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

80–437 PDF 2013

THE FOUNDATIONS FOR A NEW WATER 

RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT 

(113–10) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 16, 2013 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas, 

Vice Chair 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

VACANCY 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

JANICE HAHN, California 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Hon. Harry Simmons, Mayor, Caswell Beach, North Carolina, and President, 

American Shore and Beach Preservation Association ...................................... 7 

Warren D. Williams, General Manager/Chief Engineer, Riverside County 

Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and President, National 

Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies .......................... 7 

Peter Stephaich, Chairman, Campbell Transportation Company, and Secretary, Waterways Council, Inc. ......................................................................... 7 

Adolph N. Ojard, Executive Director, Duluth Seaway Port Authority, and 

U.S. Delegation Chairman, American Association of Port Authorities ........... 7 

Christopher J. Gobler, Ph.D., School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, 

Stony Brook University, and Director of the Shinnecock Bay Restoration 

Program ................................................................................................................ 7 

Amy W. Larson, Esq., President and CEO, National Waterways Conference, 

Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 7

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Harry Simmons ............................................................................................... 42 

Warren D. Williams ................................................................................................. 46 

Peter Stephaich ........................................................................................................ 55 

Adolph N. Ojard ....................................................................................................... 68 

Christopher J. Gobler, Ph.D. .................................................................................. 73 

Amy W. Larson, Esq. ............................................................................................... 76 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Great Lakes Maritime Task Force, written testimony ......................................... 93 

National Wildlife Federation, written testimony of Melissa Samet, Senior 

Water Resources Counsel .................................................................................... 98 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 80437.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 80437.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 80437.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 80437.004
(1) 

THE FOUNDATIONS FOR A NEW WATER 

RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

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

Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs 

(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GIBBS. At this time the Water Resources and Environment 

Subcommittee will come to order. 

I would like to welcome everybody to our first subcommittee 

hearing of this new Congress. Today we have esteemed panelists, 

and I am going to turn it over in a second to my ranking member 

to introduce one of the panelists. 

We will introduce them and then go back to opening statements, 

to just recognize they are here. 

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

And I appreciate the opportunity to introduce a member of the 

panel who is a long-time colleague. We had the pleasure of working 

together at Southampton College, and now, Professor Chris Gobler 

is at the Stony Brook University campus at Southampton, where 

he is part of the university’s School of Marine and Atmospheric 

Sciences. He is a recognized national and international expert in 

the field of marine and fresh water ecology, and over the last 20 

years he has published over 90 peer-reviewed articles and multiple 

professional journals. 

He is intimately involved in the Shinnecock Bay Restoration 

Project, which is a project that has enormous regional significance, 

and he is recognized as a national expert on how coastal physical 

and biological systems respond to storm and development impacts. 

So, Chris, it is a pleasure to welcome you to Washington, and I 

should tell the whole room here that if there is a better teacher 

alive, I would like to meet him or her. Chris, welcome to the committee and thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Representative. 

Also on our panel today we have the Honorable Harry Simmons. 

He is the mayor of Caswell Beach, North Carolina. He is also president of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association. 

Also Mr. Warren Williams, who is the general manager of Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. He is 

2 

also the president of the National Association of Flood and 

Stormwater Management Agencies. 

We also have Mr. Stephaich. He is chairman of the Campbell 

Transportation Company and secretary of the Waterways Council. 

Also Mr. Adolph Ojard. He is the executive director of the Duluth 

Seaway Port Authority. He is also the U.S. delegation chairman of 

the American Association of Port Authorities. 

And also Ms. Amy Larson, who is president of the National Waterways Conference. 

And at this time I am going to turn it over. I am really pleased 

that our chairman of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Chairman Shuster, is here. He has taken a real interest in the importance of WRDA and the waterways and maritime 

transportation system and the challenges we have. So I am going 

to turn it over to Mr. Shuster for an opening statement. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for all your 

hard work over the past couple of months holding a number of listening sessions, and we had a roundtable with Ranking Member 

Bishop and Ranking Member Rahall. 

I think it is extremely important that we are listening to the 

stakeholders out there, and in our last bipartisan roundtable, there 

was equal surprise and concern by both sides of the aisle as to the 

excessive costs and time delays that plague many of the core 

projects. 

In fact, at one point I could not tell the difference of who was 

a Republican and who was a Democrat in the room because we 

were all, as I said, frustrated by what we have heard and what we 

are hearing. So it is important that we move a WRDA bill forward. 

We are going to move it forward in a fashion where we have listened to folks. We reach across the aisle and we want to do this 

in a bipartisan way because I think, as I said, in that last roundtable we had there is concern on both sides of the aisle to making 

sure we streamline the process to move these projects forward. Excessive studies and time delays just need to stop. 

WRDA does matter, and again, it is a bill that when I say 

‘‘WRDA’’ I always need to follow with Water Resources and Development Act. Too many of my colleagues were not here; in fact, 

about 46 percent of the Members of the House today were not here 

in 2007. So they are not familiar with the WRDA bill, and if you 

do not come from a port or harbor town or a river town, or have 

a place that has significant problems with flooding, you do not understand necessarily the importance of a WRDA bill. 

So as we move forward with this bill in a bipartisan way with 

our goal of trying to solve these problems, I know that the Senate 

has moved it out of their committee, and it appears that it may be 

on the Senate floor here in the coming weeks. We need to pay attention to what has happened in the Senate. I think the Senate bill 

has some very good features to it. There are some things that are 

not included, but again, as we start to craft our bill we want to 

make sure that we are making the right decisions and making sure 

the investments are made. 

One of the numbers that I have come across in these listening 

sessions, I was talking to the soybean growers, and the United 

States is one of the leading producers of soybeans in the world. One 

3 

of our number one competitors is Brazil, and we have a competitive 

advantage over the Brazilians because it takes us, the United 

States, because of our inland waterway system, our transportation 

system, $85 to move a ton of soybean from Davenport, Iowa, to 

Shanghai, China. It takes the Brazilians to move that same ton 

same distance $141. And we see today the Brazilians are investing 

$26 billion in their water infrastructure, as well as the Chinese are 

down there investing. 

So we need to pay close attention to that because as each year 

goes on, their number is going to come down and ours is going to 

go up if we do not streamline this process, have the reforms necessary to get these projects done quicker because time is money, 

and also be looking at how do we make sure that we are funding 

these projects at a level they need to be funded at. 

Again, I go back to the founding of this country. Transportation, 

commerce has always been at the core of the Federal Government, 

what our role is in the Constitution going back to why the Federalists Papers failed. It was a transportation system, a water transportation system, an inland water transportation system. When the 

Virginians and the folks from Maryland could not come together on 

a treaty to navigate the Potomac River, they came away with the 

failed negotiations realizing we had to strengthen our Constitution 

and make sure that it was clear that the Federal Government had 

a role, and it does have a role. 

As we see, the Panama Canal as it is moving forward, we only 

have seven ports in this country that can take those ships today. 

We are not going to have every port dredged to a depth to be able 

to take those ships, but we assuredly need more ports in this country to move forward. 

I think a lot of us have heard the situation down in Miami where 

the Port of Miami has the money. They are ready to move forward. 

The Federal Government will not step up and say they are going 

to reimburse and say they are going to take over the maintenance 

and operation cost going forward. 

You know, these are problems we have out there we need to look 

closely at, and again, it is one of my top priorities. It is one of the 

committee’s top priorities to make sure we have passed a WRDA 

bill that improves the operation of the Corps, and as I have said 

and I have been saying, is making sure we are making those investments in a timely manner. 

So, again, I thank the chairman for holding this hearing. I thank 

the ranking member, Mr. Bishop, for his work on this issue, too, 

and I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Bishop, do you have any opening statement? 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank you for holding today’s hearing, and I welcome you back 

to your role as chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources 

and the Environment, and I look forward to working with you 

throughout the year on issues of importance to the Nation. 

Chief among these is the issue of jobs and how we can harness 

the power of this committee to help create hard working jobs for 

American families. Like I can imagine you were, Mr. Chairman, I 

was disappointed in the job creation numbers that came out earlier 

4 

this month. While the national unemployment rate ticked down to 

7.6 percent, there is still about 11.7 million unemployed Americans. 

When you examine these numbers more deeply, you can see that 

some areas of the economy are taking longer to recover than others. For example, the March unemployment rate in construction 

was 14.7 percent, the highest unemployment rate in any sector examined in the national labor market. To be blunt, there are currently 1.2 million unemployed construction workers in the Nation 

that need our help. 

Mr. Chairman, I am frequently asked whether the Federal Government can do anything to help reduce the rate of unemployment 

in this Nation. In my view, and I think it is one that is backed up 

by lessons learned from the Recovery Act of 2009, Federal investments in our Nation’s infrastructure systems, our highways, 

bridges, airports, sewers, and other water related infrastructure do, 

in fact, create jobs. 

That is why the work of this committee is so important, because 

it primes the pump for additional investments in our Nation’s infrastructure that will benefit the country in so many ways. 

First, they create well-paying jobs for American families that 

cannot be outsourced overseas. 

Second, these investments benefit our overall national economy, 

leading to better transit corridors, reduced congestion, competitive 

markets, better air and water quality, and increased international 

competitiveness and productivity. 

Third, these investments improve regional and local quality of 

life issues, making our communities more livable, more accessible 

and fostering regional and local economies. 

Finally, these investments provide a resounding return on what 

is a relatively modest Federal investment, not only in terms of increased tax revenues, but lower Federal expenditures for unemployment insurance and other Federal support programs. 

As others have noted, it has been over 6 years since the Congress 

last approved a Water Resources Development Act, and in those intervening years our Nation’s needs have matured and our awareness of the fragile nature of our infrastructure has increased, and 

yet our national, regional, and local fiscal situations have grown 

more complicated. 

As of today’s hearing, the committee has received 23 completed 

reports of the Chief of Engineers for projects all across the country 

for navigation, flood control, and environmental restoration. The 

combined total cost of these Chief’s Reports is approximately $15.5 

billion and addresses issues ranging from providing enhanced flood 

protection for cities from Sacramento, California, to Fargo, North 

Dakota, to Topeka, Kansas, to providing expanded navigational capabilities to the Sabine-Neches Waterway along the Texas-Louisiana border, as well as Jacksonville Harbor, Florida, to authorizing the next stage of restoration for the Florida Everglades or the 

coastal areas of Mississippi and Louisiana that were so heavily impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

In other words, the scope of the work that is awaiting action 

from this committee is comprehensive, is national, and when carried out will provide significant benefits to the lives and livelihoods 

of communities all across the Nation. 

5 

During the debate on a new WRDA, I expect to have some lively 

discussions on how to proceed. For example, we need to have a serious discussion on how to address the pending construction work 

that this committee authorized the Corps to study and this Congress funded at taxpayer expense under the existing earmark moratorium. 

We also need to have a serious discussion on how we can address 

our local needs when faced with an ever constrained Federal budget process and one that will become even more constrained should 

the House continue to follow the 10-year cut to the Corps budget 

called for in the Majority’s budget proposal. 

We need to have a serious discussion about why projects studied 

by the Corps take years to complete and whether the actions developed by the Corps in response to this committee’s direction in 

WRDA 2007 are making significant improvements to this process. 

And finally, we need to have a serious discussion on the future 

of the Corps and how we expect the agency to address many of the 

water related challenges facing our Nation today. This is no easy 

task, but it is one that is going to require significant efforts from 

both sides of the aisle to address fundamental challenges within a 

complicated system. 

Mr. Chairman, again, I am glad we are starting this process 

today, and I look forward to working with you on a bipartisan basis 

to meet the needs of our communities and our Nation. 

I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. 

Today our hearing is on the foundations for a new Water Resources Development Act. We are holding our first of multiple hearings with regard to the United States Army Corps of Engineers and 

the next Water Resources Development Act, and we are holding 

our first hearing of this Congress as a subcommittee, and I would 

like to welcome our new members to the committee. You are going 

to find it very interesting and important, the work we do here. 

