corps district. 

I just want to get your take on how valuable Section 214 has 

been to your organization and how valuable would it be to making 

that permit, so you don’t have to go through this process and concern of it being reauthorized every year or so. 

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes. We recently have funded a position at the 

Galveston district and we immediately saw some benefits to our organization with the backlog of permits and jurisdictional determinations. It has really helped a lot. But we also get word back 

from the local Corps district that it is really helping other projects 

as well. Like we said, it doesn’t help just the funding entity. 

And there are several other local entities in the northwest part 

of the United States, in particular, that are taking advantage of 

this same opportunity, and making it permanent would kind of 

keep us from being on edge about whether it would be extended 

each year. But there is value to this in all the things that Mr. 

Oberstar was talking about, in getting things done and getting this 

position in the Corps district offices. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you very much. That is what we are here for, 

getting things done. 

Any other members of the panel like to comment on Section 214? 

[No audible response.] 

Mr. OLSON. Going, going, gone. Thank you very much for your 

time. 

I yield back my time, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

My question goes to the Corps of Engineers. We have had a lot 

of discussion on things that are east of the Mississippi. Let’s focus 

a little bit on things that are west of the Mississippi, specifically, 

the California area, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, a rather 

important part of the largest population in this Nation. It is where 

the water for 25 million people flow; it is where it is really the incubator for much of the Pacific coast fisheries; and it is in deep 

trouble. 

I don’t think we are going to have time to get into all of this, but 

a brief comment, if you would, on the Corps’ general attitude about 

the Delta, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, what you are doing; 

and then I have some specific things I would like you to prepare 

and to deliver. 

Mr. BROWN. Certainly. We have a substantial effort that is ongoing in that part of the world, in California and the Bay Delta, not 

only on the environmental side, but as well as the flood risk management side. We have scheduled a potential report before the end 

of the calendar year that is a general reevaluation report on 

Natomas that would be looked at for reauthorization. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I appreciate the brevity of it because that pretty 

much states the brevity and the lack of enthusiasm by the Corps 

in dealing with it. I had a conversation with the regional operation 

out there and found, to my surprise, that there was almost nothing 

75 

going on; very few projects and very, very limited. Perhaps that 

was my own inability, after 35 years of understanding what the 

Corps was up to, but it seemed to me to be woefully inadequate 

given the challenge that the State faces, and the citizens of the 

State and the environment of the State face. 

Specifically, I would like you to deliver, at the earliest possible 

moment, a comprehensive review of all of the Corps of Engineers’ 

projects in the Delta that are currently underway; those that are 

planned in the immediate future, that is, within the next one to 

three years. These projects should include the water issues as they 

relate to the programs that are currently being discussed in California; flood issues in the Delta, levee protection and the like; environmental issues, restoration of the environment in the area; and 

the funding associated with each of those three. If there is no funding, so state. If there is a program that is envisioned but not funded, I need to know. 

We had a discussion from the Chairman a moment ago about 

earmarks. Let it be known that I am a full and strong believer in 

earmarks for this part of the State because this is the most critical 

part of California’s water future, and if we don’t provide the funding for the Corps and the other Federal agencies that are involved, 

it is going to be really bad. 

Can you do that for me? 

Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

76 


Insert offset folio 50 here 56018.050
77 


Insert offset folio 51 here 56018.051
78 


Insert offset folio 52 here 56018.052
79 


Insert offset folio 53 here 56018.053
80 


Insert offset folio 54 here 56018.054
81 


Insert offset folio 55 here 56018.055
82 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you. Secondly, I live in the Delta, I live 

on the Sacramento River, and I have watched with amazement, 

two years ago, a major effort to provide some enhancement of the 

levees on the Sacramento River, including a very significant 

amount of money spent on vegetation on the side of the levee; followed almost immediately by an edict from Washington, D.C. Corps 

offices that the levees are to be stripped of all vegetation. 