It is time for this Congress to reengage in the development of the 

Nation’s water resources and play a bigger role in prioritizing 

projects and activities carried out by the Army Corps of Engineers. 

Congress cannot continue to abdicate its constitutional role and responsibility in determining what projects should go forward and 

should reassert itself in the face of an administration that creates 

a one size fits all policy with little or no transparency. 

Over the last few weeks, we have held a number of educational 

forums and roundtables on the Corps of Engineers program. One 

of the themes that has emerged is the concern of industry stakeholders and non-Federal project sponsors, typically counties or cities, regarding the time it takes the agency to actually reach a decision. In what used to take the Corps 3 to 5 years to study, it has 

now become the norm for the Corps to take 10, 12, or even 15 years 

to produce a study. This is unacceptable. 

And it is no wonder it is taking so much time since the Corps 

has to review in detail many different alternatives. In one case, a 

Chief’s Report was sent to Congress last year. The study of the 

project was authorized in 1999. The original purpose of the project 

was for navigation improvements, but when the Chief’s Report was 

delivered to Congress last year, the total project cost was $650 milVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:08 Jun 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\4-16-1~1\80437.TXT JEAN
6 

lion, but only $250 million was for the actual construction of the 

navigation improvements. The rest of the project costs, almost $400 

million, are attributed to environmental enhancements, not just environmental mitigation. 

In another case, the Corps of Engineers delivered to Congress a 

Chief’s Report for which there is no Federal cost share partner. The 

study took 7 years to develop, but since then there is no Federal 

sponsor. Why should the Congress authorize this project? The funding spent on that study could have been spent more wisely in 

projects where there are non-Federal sponsors and local support. 

Lastly, a Chief’s Report came to Congress authorizing a project 

to prevent storm damages, but also included in that Chief’s Report 

would be the authority, should Congress choose to give it, for the 

Corps of Engineers to carry out an additional $140 million worth 

of studies in the project area. 

Ultimately, the Federal taxpayer is on the hook for these studies 

and for the length of time it takes to carry them out. The Corps 

reviews far too many alternatives, and then sends to Congress a 

project request that far exceeds in scope and cost which was initially intended. 

As one of our witnesses will explain to the subcommittee today, 

just because a study is costly, complex, and long does not necessarily mean that it’s a better project. In fact, a large, costly 

project with so many add-ons that never gets funded is a benefit 

to no one. 

It is critical to accelerate these studies, but it is also extremely 

important that we better prioritize the Corps of Engineers program 

to focus the agency on those projects and activities that protect life, 

promote safety, and have an economic return on investment and 

have local support. 

As we move forward with the policy-heavy Water Resources Development Act, we will be focusing on accelerating the study and 

project delivery process, as well as better prioritizing these worthwhile investments that the American public had relied on for decades. 

Congressman Bishop is right. It is about jobs. It is about job creation. It is about being competitive in the global marketplace and 

moving our country and our economy forward in global competitiveness. 

So I want to thank the witnesses for coming, and we are interested in hearing your testimony. With no further ado, we will get 

right to that. 

If any other Members have opening statements, you may submit 

them for the record. 

We do have an unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s hearing be left open until such time 

as witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be 

submitted in writing or additional comments or materials offered 

by individuals or group may be included in the record of today’s 

hearing. 

All in favor? No objection do we see. We are good to go on the 

unanimous consent. 

OK. We will start here with the Honorable Harry Simmons, your 

opening statement, and then we will go through all of the opening 

7 

statements and we will go back and do Q&A at the end of the 

statement. Welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. HARRY SIMMONS, MAYOR, CASWELL 

BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA, AND PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 

SHORE AND BEACH PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION; WARREN 

D. WILLIAMS, GENERAL MANAGER/CHIEF ENGINEER, RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, AND PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 

OF FLOOD AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCIES; 

PETER STEPHAICH, CHAIRMAN, CAMPBELL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, AND SECRETARY, WATERWAYS COUNCIL, 

INC.; ADOLPH N. OJARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DULUTH 

SEAWAY PORT AUTHORITY, AND U.S. DELEGATION CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES; 

CHRISTOPHER J. GOBLER, PH.D., SCHOOL OF MARINE AND 

ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY, AND 

DIRECTOR OF THE SHINNECOCK BAY RESTORATION PROGRAM; AND AMY W. LARSON, ESQ., PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL WATERWAYS CONFERENCE, INC. 

Mr. SIMMONS. Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member Bishop, and 

members of the subcommittee, my name is Harry Simmons. I am 

president of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, which has advocated for a healthy coastline since 1926. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee 

today to discuss the upcoming Water Resources Development Act. 

ASBPA is comprised of coastal counties, cities and towns 

throughout the Nation as well as a large contingent of coastal engineers, researchers, scientists and regulators. Together we advocate 

for policies that benefit the communities and resources of coastal 

America. 

We are especially interested in policies that provide resiliency, 

sustainability, and efficiency in the commonsense management of 

our coasts. 

America’s coastlines are a valuable natural resource. Travel and 

tourism is one of the largest industries in this country, with beaches contributing roughly $225 billion annually in business and tax 

revenue to the national economy, including bringing more and 

more overseas visitors and their dollars to our country. 

In addition, the travel and tourism industry is the largest employer in the United States and its jobs are, fortunately, difficult 

to move offshore. During a time where the availability of jobs is a 

major national concern, we should be doing everything we can to 

protect and maintain this country’s coastlines. 

America’s coasts are also vulnerable to severe storms that put 

people, property, infrastructure and the environment at risk. 

Superstorm Sandy is the latest in a series of natural disasters that 

have highlighted this vulnerability, but what Sandy also demonstrated is that the often modest investment that the Federal 

Government and its non-Federal partners have made in building 

strong dune systems and healthy beaches was repaid many times 

over. 

In the areas hit by Sandy, communities protected by high dunes 

and wide beaches survived while those without these coastal proVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:08 Jun 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\4-16-1~1\80437.TXT JEAN
8 

tections paid a high price. In the years ahead, there will be more 

storms that will threaten lives, safety, and property along the 

coast. A strong dune system sitting behind wide, healthy beaches 

is one of the best tools to reduce risk and promote sustainability. 

It has been nearly 6 years since Congress passed a WRDA bill, 

and the programs and policies that impact America’s coasts are in 

critical need of updating. The Federal Government’s fiscal situation 

requires smarter spending decisions based on a system that plans, 

manages, and funds important water resource projects with greater 

efficiency. 

Nowhere is this need more apparent than along our Nation’s 

shorelines. We can no longer manage America’s coastlines one 

project at a time. For nearly a decade ASBPA has supported the 

regionalization of Federal water resources activities. It is time for 

a multiagency, collaborative system to plan, construct, and manage 

water resources projects that includes Federal, State and local governments. 

We hope that the WRDA bill this committee develops will include 

an authorization to test this approach in one or more regions of the 

coast. The current project-by-project approach is wasting taxpayers’ 

money and reducing the effectiveness of Federal investments. It is 

also wasting precious supplies of sand in many cases by dredging 

navigation projects and dumping that sand offshore rather than 

using it to nourish beaches and provide natural habitat. 

WRDA 2007 authorized a new regional sediment management 

program long championed by ASBPA. Unfortunately, the language 

of that provision enabled Corps headquarters to implement guidance that has almost nullified the effect of the WRDA provision. 

ASBPA would like to work with this committee to correct these defects. 

Another important initiative to assure that coastal sustainability 

and resiliency are attained is to create a procedure to enable the 

evaluation and authorization of coastal protection projects whose 

50-year period for Federal fiscal participation is coming to a close. 

The Corps currently lacks a statutorily authorized process to determine whether or not it is feasible to reauthorize Federal participation. Without a straightforward procedure to evaluate whether 

there is a continued Federal interest in financially supporting an 

expiring coastal storm damage reduction project, there is no way 

local governments can afford to provide the same level of protection. 

In closing, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member Bishop, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to appear before you today. There are other issues in our written comments 

which you can ask us about if you wish. ASBPA is more than 

happy to offer you and your staffs the assistance of our members, 

including world renowned coastal scientists, engineers, and managers, as well as State and local government officials and other 

community leaders. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mayor. 

Mr. Williams, welcome. The floor is yours. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

9 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Dusty 

Williams. I am president of NAFSMA, the National Association of 

Flood and Storm Water Management Agencies. 

I am pleased to appear before you today to present this testimony addressing the proposals for the WRDA Act of 2013. On behalf of our membership, we thank you for your leadership and efforts to move a WRDA forward this year. 

NAFSMA appreciates the difficulty of drafting this much needed 

bill in the light of serious economic issues facing the Nation and 

the constraints of earmark limitations. We thank you for taking on 

this challenge and offer to work with you to address these critical 

issues. 

NAFSMA is a public agency driven organization with a focus on 

effective flood and storm water management in urban areas. For 35 

years NAFSMA’s mission has been to advocate public policy and 

encourage technologies in watershed management that focus on 

flood protection, stormwater and floodplain management. The organization is keenly aware that flood damage reduction activities and 

projects are a wise and necessary investment that reduce the loss 

of life and ensure the safety of our citizens, thereby reducing recurring requests for Federal disaster assistance. 

And while our formal written testimony discusses more than a 

dozen recommendations for WRDA 2013, I would like to spend just 

a few minutes highlighting a handful of our more significant proposals. 

First, enactment of WRDA itself, the reauthorization of WRDA is 

critical. In the wake of the enormous devastation and suffering 

caused by Sandy, moving our Nation’s flood risk management initiatives forward is more important than ever. Local, regional and 

State agencies depend on WRDA’s reauthorization. 

Exclude Corps of Engineers water resource projects from the definition of earmarks. Federal funds used to reduce the loss of life 

and property damages from floods are an investment in improving 

the resiliency of a community and the Nation. The Corps of Engineers process and associated legislative requirements for identifying, vetting, and funding potential projects is an example of a 

transparent and public process which does not belong in the earmark category. 

Enact a national levee safety program. As a member of the National Committee on Levee Safety, I am pleased that the NAFSMA 

membership approved a resolution in support of a national levee 

safety program. NAFSMA’s resolution notes that the Nation lacks 

a complete understanding of levee location, ownership, and condition, and that Federal funding participation is required for the rehabilitation and repair of levees, many of which were constructed 

in partnership with the Corps. 

NAFSMA urges Congress to move forward with a voluntary and 

incentive-based national levee safety program that includes qualified States and local and regional flood control agencies, and that 

also establishes a national levee rehabilitation improvement and 

flood mitigation fund. 

Develop and implement measures to more closely harmonize 

levee O&M activities with environmental requirements. This National Committee on Levee Safety recommendation is particularly 

10 

important to NAFSMA members who are currently trying to maintain the integrity and strength of their existing levees so they provide the flood reduction capabilities expected by the public. 

NAFSMA urges Congress to clarify routine maintenance for damage reduction facilities and to improve the regulatory process for 

obtaining the necessary permits. 

Levee vegetation review. NAFSMA strongly supports the inclusion of language to direct the Assistant Secretary to conduct a comprehensive review of Corps policy guidelines regarding vegetation 

on levees. NAFSMA has raised concerns about the one size fits all 

nature of this policy which we are concerned is not supported by 

conclusive research. 

Non-Federal project implementation pilot program. We are also 

recommending inclusion of a pilot program to evaluate the cost effectiveness and efficiency of allowing non-Federal interests to carry 

out flood risk management projects. NAFSMA is very supportive of 

this type of effort for the design and construction of projects that 

do not require a new start. 

Address crediting issue. NAFSMA supports including language to 

address concerns of non-Federal partners relating to credit eligibility and its availability to sponsors for advanced construction of 

flood protection works. With the current economic strain faced by 

non-Federal sponsors and their Federal counterparts alike, the 

ability to address critical flood damage reduction and public safety 

needs by promoting earlier construction of these essential projects 

represents a sound investment of Federal and local resources. 

In closing NAFSMA very much appreciates this opportunity to 

testify, and our members look forward to working with the committee on a WRDA 2013. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Stephaich, welcome. The floor is yours. 

Mr. STEPHAICH. Thank you, Chairman Shuster, Chairman Gibbs, 

Ranking Member Bishop, and members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

As chairman of Campbell Transportation Company, I am also on 

the Executive Committee of Waterways Council, the national public 

policy organization that advocates in support of a modern, wellmaintained system of inland waterways and ports. Our diverse 

members include waterways carriers, shippers, agricultural interests, port authorities, trade unions, shipping associations, and waterways advocacy groups from all regions of the country. 

It has now been almost 6 years since the most recent Water Resource Development Act became law. Important water resource policy decisions are pending before this Congress, and none is more 

important in Waterways Council’s view than the need to redesign 

the way the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers manages the planning 

and construction of lock and dam modernization projects on the inland waterway system. 

More than half of the system that is operated by the Army Corps 

of Engineers is now more than 50 years old. These locks and dams 

require constant attention and financial support both in terms of 

operations and maintenance funding to keep them reliably available to users throughout the year, as well as modernization fundVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:08 Jun 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\4-16-1~1\80437.TXT JEAN
11 

ing to improve the systems’ efficiency and add to the Nation’s economic well-being. 

The starting point for consideration of the financing and management challenge facing the inland waterways system must be recognition that the current business model for modernizing the Nation’s locks and dams is seriously broken and must be reformed. 

The Panamanians are able to build the new $5.25 billion locks for 

the Panama Canal on time and on budget. Conversely, as a Nation 

we in the United States seem to have lost the ability we once had 

to plan and construct individual inland waterways capital projects 

in a timely and cost efficient fashion. 

My written statement goes into some detail on this point, but I 

will just highlight one example here, the Olmsted Lock and Dam. 

Initial construction funding was provided by Congress in fiscal year 

1991 for this Ohio River lock and dam replacement project that had 

been authorized by Congress 3 years earlier in WRDA 1988 at an 

estimated cost of $775 million. 

Today, 22 years after that first appropriation for construction and with $1.5 billion already spent, the project is nowhere near 

completion, and its estimated cost has almost quadrupled to at 

least $3.1 billion. Even if the project continues to receive every year 

full and efficient funding, the Corps has estimated that Olmsted’s 

construction will not be completed until late 2024, more than 33 

years after the project’s first construction appropriation. 

Mr. Chairman, I cannot say it better than last year’s testimony 

of my inland waterways colleague, Mark Knoy. Where is the outrage? Where is the recognition that this great Nation cannot continue to sit idly by while the Olmsted travesty essentially stops 

progress on the rest of the national inland waterways modernization program for more than another decade? And Olmsted is not 

the only example. 

There is a solution to this challenge, Mr. Chairman, that WCI 

and more than 200 organizations nationwide believe will set the 

country on a course of prudent modernization of our locks and 

dams. That solution, known as the Capital Development Plan for 

short, was developed by a team comprised of experts from within 

the Corps and senior leaders of the inland waterways industry who 

spent nearly a year and a half assessing this challenge. 

During this Congress, the Capital Development Plan has been 

converted into legislation and introduced by Congressmen Ed 

Whitfield and Dan Lipinski. H.R. 1149, known as the WAVE4 Act 

of 2013, now has 14 bipartisan co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, four more than indicated in the written statement as 

a result of additions last week. 

We thank the WAVE4 co-sponsors for their leadership and urge 

the members of this committee and the entire U.S. House of Representatives to support moving the Capital Development Plan forward in the WRDA legislation that you are developing. 

Mr. Chairman, suppose we continue to pretend that our locks 

and dams do not need to be cared for, that it does not matter how 

long it takes to build a new lock and dam project or how much it 

costs, or that our national economy does not really need the increased efficiencies that modernized projects will generate. Does 

any of that matter? 

12 

Two recent studies remind us once again that it matters a great 

deal. Six months ago, the American Society of Civil Engineers released a new report on our national ports and waterways infrastructure. The ASCE ‘‘Failure to Act’’ report identifies a severe investment gap totaling $16 billion between now and 2020. 

Another report on the cost of inland waterways project delays 

was prepared for the National Waterways Foundation by HDR/Decision Economics. The HDR report concluded that continuation of 

the current inadequate $170 million per year investment for inland 

waterways modernization projects nationwide would result in a societal cost of $34 billion, much of which has already been lost. 

We cannot continue to pretend that neglecting this problem is an 

acceptable approach. We need the Capital Development Plan now. 

Mr. Chairman, my written statement poses three questions that 

we should all consider as you develop this year’s WRDA. In the 

meantime I am pleased to respond to any questions that you or the 

subcommittee may have. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Ojard, welcome. The floor is yours. 

Mr. OJARD. Chairman Shuster, Chairman Gibbs and Ranking 

Member, Representative Bishop, and members of the committee, I 

want to thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to the 

Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee on the foundations for a new Water Resources Development Act. 

I am Adolph Ojard, executive director of the Duluth Seaway Port 

Authority. I appear here today as the U.S. delegation chair of the 

American Association of Port Authorities, which represents public 

port authorities throughout the Western Hemisphere. My testimony today is on behalf of AAPA’s U.S. public port members. 

We appreciate the committee’s leadership in pursuing WRDA as 

this is legislation critical to the health of the port industry. AAPA 

believes that WRDA should address three key areas that would result in real benefits for the Nation. 

First is fixing the harbor maintenance tax to ensure that these 

revenues are fully used each year. 

Second, the need to make the Corps of Engineers study and construction process more efficient so we can meet the demands for 

channel modernization in the future. 

And, third, to get projects authorized and constructed to maintain the Nation’s competitive advantage in transportation cost savings, resulting in jobs and economic vitality here at home. 

WRDA established the harbor maintenance tax in 1986 to fund 

Federal deep draft channel navigation operation and maintenance. 

Through the early 1990s the revenues were roughly equal to expenses, but there has been a growing imbalance between revenues 

and appropriations with just over half currently being spent for its 

intended purposes. More than $1.6 billion in revenue was collected 

in fiscal year 2012, and the surplus in the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund has grown to more than $7 billion. 

The low appropriations have resulted in an undermaintained system with channels that are not being maintained to their constructed depths and widths despite adequate taxes being collected, 

resulting in safety risks of groundings and cargo spills, as well as 

13 

economic risk of light-loading ships which increase transportation 

costs and impact the competitiveness of U.S. exports in the global 

marketplace and the cost of imported goods to the U.S. consumer 

and manufacturers. 

Ports and Federal Government must maintain existing infrastructure while preparing for the reality of larger ships. U.S. public 

ports and their private sector partners are doing their part, investing more than $46 billion over the next 5 years. However, increasingly we find that our Federal partner is not upholding its part of 

the bargain in funding channel maintenance and improvement 

projects. As a result, this negatively impacts jobs, economic growth, 

and U.S. competitiveness. 

The American Society of Civil Engineers did a report entitled 

‘‘Failure to Act’’ and in that report concluded that aging infrastructure threatens more than 1 million U.S. jobs. 

AAPA has been actively preparing for the next WRDA bill to address the investment and process changes needed to keep the U.S. 

maritime infrastructure world class. Those issues needing legislation have been identified by AAPA and our recommendations are 

described in my formal testimony. 

AAPA recently convened a task force to develop a set of guiding 

principles in regard to the harbor maintenance tax and water-side 

port modernization. We urge the committee to consider these six 

principles when drafting legislation. 

First and foremost, AAPA advocates for the full use of HMT revenues. 

Number two, funding from HMT revenues first should be used 

for historical intended purposes. 

Thirdly, AAPA is supportive of more equity to donor ports. 

U.S. tax policy should not disadvantage U.S. ports and maritime 

cargo. 

The U.S. must have a process to efficiently study and to construct deep draft projects. 

And lastly, the cost sharing formula for maintenance and deepening should reflect the current cargo fleet. 

MAP–21 included a sense of Congress in an attempt to address 

principle one above, but as we saw in last week’s release of the 

President’s budget, the administration did not follow the recommendation and did not include full use of HMT revenues. WRDA 

is the next avenue to resolve this problem and ensure full use permanently. 

WRDA is also an opportunity to speed up the planning and 

project development process to allow our Nation to move quickly to 

address the needs of the future. AAPA has developed a specific list 

of policy and efficiency measures we believe need to be enacted to 

enhance the Nation’s international competitiveness and these are 

included in my written statement. 

We commend the committee’s leadership for recognizing the 

nexus between water resource development and economic prosperity. Federal investments in port-related infrastructure are an 

essential, effective utilization of limited resources and paying dividends through increased trade and international competitiveness, 

sustainable job creation, and understanding that more than $200 

14 

billion annually in local, State and Federal revenues are collected 

from these projects. 

We urge you to develop and pass a WRDA bill at the earliest possible time. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Dr. Gobler, welcome. 

Mr. GOBLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Christopher Gobler. I am a professor within the School of Marine and 

Atmospheric Sciences at Stony Brook University of New York, 

where I am director of academic programs on the Southampton 

campus and director of the Shinnecock Bay Restoration Program. 

I have been actively involved in marine ecosystem research for 

more than two decades. I am here today to provide perspective regarding aspects of the Water Resources Development Act that deal 

with ecosystem restoration. These are projects that seek to protect 

and enhance a critical national resource, our coastal bays, estuaries 

and waterways. 

These regions support more than 69 million jobs, generate half 

of the Nation’s gross domestic product, protect almost $2 trillion in 

annual trade, and provide more than $200 billion annually in leisure and hospitality jobs. 

Unfortunately, during the past half century many of the Nation’s 

coastal zones have experienced depletion of fisheries and losses of 

key habitats that have, in turn, had severe negative consequences 

for coastal ecosystems and economies. In such regions, projects that 

restore coastal habitats and fisheries are needed to help estuaries 

remain healthy, functioning, and to build coastal economies. 

I will first address the issue of shoreline protection and flood 

damage reduction specifically as it relates to Hurricane Sandy. The 

shorelines of New York and New Jersey were devastated by Hurricane Sandy, and many communities have been changed forever. 

One important lesson learned from the storm is the identification 

of the types of oceanfront environments that were most resilient to 

storm surge. In their natural state, barrier islands that are lined 

with well vegetated dunes on their ocean sides and comprised of intact salt marshes on their bay sides provide protection against 

storm surge. As such, these barrier islands provide erosion protection from breaking ocean waves as well as protection from bay 

flooding. 

During Hurricane Sandy, oceanfront communities that constructed artificial or hardened structures, such as boardwalks, hotels and other buildings, directly on the ocean without a natural 

dune-marsh system experienced catastrophic losses. 

In contrast, communities with natural or augmented dune-marsh 

systems fared well. For example, communities on Long Island 

South Shore that had the strongest and most intact dune-marsh 

barrier islands system, specifically Shinnecock Bay, was the only 

bay not breached by the ocean storm and experienced only minor 

damage compared to other regions in New York and New Jersey. 

Closer to New York City, regions with dunes, such as Point Lookout and Lido Beach, fared significantly better during Sandy than 

15 

the adjacent Long Beach community which had no dunes and was 

devastated. 

While this was the Sandy experience, I emphasize today that 75 

percent of the U.S. east and gulf coasts are lined with barrier islands quite similar to the ones that I just described. Therefore, ecosystem restoration projects that seek to enhance, reestablish, and 

rebuild ocean dunes and salt marshes may be some of the best preventative and cost effective measures to protect U.S. coastal communities, particularly in the face of storms and sea level rise that 

will only intensify with climate change this century. 