And it doesn’t surprise me, but it sure angers me. What is going 

on here? This issue has yet to be resolved. I know that there are 

studies underway and I would like a status report on what the 

Corps’ position is with regard to vegetation on the levees. Are you 

going to, one year, plant vegetation; the next year strip it off? If 

so, I guess that is a good make-work project, but doesn’t fulfill the 

kinds of long-term investment that has been discussed here. 

So if you would provide that update on what the Corps’ position 

is with regard to vegetation on the levees in the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta or the entire Central Valley. 

Mr. BROWN. I will do so. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Finally, the issue of habitat restoration in the 

Delta is of utmost importance, and nothing will happen and no 

project will move forward without the Corps of Engineers’ involvement in that habitat restoration. We understand the permitting 

process and the necessity for Corps of Engineers’ involvement for 

in other areas. So I would like a status report on how the Corps 

of Engineers is engaged with the State of California’s agencies recently established by law and what the needs may be for the Corps 

to fully engage. That is a little more than in the first that I suggested. 

And I will put all this in writing to you so that your notes are 

complete. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

There are no other requests for time. Let me thank the panel for 

being here. We appreciate your testimony, and we will look forward 

to asking you questions in the future or getting further information. 

The Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:52 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

83 


Insert offset folio 56 here 56018.056
84 


Insert offset folio 57 here 56018.057
85 


Insert offset folio 58 here 56018.058
86 


Insert offset folio 59 here 56018.059
87 


Insert offset folio 60 here 56018.060
88 


Insert offset folio 61 here 56018.061
89 


Insert offset folio 62 here 56018.062
90 


Insert offset folio 63 here 56018.063
91 


Insert offset folio 64 here 56018.064
92 


Insert offset folio 65 here 56018.065
93 


Insert offset folio 66 here 56018.066
94 


Insert offset folio 67 here 56018.067
95 


Insert offset folio 68 here 56018.068
96 


Insert offset folio 69 here 56018.069
97 


Insert offset folio 70 here 56018.070
98 


Insert offset folio 71 here 56018.071
99 


Insert offset folio 72 here 56018.072
100 


Insert offset folio 73 here 56018.073
101 


Insert offset folio 74 here 56018.074
102 


Insert offset folio 75 here 56018.075
103 


Insert offset folio 76 here 56018.076
104 


Insert offset folio 77 here 56018.077
105 


Insert offset folio 78 here 56018.078
106 


Insert offset folio 79 here 56018.079
107 


Insert offset folio 80 here 56018.080
108 


Insert offset folio 81 here 56018.081
109 


Insert offset folio 82 here 56018.082
110 


Insert offset folio 83 here 56018.083
111 


Insert offset folio 84 here 56018.084
112 


Insert offset folio 85 here 56018.085
113 


Insert offset folio 86 here 56018.086
114 


Insert offset folio 87 here 56018.087
115 


Insert offset folio 88 here 56018.088
116 


Insert offset folio 89 here 56018.089
117 


Insert offset folio 90 here 56018.090
118 


Insert offset folio 91 here 56018.091
119 


Insert offset folio 92 here 56018.092
120 


Insert offset folio 93 here 56018.093
121 


Insert offset folio 94 here 56018.094
122 


Insert offset folio 95 here 56018.095
123 


Insert offset folio 96 here 56018.096
124 


Insert offset folio 97 here 56018.097
125 


Insert offset folio 98 here 56018.098
126 


Insert offset folio 99 here 56018.099
127 


Insert offset folio 100 here 56018.100
128 


Insert offset folio 101 here 56018.101
129 


Insert offset folio 102 here 56018.102
130 


Insert offset folio 103 here 56018.103
131 


Insert offset folio 104 here 56018.104
132 


Insert offset folio 105 here 56018.105
133 


Insert offset folio 106 here 56018.106
134 


Insert offset folio 107 here 56018.107
135 


Insert offset folio 108 here 56018.108
136 


Insert offset folio 109 here 56018.109
137 


Insert offset folio 110 here 56018.110
138 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 111 here 56018.111