Next I will emphasize coastal ecosystem restoration projects that 

seek to enhance water quality and fisheries. During the past half 

century many coastal zones have suffered the dual assault of overfishing, of key bivalve species, and the overloading of nutrients 

emanating from urban centers and agriculture. These processes 

have led to the initiation of harmful algal blooms, the loss of key 

marine habitats and diminished fisheries. 

Recognizing these trends, efforts have been made nationally to 

stem the flow of nutrients into coastal waters. In addition, ecosystem restoration projects are restocking bivalves and planting 

habitats, such as sea grasses and salt marshes. 

As Director of the Shinnecock Bay Ecosystem Restoration 

Project, my team is restocking and rebuilding shellfish populations. 

These populations will filter bay waters and, in turn, keep algal 

blooms in check. Concurrent efforts to rebuild sea grass communities will benefit shellfish populations as well as fish populations 

by providing key habitat. 

Ultimately, these efforts will be of economic benefit for fisheries 

as they rebound and for tourism as it improves. While such ecosystem restoration efforts have not traditionally been included 

within the Water Resources Development Act, I believe they warrant consideration in the future. 

In light of all this information, passage of a new Water Resources 

Development Act with specific authorization to restore critical 

coastline dunes and wetland systems would be of great benefit to 

the Nation. While the Hurricane Sandy supplemental bill will help 

address some ecosystem restoration projects in New York and New 

Jersey, the restoration needs across the Nation are great. There 

are presently over a dozen environmental restoration projects that 

have completed Chief Engineer reports and are ready to be authorized, funded, and constructed. 

Executing these projects will provide protection of our coastal 

communities and environments while providing jobs and multifunction opportunities for better management of our water resources. 

I thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. I thank you, Doctor. 

Ms. Larson, the floor is yours. Welcome. 

Ms. LARSON. Thank you. 

Chairman Shuster, Chairman Gibbs, can you hear me, first of 

all? I am a little bit away from the table. OK. And Ranking Member Bishop, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the foundations for a new Water Resources Development Act. 

16 

My name is Amy Larson, and I am the president of the National 

Waterways Conference. The Conference would like to thank this 

committee for its long tradition of cooperation and collaboration in 

addressing the Nation’s critical water resources needs. 

As the Congress considers comprehensive water resources legislation, the Nation is at a crossroads on the issues of how to both 

authorize and fund critical water resources projects. Much attention has been given in the past few years to the use of congressionally directed spending or earmarks for all Federal spending decisions. Efforts in Congress to eliminate wasteful spending are laudable, and especially important given today’s fiscal challenges and 

necessary to maintain the public trust. 

However, deferring all decisions to the executive branch, particularly as they relate to water resources projects, represents a fundamental change to the way this country has established its priorities. This self-imposed limit on project-specific directives and funding levels represents fundamental abdication of Congress’ constitutional role. Such action has resulted in the stoppage, interruption 

and delay of critical projects. 

The administration’s priorities, as reflected in the budget, have 

seldom been set through an open, deliberative process as have 

those that have withstood the heavy scrutiny of the congressional 

committee system. Permanently adopting in a WRDA such a system would result in centralizing all water resources decisionmaking, excluding the input of both stakeholders and their elected 

officials from the process of establishing Federal priorities. Such a 

system would undermine the very foundation and integrity of the 

Nation’s Civil Works program. 

As the Congress grapples with significant fiscal challenges, including how to avoid the earmark abuses of the past and ensure 

that such decisions are made with the benefit of full sunshine, we 

would respectfully suggest that this committee by means of its 

open and deliberative process and whose members have the benefit 

of first-hand knowledge of the importance of particular projects to 

their States is the appropriate forum in which to make these major 

investment decisions, and we encourage the Congress to reconsider 

how this country invests in the Nation’s water resources infrastructure. 

You have just heard from my colleague at the Waterways Council 

about the importance of inland waterways and their role as the 

backbone of the Nation’s transportation system, ensuring domestic 

and international trade opportunities and low-cost, environmentally sound movement of goods. 

To that end, we generally support the proposed reforms to the 

project delivery process applicable to construction and major rehab 

of the Nation’s aging locks and dams based upon the Capital Development Plan. 

Integral to the project delivery reforms is the need to ensure sufficient funding for these important projects, and as efforts continue 

to enact a long-term funding solution, it is important for the inland 

waterways to function as an integrated system. Efforts to prioritize 

funding and raise revenue must not disrupt the proper functioning 

of the system as a whole. 

17 

Similarly, the Nation’s ports and harbors are critical components 

of our transportation infrastructure, and regular maintenance is required to ensure their efficient use. We strongly support legislation 

that would ensure that the revenues collected into the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund are used for their intended purposes. 

Turning now to levee safety, we support the establishment of a 

comprehensive levee safety program and as a starting point for discussion refer to the draft recommendations made to Congress by 

the National Committee on Levee Safety. And a critical first step 

to the establishment of such a program is the one-time inventory 

and inspection of all known levees across the United States, including the non-Federal program levees. This baseline information 

should be maintained in the expanded national levee database in 

order to determine the critical safety issues, the true cost of good 

levee stewardship, and the state of individual levees so that we can 

inform our priorities and provide data for much needed decisionmaking. 

A levee safety program should at its threshold provide for clarification of Federal and non-Federal roles, recognizing the Corps of 

Engineers project involvement is driven by national economic benefits and State, regional and local authorities maintain plenary responsibility for life safety, landside risk reduction measures, including evacuation, land use practices, building codes, and risk 

communication. 

A levee safety program must not impose top-down Federal mandates, but instead recognize that States and local governments and 

Indian tribes are uniquely positioned to oversee, coordinate, and 

regulate local and regional level systems. 

Turning to policy reforms in the few seconds remaining, WRDA 

provides numerous opportunities to reform and update various policies, accelerate planning and project delivery and enhance the role 

of non-Federal sponsors. While more attention tends to be on waterways and levee issues, this is also an opportunity to enhance hydropower productivity and address critical reservoir management 

challenges. 

As described in my written testimony, the planning process is extraordinarily rigorous and thorough, but it has become overly burdensome, resulting in it becoming impractical. 

And I see that my time is up. I go into much more detail on reforms to the planning process in my written testimony, and I am 

happy to answer questions on that. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

I will yield myself time to start the first questions off, and to Mr. 

Ojard, you talked about the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. In 

the President’s budget that he submitted to Congress here just last 

week, the President has talked about the need to increase exports, 

which I totally agree with, to grow our economy. You may not know 

this, but it has been estimated by the administration that we will 

collect over $1.8 billion in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund this 

year, but he is only requesting $834 million for operation and 

maintenance of these navigation channels, leaving an estimated 

balance of almost $9 billion dollars at the end of fiscal year 2014. 

18 

As we all know, an inch of depth per ship—I have heard the 

numbers, and you might be able to tell us the numbers again—but, 

you know, it seems like there is a disconnect of what the reality 

is, what the administration says that we need to do, but why are 

we not appropriating more money of that $1.8 billion? 

Mr. OJARD. I wish I could get into the President’s mind and give 

you a direct answer, but the fact of the matter is the maritime industry does support thousands and thousands of jobs, and your 

comment about the inch of depth and in Panamax size ships, that 

is 270 tons of cargo, and that is significant in all of our ports and 

all of our coastal waterways. Draft equals efficiency, and the efficiency of our channels and the depth and width improves safety. 

It lowers cost of the transportation. It makes our goods more economical as we move them to export markets overseas. 

I firmly believe that the investment in infrastructure for channels, for harbors has a huge multiple impact on our Nation, our 

Nation’s economy, and the backlog that we currently see is only 

growing, and I would hope that your committee can deal with that 

issue in the full use spending as we move forward in the development of the WRDA Act. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

I want to move on on the flood control, Mr. Williams. Everybody 

has mentioned Hurricane Sandy and the relief aid. You know, one 

of the issues we have had and, you know, we are working to do a 

lot of policy reforms because, you know, I am just really outraged 

at the years it takes to get these projects done right. We all are, 

and the cost there incurred. 

My understanding on the emergency supplemental for Hurricane 

Sandy relief, a lot of things were authorized without studies. Can 

you give us an update how things are progressing and, you know, 

what the impact is by not doing some of the studies or what has 

happened in that area of flood control on the east coast? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir, not specifically the east coast. I am afraid 

I would just be guessing. I can talk about it nationally, but I think 

that is typical of what is happening on the east coast. 

Levees specifically we have talked about the need for funding 

those upfront. It is really a matter of pay me now or pay me later. 

And this country has been in a reactionary environment for a long 

time, and I think we are finding out that it is not just pay me now 

or pay me later, but it is pay me now or pay a lot more later. 

I think investment in the Corps projects through Water Resources Development Act is a wise investment. It does save money 

in the end. I think that is true with Sandy. I think it is true with 

Katrina. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Simmons, since you represent your association, 

any observations on what has happened on Hurricane Sandy relief 

without all of the studies? 

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, clearly, they are moving a lot faster on Hurricane Sandy relief than they have been able to move on other 

projects, and the reason I am not entirely clear on, because it 

should seem that one could move just about as quickly on any 

project as they are moving on those. 

Much of the Hurricane Sandy work is rebuilding things that 

have been studied and approved in the past. So those we certainly 

19 

understand how they can move more quickly, but there are some 

areas that are getting help that weren’t studied before, and I think 

those of us, like my community, that are 14 years into a study are 

wondering how in the world that can happen. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Just kind of on that tangent, Dr. Gobler, what 

can Congress do on these water resource development projects 

without triggering multiple lawsuits? 

You know, it seems like a lot of the delays are because of litigation. You know, it halts job creation. Do you have any recommendation of what we could do to maybe stop some of this litigation or 

prevent it from happening? 

Mr. GOBLER. I do not have specific insight on litigation, but just 

following up on what was just discussed, I will just briefly say that 

I do know the New York Division of the Army Corps carefully looks 

at the entire ecosystem there and has had projects that maybe had 

not been advanced to Chief Engineer reports. They have considered 

in the event of a storm like this what could be done, and so some 

of what is being done has not gone through the full process, but 

are things that they have considered and measures that they are 

considering in a holistic fashion that they believe will be both repairing what has already been done, but also preventing future 

losses on the coastlines. 

Mr. GIBBS. So you think that there have been appropriate studies done previously to some of this for some of these projects? 

Mr. GOBLER. Yes. This division of the Army Corps of Engineers 

is specifically located in New York. They know the coastline, for example, the South Shore, Long Island, very, very well. They have 

people there who have been working on it for decades. They know 

the particular ecosystems, and they specifically had projects that 

they had already planned out. So they had not gone through the 

whole process, obviously, to get a full engineer’s report, but because 

that particular division knows that coastline well, they have a good 

sense of what is going to be needed to enhance and protect shorelines. 

Mr. GIBBS. So we have got a little common sense going on here 

maybe. 

Mr. GOBLER. Perhaps so, yes. Perhaps a decade is not needed to 

plan all of these things out, you know. 

Mr. GIBBS. That is my point. Thank you. 

And I will yield to Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the panel for your testimony. It was very helpful. 

I want to just talk for a minute about the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund and its linkage to the Inland Waterways Trust Fund 

and, in fact, its linkage to the larger problem that we have of we 

have or are at least allocating insufficient resources to deal with 

our needs. 

Every one of you has made the case that we need to invest more, 

whether it is shoreline protection, ecosystem restoration, habitat 

restoration, inland waterways, locks and dams, harbor maintenance. You have all made the case. You are all right. We do. 

But the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is an example of the 

problem that we have. It was established in 1986. No President has 

ever requested that Congress spend the full amount of the annual 

20 

proceeds. It is why we have an accumulated balance in the trust 

fund. 

If this President—and, by the way, I am disappointed in the 

President’s request with respect to the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund—but if this President were to ask us to spend fully the $1.8 

billion that is going to come in this year, as opposed to the $800 

million that he is requesting, that is a billion dollars of additional 

expenditure that would either require that we spend a billion dollars less either elsewhere in the Army Corps of Engineers budget 

or somewhere else within our $3.7 trillion worth of expenditures or 

we would have to increase what we call, pardon the jargon, the 

302(b) allocation for the Army Corps. 

Now, the Army Corps budget has just taken a 5-percent cut as 

a result of sequestration. I believe the President’s request for Army 

Corps expenditures is a reduction of 4.3 percent; is that right? 

So, sure, let’s spend the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. I think 

every person on this committee would agree we should. What will 

we not spend? 

And so I know there is a proposal from the inland waterways 

users to take Olmsted offline, take Olmsted out of the trust fund 

and put it onto general fund budget. OK. So that is $80 million, 

and we will spend a billion more on harbor maintenance issues. 

What is left for shoreline preservation if it all comes out of the hide 

of the Army Corps? 

So we can push around numbers, but all we are doing is pushing 

around a problem unless we make the very hard decision to say 

that, yes, we all agree we need to do these things, but it is going 

to cost us money to do them. Because I am willing to bet, Mr. Simmons, you are not going to say, ‘‘You know what? Fine. Spend it 

all on dredging harbors. We will let the beaches take care of themselves.’’ Right? Probably not? 

Mr. SIMMONS. If you put a lot of that sand on beaches we might 

be able to talk about it. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. There you go. 

But you see the point I am making, and so one of the things that 

we are going to have to grapple with as we do WRDA is what is 

the appropriate level of investment that we as a Congress believe 

is required to protect our beaches, to see to it that our inland highway system functions at the highest possible level, to see to it that 

our ports are Panamax ready, and so on. That is the challenge. 

So with that, and I apologize for being so wordy, but, Mr. Simmons, you made the point in your testimony that shoreline protection is about resiliency and it is about sustainability. 

And, Professor Gobler, you made a similar point. Can you expand 

on how shoreline protection has the dual purpose of both stabilization of the shoreline, but also deals with the issues of sustainability? 

Mr. GOBLER. Sure. Specifically speaking of Long Island, I mean, 

you know, if you have a properly built dune system that has, as 

I mentioned in my introduction, both a dune in the front but actually, importantly not also included, a salt marsh in the back, that 

is its natural state. The dune protects from the breaking ocean 

waves. The salt marsh in the back protects from flooding, and all 

21 

across the South Shore of Long Island there were dozens and dozens of communities that now are looking at abandoning their 

homes because of flooding, and in some cases if there were both the 

oceanfront protection but also those salt marshes in the back, there 

is a chance that those communities would not be considering abandoning their homes. 

And going forward, this is going to be more and more important. 

We know that sea level is rising. It has been rising. It is going to 

continue to rise. We know the rate at which that is happening. So 

it is more important than ever as we move forward that we have, 

like I said, both the dunes and the marshes because that is what 

is going to make these sorts of situations sustainable going forward. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

I am almost out of time. So I will wait for the second round. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Chairman Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank all of you for being here today. I appreciate it. 

And, Ms. Larson, my first question is to you. I have been asking 

you a lot of questions lately, and you have given more answers. So 

I appreciate you being here today. 

In your testimony you warned Congress not to put the 3×3×3 

study program into law. While some limitations should be placed 

on studies, in particular, on duration and cost, can you give the 

committee your reasons why there are studies that exceed $3 million in 3 years? 

Ms. LARSON. Thank you for the question, Chairman Shuster. 

The Corps planning process is very thorough and very extensive, 

and the six steps are laid out in my testimony. And it has grown 

to be overly burdensome, and so now it is really impracticable. 

And to the Corps credit, it has implemented its 3×3×3 plan, but 

a lot of the requirements in the planning process are legislative 

mandates. So simply imposing a timeframe without addressing all 

of those legislative mandates will not result in a successful 3-year 

program. 

So I think if a 3×3×3 mandate will be part of WRDA, it needs 

to be coupled with a fundamental review and overhaul of the entire 

planning process. That includes a lot of the streamlining provisions 

that are in the Senate bill, sections 2032 and 2033, as well as some 

other requirements and enhancements. 

But simply requiring the Corps to look at the same number of 

alternatives, adhere to the same other requirements and processes, 

and saying, ‘‘But now do it in 3 years with no more money,’’ will 

not result in a successful program. So it needs to be part of the entire overhaul of the system. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, as part of that overhaul, you know, getting 

the Congress back to regular order and the challenges we face with 

the moratorium we have put in place, in the past in something like 

this if the Corps came to the Congress, as they should under our 

constitutional authority, and asked us to do a survey resolution, 

that would be a way to overcome that, but do you agree with that? 

Ms. LARSON. I do. I do, and I think that is just one component 

of the process. 

22 

Mr. SHUSTER. Right. But I also believe that we need to put some 

kind of time constraints on these studies because there are 

projects. The Upper Mississippi Valley took 15 years at $75 million 

to do, and there was not one ounce of concrete poured for that 

project. 

So I am leaning toward the 3×3×3 program, but again, Congress 

needs to make sure it maintains its authority to be able to adjust 

a project when the Corps comes back and says it is going to take 

longer or we need a little more money. 

Ms. LARSON. As we have seen, when projects are fully funded or 

they have a steady funding stream, they tend to be completed more 

expeditiously and more efficiently. So mindful of the fiscal constraints that are facing the Nation and particularly applicable to 

the entire Civil Works program and water resources infrastructure, 

we need to find a way to prioritize that so that those priority studies are completed. 

You know, last year the President implemented his ‘‘We Can’t 

Wait’’ initiative and touted the Port of Savannah, one of our members. But this year’s budget includes no funding for Savannah and 

no increase of the 902 level. So I am not entirely sure what we cannot wait for. 

But those are the kinds of priorities that the Congress needs to 

be back engaged in. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Ms. Larson. 

Ms. LARSON. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Stephaich, thank you for being here today. I 

appreciate your work on the Mon River Valley, which runs through 

my district, and thanks for helping to educate me on the whole waterway system. 

The President has proposed in his fiscal year 2014 budget language to charge vessels a fee for using the waterway system. I 

know that you folks support raising the diesel fuel user fee from 

20 cents a gallon to 26 cents a gallon. Can you tell us what is the 

difference and why you oppose the vessel fee versus why you support raising that user fee from 20 to 26 cents? 

Mr. STEPHAICH. Sure, Mr. Chairman. The President’s budget contains the vessel fee which, frankly, we are not really very clear on 

in terms of how that would work. 

We believe increasing our user fee, which is a diesel fee on the 

number of gallons that we burn throughout the system, is a much 

more equitable way of allocating the burden of this extra cost to 

the full waterways and the users of the waterways. We view the 

Nation’s inland waterways to operate as a system and not just as 

a regional matter. 

Obviously in the upper ends of the river, like in the Pittsburgh 

area, we have a lot more locks and dams due to the geography, and 

so that is one reason why we would propose to see a diesel fuel increase happen. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And is it more transparent using a pay at the 

pump than it is using a fee? 

It sounds like you are not sure. 

Mr. STEPHAICH. Once again, we do not know what the administration’s fee proposal really is. If it is a lockage fee, then obviously 

we are disadvantaged in the Pittsburgh area. 

23 

Mr. SHUSTER. Right. 

Mr. STEPHAICH. There is currently a mechanism in place to collect the current 20 cents a gallon, which, you know, all of the users 

have been using for a number of years. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And if the chairman will indulge me for just 20 

more seconds, is it difficult to pass on that 20 cents? Because you 

are shipping a lot of commodities, is that difficult to pass that on 

to the end user and instead it stays back home with the shipper? 

Mr. STEPHAICH. Well, it depends on the commercial contracts 

with our customers, but most of us, I believe, have clauses that will 

permit us to pass through that type of a fee to our customers, 

which would be the big utilities, the steel companies and so forth. 

So the issue is: will we be competitive as a mode of transportation? 

You know, at what point do we start losing cargo and losing volume to alternative modes? Because sometimes we will lose a contract over a few pennies a ton. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our 

witnesses. 

I just have a couple of questions. I do feel like, you know, when 

the conversation shifts to what we did with Hurricane Sandy and 

Hurricane Katrina, you know, we have to be really careful about 

that because in all instances, I think, with Hurricane Katrina we 

waived match requirements and other things in order to expedite 

the movement on those projects and, similarly with Hurricane 

Sandy, there were some waivers for the new activity even though 

the match was still required for the local projects. But still that 

money was, you know, front-loaded, and that is not the case for the 

overwhelming majority of the projects that the Corps has in place 

and that are needed in our water systems. 

And I think the President is sort of damned if he does and 

damned if he does not. I mean, you know, if he proposes, as Mr. 

Bishop has said, you know, the full amount in the Harbor Maintenance Trust, then that money has to come from someplace, and 

then he will be beaten up in the Congress for having proposed 

what might even be considered, you know, extraordinary spending. 

So while we all, I think, agree that this work needs to take place, 

I mean, there are deep divisions about how it needs to be funded. 

I, on the other hand, think that the more we fund these kind of 

heavy infrastructure projects, then the more jobs we create, the 

more taxes people pay, and it just sort of creates an environment 

for real economic gain and competitiveness. 

So I do, indeed, look at these projects as investments. Nonetheless, we are here in a bind facing, you know, a 5-percent cut in a 

sequester, a lower budget, but still with the expectation that we get 

a lot of work done. 

I am a little bit curious about a couple of things in looking at 

costs. Dr. Gobler, you testified and highlighted the fact in your testimony that there are areas where there was significant natural 

barriers that actually provided the kind of protection to the coastline that were not found in areas that were overdeveloped and 

overprotected. And I wonder if you have some ideas about how the 

24 

Corps spends its resources on projects that could involve natural 

protection versus the concrete and cement that we are so familiar 

with, and whether there needs to be a shift in balance as we are 

thinking about how we deal with these rising sea levels. 

Mr. GOBLER. Yes, that was one of the overwhelming lessons 

learned, is that the regions that had an oceanfront with a natural 

dune and not a hardened structure were the ones that did the best, 

and I think that at least in New York, the regional office of the 

Corps of Engineers recognizes that, and as they seek to rebuild 

from Sandy, wherever possible they are seeking to lead with that 

approach. 

And I think that has been the lesson learned through the decades, that hardened structures on the shorefront that are put in 

even if they help the region directly in front of, say, the ocean 

where they are protecting, someone downstream will be negatively 

impacted by something like that. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And they are lower cost; is that not correct, to do 

sort of natural protection versus the hardened shoreline? 

Mr. GOBLER. That is right, and just as a quick parallel, if you 

go over to Holland, for example, they build up tremendous dunes. 

There is a country where most of the land is actually underwater. 

So they know all about dealing with sea level rise, and one of the 

best ways they deal with that is to just build tremendous dunes. 

You know, people do not get necessarily to see that oceanfront 

view that they want, but they have the protection, and I think that 

is a lesson that we should take to heart and, I think, needs to be 

seriously considered going forward. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

And, Ms. Larson, in your testimony you pointed out the fact that 

we no longer have the ability as Members of Congress to do earmarks or congressionally directed projects and that it has been a 

more complicated process because of that. So I wonder if you have 

some ideas about ways in which we might restore the ability of 

Congress to have an impact on making some decisions about 

projects, but at the same time protect against the kind of abuses, 

even though I do not think that they were substantial abuses when 

you consider the number of projects, but still protect against the 

abuses to protect taxpayers. 

Ms. LARSON. Thank you for the question. 

I think it is important to note as we start out that the focus on 

earmarks up to now has been on funding for already authorized 

projects, but what WRDA contemplates is applying that requirement permanently in law to all project decisions, including whether 

to start a feasibility study, and I think those decisions are best 

made at the local level. 

Those projects start, you know, whether it is the town council or 

the local governing board, to address a particular problem, and it 

is critical that the local stakeholders maintain that voice. 

So mindful of not wanting to go back to old abuses to the extent 

that they were, I think this committee had done a very good job 

of requiring transparency and openness. So that process, I think, 

can be tweaked to make it more open with more sunshine, even 

though I think it was pretty good anyway. 

25 

But I also think that there can be an opportunity for States, local 

communities, local governing boards—maybe they are levee boards 

or water supply districts—to have the opportunity to come to Congress and make their interests and needs known as well because 

they are being lost here in this transition. If they have to go only 

through OMB, I fear and as I have heard from many of our members, their voices are not being heard. So they need to have that 

openness as well. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Hanna. He just stepped out? OK. Mr. Ribble. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate the entire panel being here. This has been really 

helpful for me. 

I do have some concerns. I am relatively new to this job. I have 

been here 2 years. One of the things that concerns me is the 

amount of time it takes for the Federal Government to get almost 

anything done. I know it is kind of in vogue to bash the Government for the work they do, but there are some things that they do 

really well and other things not so well, but one of the things I am 

concerned about is how long it takes to do infrastructure projects. 

We addressed some of that in MAP–21 last year in the highway 

bill. I was wondering, Mr. Stephaich, if I could ask you a question. 

Why is it that Panama will likely take less than a decade from conception to completion on the canal expansion project while in some 

instances it takes the United States nearly twice as long just to 

complete a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a 

project? 

Mr. STEPHAICH. That is an excellent question. I am not familiar 

with all the details on the Panamanian side, but obviously it is a 

major project for a relatively small country and has the full focus 

and support of that nation. 

On the domestic side, we have seen the delays due to a number 

of reasons, anything from experimental technology, the types of 

construction methodologies that have been used in the Olmsted 

case to insufficient and funding flows that have been turned on and 

off, to managing contracts where there are multiple contracts in a 

very small area, to lawsuits. It is a very broad range of reasons, 

but I wish I had a good answer for you. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Well, if you could make one recommendation to 

speed things up, what would it be? 

Mr. STEPHAICH. Probably the single biggest element, I think, of 

our delays is the single year funding, that we have to go back and 

get appropriations year to year. 

Mr. RIBBLE. So to have multiple—— 

Mr. STEPHAICH. If we could have a multiple year, these are 10- 

, 15-, 20-year projects. I always use the analogy. It is like building 

your house if you were to go out and raise the money and have a 

contract, you know, one for the kitchen, one for the roof, one for 

the walls, one for the garage. You would never get your house 

built. 

So for the Corps to be able to have efficient funding over multiple 

years would be probably the single biggest improvement. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you very much. 

26 

Mayor Simmons, I was wondering if maybe I could ask you a 

question. There is a lot of discussion regarding hurricane impact on 

coastal towns and villages, whether it was Katrina, Sandy, and the 

dozens of hurricanes and maybe hundreds of hurricanes that we 

have had over the course of our history, and my question is kind 

of directed more toward the issue of moral hazard. 

There have been many citizens that might say, ‘‘Is it not an unfair transfer of wealth from poor agrarian communities in the central part of the United States to just basically prop up rich people 

living on beaches someplace in Caswell Beach, North Carolina?’’ 

And I am wondering how you would address the issue of moral 

hazard and where people live and whether or not it is the appropriate role of the Federal Government to do repairs after storms 

along beach ways. 

Mr. SIMMONS. Have you got an hour or two? We can really go 

here. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Try to do that in a minute, 38, but I am sure the 

chairman will give you a few seconds extra. 

Mr. SIMMONS. First of all, I want to point out that the properties 

in my little 3-mile-long beach town in North Carolina are owned 

by folks from 28 different States. So it is not just a bunch of 

wealthy North Carolinians who live at the beach. 

Most of the structures there, especially the oceanfront ones, are 

rental properties that are used by the folks who come to visit with 

us from Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Virginia and 

also North Carolina. 

Therefore, those structures provide jobs. They provide an economic impact on not only our county, our State and our region, but 

also to the Nation in terms of tax revenues that are generated by 

the rentals that go on in those facilities. 

And I will tell you this without any hesitation: that the amount 

of money that is sent towards Washington from a coastal community like mine is a whole lot more than comes to my community 

from Washington or any other Government center. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you very much. 

And with that I yield back. 

Mr. CRAWFORD [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair recognizes Ms. Frankel for 5 minutes. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Well, thank you. 

I guess I am going to defend the beaches. I am from south Florida, the beautiful coastline from Fort Lauderdale past Palm Beach, 

and I really want to talk about the ports and the beaches. 

Let me start with the beaches and just say that in my neck of 

the woods the beaches fund our schools and our firemen, our policemen. The tourism, lots of jobs, and so we have a lot of people who 

live inland and west, not on the coast, but they get jobs from protecting our beaches. 

Mayor Simmons, you mentioned a concept of a regional approach 

to taking care of the coastline. I am specifically interested in that, 

especially with the beaches, and I wanted to understand what your 

concept is. 

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, the whole idea of regional sediment management. You take, let’s just say sand out of a navigation project that 

is of beach quality, and you put it on the beach instead of dumping 

27 

it offshore somewhere because it happens to, at that moment, be 

the least-cost way to do it. If the town that needs the sand then 

has to go back out to the ocean and get that sand and bring it back 

to the beach, that is an additional cost that is not considered in 

most cases when you are talking about a navigation project. 

The Corps of Engineers, or actually WRDA 2007, created a mechanism for doing this sort of thing, but the Corps rules have made 

it somewhat difficult to really use, first of all, because they must 

be tied to a Federal navigation project. You cannot bring in additional sand that may be nearby to enhance what happens when you 

are able to put that navigation sand on a beach. 

The total dollar limits are so low as to almost be useless, and the 

real big problem is that the system is hamstrung by the requirement that the Corps use the least-cost method, and not counting 

that loss of the value of the sand itself in that cost. 

So I think there is room for this committee to make some 

changes to the WRDA action that was taken in 2007 to fix that if 

you are willing to do so, and we are certainly more than happy to 

help get into the weeds on it if you would like to do that. 

Ms. FRANKEL. So you have language to suggest for us to do that? 

Mr. SIMMONS. I do not know if I have it today, but I can find it 

for you pretty quickly. 

Ms. FRANKEL. OK. This is for Dr. Gobler, and thank you, everybody, for your testimony today. I have a question for you and 

maybe Mayor Simmons may want to, you know, have a comment 

on this. 

But what we are finding with our trying to do beach restoration 

is there are so many—and I want to say this diplomatically because I consider myself an environmentalist—but there are so 

many environmental hoops and so many different agencies, and basically it has come down to people versus turtles in southeast Florida. I tried only to be facetious about that, but I want to ask you. 

Do you feel there is enough known or is there enough research 

being done so that we can restore our beaches and keep them sustainable and also, you know, take care of the ecosystem? 

Mr. GOBLER. Well, as a scientist, I would say we could always 

do more research, but you know, I think certainly conservation of 

aquatic life needs to move forward in parallel with the conservation 

of aquatic ecosystems like beaches and dunes. To be honest, I am 

not thoroughly familiar with the plight of the turtles in south Florida, but certainly I think we can all see the value in certain cases 

of preserving habitat whenever possible while also preserving our 

beaches. But I cannot imagine that there may be onerous regulation in order to do that. 

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, one of the biggest positive habitats for a turtle is the beach, and if the beach is not there, if the beach is not 

wide, if the beach is not sandy, where is Mama Turtle going to lay 

that nest? She is going to lay it somewhere where the waves are 

going to wash it away the next morning, the next high tide, or she 

is going to end up in a parking lot or down along the road somewhere. 

I have actually seen a turtle put a nest in a gravel parking lot. 

They are pretty resilient creatures, but to suggest anything other 

than that a beach is a good habitat for a turtle, and it ought to 

28 

be restored, if for no other reason than to take care of the turtles, 

but to also take care of the endangered seabeach amaranth. I mean 

there are all kinds of reasons other than the fact that, you know, 

these beaches generate billions of dollars for the American economy 

and a lot of jobs. 

I could go on and on. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MASSIE. Mayor Simmons, I appreciate Caswell Beach. You 

left Kentucky off the list of people who like to visit there. 

Mr. SIMMONS. They definitely come, yes, sir. We have seen a lot 

of you. 

Mr. MASSIE. I have been to your beach. It is a wonderful area, 

and to Mr. Ribble’s point, I think maybe he is just perhaps suggesting that maybe we could leave more of your money at Caswell 

Beach instead of bringing it to Washington, DC. 

But to talk about something that clearly has a Federal nexus 

here, the inland waterways, there are 280 miles of the Ohio River 

in my district and three locks and dams, and not to be parochial 

about this because that waterway serves at least a dozen other 

States and serves as an economic engine, but we are the ones who 

see the waterways and see the locks and dams and are acutely 

aware of the economic impact when, for instance, the primary locks 

fail and the boats have to lock through a smaller lock, for instance. 

Mr. Stephaich and Ms. Larson, could you speak to the economic 

impact or consequences if we do not update the 1950s locks and 

dams that we have on all of our rivers? What are some specific consequences that could occur if we fail to address the needs of those 

locks and dams? 

Mr. Stephaich. 

Mr. STEPHAICH. Thank you, Mr. Massie. 

When we talk about our nightmare scenarios, it involves a catastrophic failure at one of these facilities as being probably the 

worst scenario, and depending on the nature of that catastrophic 

failure, it could take anywhere from months to potentially years to 

fix. 

Unlike the roads, we have no alternative. We have no detours 

available to us so that what you are really doing is severing the 

artery and really bifurcating, cutting the system in two, which 

would obviously eliminate, you know, companies like ours that are 

in the barge business. It would not allow us to operate, but more 

importantly, all of the shippers and everyone that receives cargo up 

and down the system would be at a loss and would have to find 

alternative modes of transportation which would be at a very high 

cost, if available. 

Mr. MASSIE. So what are some of the specific industries other 

than obviously the shipping industry; what are some of the specific 

industries that would be impacted? 

Mr. STEPHAICH. Well, once again, it would depend on where that 

failure would occur, but everything from 60 percent of our grain exports going out on the Mississippi River system; petrochemicals; 

coal; everything from fuel oils, road salt, mulch for your yard. 

There is a whole series of scrap steel, iron ore. There are a lot of 

commodities that move on the river, and depending, once again, 

29 

where that failure would occur, it would affect those commodities 

that would transverse that particular area. 

Mr. MASSIE. Ms. Larson. 

Ms. LARSON. To compound that and the harm caused by such a 

catastrophic failure, there would be a significant ripple effect on 

this. Inland waterways cargo moves generally at a cost two to three 

times lower than other modes of transportation. So your transportation costs go up. 

What happens to the crew on the barge that is no longer working 

anymore? What happens to the regional economies? This really 

would have a significant ripple effect. 

There is data on what happened when the Lower Mississippi 

shut down for oil spills, and we can get you that information, but 

it is not limited just to the commodity, the value of that commodity, but it does ripple into the community as well. 

Mr. MASSIE. So certainly, for instance, the power plants would be 

affected if they could not get the coal, and that would have a ripple 

effect on the economy. 

Mayor Simmons, I wanted to address you again, and thank you 

very much for coming here today, and thank you for serving in 

local government. I really appreciate your commonsense idea. I 

think we need more common sense here in Washington, DC. It 

must be frustrating for you to see them dredge and dump sand in 

the ocean and then have to get a project going to pick up that sand 

again and bring it to your beaches. 

Would you speak a little bit more about your idea? 

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, I mean, there is a mechanism in place already to do this. It was in WRDA 2007. The regional sediment 

management plan allows for sand from navigation projects to go 

onto beaches. Talk about common sense, but then there is an issue 

of the ports and the channel folks being concerned that doing all 

of that might increase their cost or it might delay their projects 

that they also are very interested in seeing happen. 

Some of the challenge is going to be coordination. How do we 

make the environmental stuff work in the context of trying to do 

both things at the same time? 

In my neck of the woods, we are doing it right now. The village 

of Bald Head Island has got sand going on it from the Wilmington 

Harbor Channel as a part of a regional sand management plan 

that has been in place for over a decade. It is up for a revision in 

the near future and I hope we will be able to keep it working like 

it should. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you very much. 

My time has expired. 

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

The chair recognizes Mrs. Napolitano for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A couple of things that have not been mentioned is that the 

budget for the Army Corps has been cut repeatedly. So for them 

to be able to do more with less is not necessarily the ideal situation. 

Then the other area that you have kind of touched upon is that 

WRDA usually is a 6-year bill; am I correct? And we have been 

30 

doing it year to year. You cannot really bank on the funding to be 

able to carry out those projects. 

So those are things that I have a great concern about. In my general area, in the Los Angeles area, out of the two ports, Long Beach 

and Los Angeles, they are designated as corridor of national significance. So it moves 40 to 50 percent of the Nation’s goods through 

there for on-time delivery to the eastern seaboard and to the rest 

of the United States. Yet to put it more bluntly, Mr. Ojard, what 

would happen if your harbor received less than .1, not 1 percent, 

.1 percent of the funds the shippers in the harbor, your harbors, 

paid into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund? 

Mr. OJARD. Well, for my harbor, it would be catastrophic. We are 

not blessed with a natural harbor that requires little, if any, dredging. So for those that are, we certainly appreciate and would welcome the opportunity to share in their good benefit, but within the 

AAPA we certainly recognize that we need to spend the monies 

from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for their intended purpose and their historic purposes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But equitably. 

Mr. OJARD. Well, I realize that this is national program designed 

in 1986, and it was a program that the maritime industry supported wholeheartedly because it would take care of long-term infrastructure needs. And because we were not able to spend the 

money that we received, in other words, we thought we had a user 

fee and we thought we had a commitment here, and in reality the 

monies were not spent for their intended purpose. 

Now, once those monies are spent, and certainly we recognize 

that donor ports have needs as well, as an organization we support 

those donor ports having some access to funds to deal with some 

of their in-water issues, such as contaminated soils, channels adjacent to their berths, et cetera. So there is a recognition nationally 

of the need to talk about some of those equities with the donor 

ports. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, I would hope so because it is very hard 

to hear some of they are not my constituents, but I am next door 

to them, talk about the need for them to be able to have the reliance of the amount to be able to get some of the dredging and other 

things that it was meant to do. 

But when you have millions of dollars being paid in and you get 

maybe half a million dollars back, that is quite inequitable. 

Then the ability to address the backlog, how do we do that? Can 

somebody tell me how do we begin to look at the backlog and say 

the priorities? Small harbors, big harbors, what would be the major 

way of looking at it to be able to help get this done, not only protect 

our commerce, but also for protection of the environment, et cetera? 

Mr. OJARD. Well, with regards to the backlog, the Congressional 

Research Service asked the Corps of Engineers to look at that, and 

they came back with a number of approximately just under $10 billion over 5 years. We are collecting $1.6 to $1.8 billion currently, 

and certainly we could address that backlog in 6, 7 years’ time. 

The question then is the priorities, and there has been some talk 

about a congressional priority and basing that on a core issue of 

tons, in other words, high-use ports, lower use ports based on tonnage. 

31 

Tonnage does not give us value of a port, and I would have everyone really think about this because a ton is not a ton. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I understand, but my time is running out. 

Why do you not submit that for us for the record so that we all 

have that information in writing so when they look at the proposition of a bill we are able to take that into consideration? 

Mr. OJARD. We would be glad to get back with you. I think it is 

an important item in terms of priority and the value of that regional asset because once that regional and local asset is lost because of inadequate dredging, it is lost forever. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much. Thank you, all the witnesses. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. The Member’s time has expired. The chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes. 

First I want to thank Chairman Gibbs for calling the hearing 

and also to Chairman Shuster for making reauthorization of 

WRDA a top priority of this committee, and I certainly want to 

thank each of you, members of the panel. 

My question is for Ms. Larson. In your testimony, you pointed to 

the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System as an example of the Federal Government partnering with private interests 

to address the system’s $100 million backlog of critical maintenance. A large portion of that system falls in my district. It is critical to both commercial and recreational interests throughout Oklahoma and Arkansas. 

My question is: what type of barriers do you see that prevent 

more of these types of agreements between the Federal Government and private entities to address these critical infrastructure 

needs? 

Ms. LARSON. Thank you for the question. 

That river segment really works very well with their Corps of 

Engineers district offices, Little Rock and Tulsa. So the first part 

of that agreement is to coordinate and prioritize projects. 

The second element that is in there is to allow the contribution 

of emergency funds, and they are working to ensure that they can 

do that under current law. 

So when we are looking at such partnership agreements across 

the spectrum of the Corps of Engineers, we need to make sure that 

there are the legal permissions to allow the non-Federal sponsors 

to make those contributions in there, and it is not in that case. And 

that happens across the spectrum whether it is a feasibility study 

or O&M funding or, as we saw in the levels of service cutbacks, 

where local communities wanted to pay for some lock master hours 

so that they could, say, run a recreational boat tournament, they 

did not have the ability to give the Corps those funds. 

So we need to provide that flexibility and allow local sponsors 

more involvement in that. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you. 

You know, being in the Lower Mississippi Basin, certainly the 

MRT is very important to our district and to the region in general. 

Thank you for highlighting the 44 to 1 return on taxpayer investment in the MR&T. 

32 

The historic flooding along the Mississippi in 2011, along with 

Hurricane Sandy, provide two clear pictures of the critical role that 

levees play in our Nation’s infrastructure. Can you go into some 

more detail on the state of the Nation’s levees and what you might 

expect a national inventory and inspection would find? 

Ms. LARSON. It really varies according to region, and it really 

varies according to Federal involvement in those regions. There are 

many, many small communities throughout the country who have 

responsibility for the maintenance of their levees, and they simply 

do not have the resources to do it. So those are the levees and the 

regions that we want to make sure we target in this kind of inventory because we are talking about public safety here. 

When we are comparing that, for example to the MR&T process 

which has statutory authority and permissions and well established local levee boards who have taxing authority, they maintain 

their levies. They are very well maintained. That is not the case 

throughout the country. So we need to make sure that all of those 

small levee systems are looked at. 

We also need to make sure that there is flexibility in that system. The levees in the MR&T differ from the levees in Arkansas 

as you know, differ from the levees around the city of Dallas and 

perhaps what is on the Upper Miss. So we need to have that flexibility. 

I think we will see wide disparity when we do that evaluation, 

but it is critically important that we get it done. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you. 

I will yield the balance of my time. The chair recognizes Mr. 

Nolan for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I, too, 

want to commend the chairman for making the reenactment here 

of WRDA a high priority for this committee and engaging the committee in putting forth the legislation that needs to go before the 

House of Representatives. 

I want to thank the panel for their testimony here today expressing the needs, the benefits, the importance of investing, the opportunities that flow from that. And, of course, I would be remiss if 

I did not particularly commend Mr. Ojard from our great Port of 

Duluth. 

He is being modest when he says Duluth is not a natural port, 

which of course it is not, but what a lot of people do not realize 

is that being located right there almost dead center in North America, people do not typically think of it as a great port facility. 

But, indeed, it is. There have been times in modern history when 

Duluth was the largest seaport in the world as measured by the 

number of metric tons that go through that port, and to this day 

there are millions of metric tons of ore and taconite and timber 

products, grains and cereals from the Midwest, and western coal 

that utilize that port facility, and we thank you for the wonderful 

job that you have done in keeping that port the important port that 

it is for the economic opportunities in that region. 

And as someone who has spent 32 years in both the sawmilling 

and the pallet business and the export trading business, I appreciate your highlighting the fact that a quarter of our GNP comes 

from exporting. So this is no small matter here in taking care of 

33 

the needs and benefits and understanding the investments in our 

waterways. 

And we have heard a lot of good testimony here about full funding and streamlining the process and the regulatory process and 

the need for flexibility in all of this, and it is timely. It is much 

appreciated, and it is attention to these kinds of investments in infrastructure that are so critical, so important for our economic future. 

I am going to apologize here now for talking about something 

just a little bit different, but important to WRDA, and that is not 

to take anything away from the focus of the panel because you are 

right on. You are spot on on your priorities, and we could not be 

more grateful to you. 

But I wanted to talk just briefly if I could a little bit about some 

of the delays and, you know, backlogs, particularly as they relate 

to hydro projects, and since everybody else has been asking Ms. 

Larson questions, I feel compelled to ask you one, too. 

So we have more than 80,000 dams that already exist here in 

this country, and only about 3 percent of them actually produce 

any electricity, and that has been brought to the attention of the 

Congress recently. And a large percentage of these unpowered 

dams are owned by the Army Corps of Engineers. In fact, 81 out 

of the top 100 unpowered dams, in fact, are owned by the Army 

Corps. 

It is estimated that simply by powering the facilities the Corps 

owns could create another 7,000 million watts of clean hydropower 

in this country, and that is enough to really energize millions of 

homes and perhaps even take care of all the military needs in the 

country in terms of the volume. 

But time and again, you know, we hear about the delays and the 

inefficiencies in the Army Corps that get in the way of moving 

these and other projects forward. There are permitting processes 

that take years and redundancies among many of the agencies. I 

have heard about hydro projects, one in Mahoning, Pennsylvania, 

for instance, that have approval from FERC only to have to wait 

months while the Army Corps also issues a 408 permit, which itself 

must go through three levels of Army Corps review. 

Ms. Larson, are the complaints I am hearing about and the 

delays and the redundancies, I mean, are they an actual reflection 

of what is really going on here? 

And is the problem limited only to hydropower? And how can we 

fix it? You know, given the general view that FERC should be the 

lead agency, why not create a system in which FERC and the Army 

Corps work concurrently on their permitting? And the Corps even 

defers to FERC expertise in some instances. 

A lot of questions. 

Ms. LARSON. My hydropower people will be very happy for this 

question. 

There are a couple of different things going on. When there are 

authorized projects, a Federal authorized project, if hydropower is 

one of those authorized projects, even if it is not operational, it is 

typically reserved for Federal construction. 

If there are projects without a Federal hydropower authorization, 

it is open to non-Federal hydropower development. And, for inVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:08 Jun 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\4-16-1~1\80437.TXT JEAN
34 

stance, there are three hydropower facilities in Arkansas that are 

non-Federal projects. 

When a non-Federal hydropower developer seeks to get approval 

to operate at this Federal site, they need this 408 permit. Part of 

that process is to look at the other authorized purposes and ensure 

that they will not be otherwise undermined or interfered with. 

So I think at the district level, the extent of that review depends 

on the region and what those other projects are, and it may be very 

complex, and so I imagine for non-Federal hydropower startups, 

that might be a little daunting depending on the kind of project. 

And it varies, again, by region of the country. 

And so the delay or the time consumption is at the district level. 

I know for the Pennsylvania project you mentioned by the time it 

got to the head of Civil Works the final approval was within 3 

weeks. 

But mindful of those kinds of burdens maybe on these small 

hydro developers, in March 2011, the Corps entered into a MOU 

with FERC, and it defers in large part to FERC analysis of NEPA 

and those sorts of things, but it is a process. You need FERC approval. You need Corps approval for 408, and you still need a 404 

permit. 

But I think the Corps MOU with FERC has gone a long way to 

streamline, reduce redundancies, and help particularly those smaller hydropower startups so that they can get a permit and get to 

business. 

Mr. NOLAN. Thank you. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you for the opportunity to address the panel, 

and thank you for the time that you have spent with us, too. 

Ms. Larson, I hope your ankle is getting better. It was your 

ankle, right? 

Ms. LARSON. A slow process. 

Mr. MULLIN. A slow process. Well, I appreciate you taking the 

time to come to the Hill. 

This is one thing that seems that there is definitely bipartisanship in. We all understand the need of our infrastructure and to 

do it reasonably and responsibly, but at the same time, without the 

infrastructure the United States has and without us investing in 

infrastructure, this great country is going to crumble around us because of our lack of interest or lack of ability to repair. 

And it seems like the Government is our own worst enemy. It 

seems like we are fighting each other, and we all want to do the 

same thing, except we just seem to be walking around in circles. 

It is so frustrating as a business owner for me to see this happen, but one problem that we are having in our district, which I 

represent Oklahoma District 2, which is a very rural area, all eastern Oklahoma, and believe it or not, we have three ports right 

there in our facility, and it is vitally important to us. But in the 

current system we have three locks that are closed 4 hours a day 

because the Corps deemed them to have a lack of lockages because 

they say there is fewer than 1,000 a year that are recorded going 

through them. 

35 

The problem is that was from 2010, and that was during a time 

of economic downturn. Now all of them are well over 1,000, and the 

Corps does not have any recent study to allow these things to be 

open. So we are experiencing major delays. 

Ms. Larson, you stated that it should not be the policy of the 

United States to discourage economic activity, but that is exactly 

what we are having. So my question is: are you aware of any other 

areas experiencing this type of delay in economic activity due to 

the Corps deeming them lack of lockages? 

Ms. LARSON. We have worked extensively with the Corps on its 

level of service initiative, and around the country there is significant frustration, particularly in Pennsylvania, West Virginia areas 

on the Upper Allegheny River where there are very few or almost 

no commercial lockages, but the recreational boating is critically 

important to their regional economic development and well-being, 

and similarly in Alabama. 

So we are working with the Corps, mindful of budget constraints 

and perhaps the need to cut service hours, but to do it in a streamlined way so that the river is not closed for 4 hours in Tulsa and 

then 4 hours in Arkansas, but that it is somehow a streamlined 

system that is working well together. 

Unfortunately, I imagine, as we go forward in this fiscal environment, we may see more of those. The Corps says it is trying to do 

more with less. At some point that will just not be possible, and 

it is important, I think, for Congress to decide what are its priorities. 

We are very concerned that these kinds of cutbacks hurt the tributary systems, and certainly the McClellan-Kerr system is not a 

low-use waterway. It is a moderate use and higher use, a huge 

amount of chemicals moving out of those ports up there, and agricultural products. 

So we continue to work with the Corps on that, but it does come 

down to bottom line dollars. 

Mr. MULLIN. Ma’am, thank you, and I will yield back the rest of 

my time. Thank you 

Mr. GIBBS [presiding]. Mr. Maloney. 

Mr. MALONEY. Yes, thank you. And I want to thank Chairman 

Gibbs and I want to thank Ranking Member Bishop for the opportunity to testify today, and I want to thank the panel for your testimony. 

I would like to use my time today to emphasize one of the very 

important aspects of WRDA reauthorization, which is, again, building off the remarks by my colleague, Mr. Nolan, on the importance 

that dams play in our communities. Folks may not realize that we 

have 84,000 dams in this country. The average age of a dam is 52 

years old I am told. 

In my district, there are 100 high-hazard dams. These are dams 

that if a failure occurred would result in loss of life or significant 

property damage. 

There is a program called the National Dam Safety Program that 

provides a little bit of Federal money to make sure that in a classic 

‘‘stitch in time saves nine’’ way we are performing inspections at 

an adequate rate, that local authorities and associations have the 

information they need, the technical expertise they need to pay for 

36 

repairs that they need to do and to pay for those repairs themselves, but the Federal Government has historically played an important partnership role in this activity. 

That is why I recently introduced the Dam Safety Act that would 

reauthorize this program, and I just want to emphasize it here 

today because one of the reasons I wanted to serve on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and on this subcommittee 

is that we have got to proud tradition of working in a bipartisan 

way. 

I am happy to say that I have an original co-sponsor from the 

other party, from the majority party, Mr. Gibson, who also represents parts of the Hudson Valley with hundreds of high-hazard 

dams just like mine, and we together want to take this important 

step because this is not a partisan issue. This is not a Democratic 

or Republican issue. This is not a Senate or House issue. The Senate has been doing good work on this as well, and while I do not 

believe, Mr. Chairman, that we should cede our role in this important piece of legislation to the other house in any way, shape or 

form, I am encouraged to see that it is moving in that side of the 

Congress as well. 

And people may not realize, but this is also not just an urban 

issue or a rural issue. It is both. So that while most of my dams 

are smaller and affect smaller communities, the fact is even the 

city of New York depends on the dams that support the watershed 

and the reservoir system for the city. 

So this should not divide us in any way. It should not divide us 

across party lines or in either house of Congress or whether we 

represent an rural or an urban or a suburban district. This is an 

opportunity to do a basic thing that can and will save lives that 

we have always done. 

And so I want to encourage my colleagues to consider carefully 

the Dam Safety Act that I have introduced, and I want to thank 

my co-sponsor on the other side, Mr. Gibson, and I hope that it will 

receive a real chance in this process as we move forward because 

it is the kind of thing that will do real good for the people of the 

Hudson Valley and for communities all over America. 

And with that I will yield back the balance of my time. Thank 

you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Frankel? 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you. 

Mr. Ojard, I think you said you had some recommendations on 

how to make the Army Corps more efficient. Do you want to be 

specific? 

Mr. OJARD. Yes. Certainly the provision of peer review in our estimation has not really provided any value to the entire process. A 

review of over 30 studies has indicated that during that peer review process, 6-plus months was added onto the project, sometimes 

a year or more, and not one major change was made in the project 

itself. 

So that adds money, and it adds time to the process and we 

would recommend that that we stricken as a requirement for the 

Corps. 

Certainly when we do our channel maintenance and sometimes 

widening, just the sheer fact that we widen a channel, extend into 

37 

areas already authorized, but because of lack of maintenance funding it has not been done for a number of years, and as we extend 

back out into that, we are required to do environmental studies 

that, again, add time to the project. 

And lastly, there is a number of projects. Now, we have 13 proposals that are part of the written testimony, but a number of 

those proposals deal with the non-Federal partners, and the ability 

of non-Federal partners to work with the Corps of Engineers in 

terms of providing monies, studies, and recognition for the work 

that they are putting into it, but all of that designed to move the 

project along quicker and more efficiently, using monies that are 

non-Federal, and then looking at the opportunities in the out-years 

to recover those funds if possible for the local sponsors. 

So those are just three very general ideas, but all of this is about 

process and about streamlining and getting the Corps to its task, 

which is performing the job, the construction and the maintenance. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you. 

In an informal meeting last week, a representative from the 

Corps made a statement. I will try to paraphrase it, that the Army 

Corps has the most difficult task in getting a project implemented 

because of, he says, requirements that are put on the Army Corps 

by Congress. 

Would you comment on that? 

Mr. OJARD. Only to say he is absolutely dead on. There is just 

a never ending number of hoops to be jumped through. The process 

is lengthy. The review is extensive. Everybody is engaged in the activity, and there is opportunity at every turn if you do not like a 

project to stop it, to extend it, to defer it, to just try to muck it up. 

And we in the industry that are trying to do the best we can find 

that we are being impeded at many turns and sympathize with the 

Corps because they are trying to do their job and do it well. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Will your recommendations take that into account? 

Mr. OJARD. Well, yes, some of the recommendations do do that 

as well, yes. 

Ms. FRANKEL. And could you just quickly comment? We are talking about tonnage is not equivalent to the quality of a port. 

Mr. OJARD. Well, in that regard, first off, when we talk about the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and the tax, you have to recognize 

that it is on imports. Therefore, if you are a donor port, you could 

be a donor port because you have high imports and very little 

maintenance, where in reality I think we are talking about jobs 

and we are talking about exports. 

Certainly a ton of T-shirts going to a big box store does not have 

the value, does not support the jobs that a ton of iron ore, raw materials moving domestically within this country supports, hundreds 

of miners in Minnesota, sailors moving through the Great Lakes, 

steel mills in the lower States, the manufacturing, the infrastructure, the automotive, appliance, as well as the structural steel for 

our highways, et cetera. 

So all of this has to be taken into account and then plus on that, 

the local and regional economy. And once we get rid of small ports, 

once you start this process of trying to eliminate, it is a death spiral, and in the Great Lakes trades. We trade with each other. We 

38 

are constantly trading. We are the largest port, but we interface 

with almost every port on the Great Lakes. 

And as those ports start to lose dredge funding, which they are, 

ultimately they will be shut down. Our port will suffer. There will 

be a modal shift. We have done modal shift studies. The impact of 

that is significant not only in terms of cost, but in jobs and the environment. 

So we really believe that it is imperative that we have full spending, full use of those harbor maintenance tax funds. Those funds, 

if offset, will provide a long-term fix to our national needs and our 

national interests and should spur the economy and provide jobs 

for our Nation. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, may I ask one last quick question since I think 

I am the last one here? 

I would like to ask you, Mr. Ojard, could you comment on Mayor 

Simmons’ concept of having a regional approach to some of these 

projects and whether or not if, for example, in doing some dredging 

that would help a port, using that sand to renourish a beach, 

whether that would impede the port’s operation or the speed of 

that particular project? 

Mr. OJARD. Well, first off, every project is unique, and I think we 

have to take that into account, and again, the Corps of Engineers 

is trusted to do the most efficient job, but in today’s world if it is 

not a two-fer or a three-fer, multiple projects, one project supporting another project supporting other projects, we are losing the 

opportunity. 

In our port, we are looking to use dredge materials for habitat 

restoration. The Corps of Engineers is not necessarily paying for 

that, but it is coming from some other environmental pot to pay for 

that, and I think that is where we have to go. 

Ports will partner with anybody to maintain their commercial 

needs, and the dredge materials that we have, if they are suitable 

for a beach, if they are suitable for habitat creation, they should 

be used there. The Corps will do what they can in terms of the 

pricing for the lowest cost. That additional cost can certainly be 

met through such as the Great Lakes Legacy Act that we have and 

were involved in. 

And right now, we have got environmental groups arguing over 

who is going to get that dredge material that we plan to deliver 

here in the next year or two on a special project. 

So I think there is opportunity to work collectively, work together, satisfy multiple needs, and save this Government money. 

Thank you. 

Ms. FRANKEL. I thank the gentleman. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Bishop. 

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

Just a couple of quick points. I think I am the last question that 

Congresswoman Frankel asked at least in my district. Every inlet 

that is dredged, the spoil goes onto a beach, and you are absolutely 

right. We need two-fers. We need three-fers, and I think the Corps 

is very attuned to that. 

39 

I want to thank you, Mayor Simmons, for your defense of using 

taxpayer funds to stabilize our beaches. As a person who represents a district that has over 300 miles of coastline, I recognize 

and I want to emphasize the point that Professor Gobler made, 

that communities within 50 miles of the coast produce half of our 

gross domestic product. That is $8 trillion, communities within 50 

miles of the coast, and I know in my district the single greatest industry, if you will, in my district is travel and tourism, and the second is the second home industry, everything associated with the 

second home industry. 

We employ an enormous number of people because of the people 

that live along those beaches, and the people that live on the bay 

side of those beaches are not the wealthy landowners, and yet as 

Professor Gobler pointed out, if we have breaches in those beaches, 

it is the people on the mainland that are going to bear the brunt 

of that in many cases. 

And I would also point out that at least in New York we have 

what we call erosion control districts. I do not know whether they 

are used throughout the country, but where coastal taxpayers get 

together and tax themselves and engage in beach nourishment 

projects, and they are working quite well. 

Lastly, I just want to thank you, Ms. Larson, for raising the 800- 

pound gorilla that is in the middle of the room in your testimony, 

and that is how do we deal with the earmark moratorium, and I 

think your suggestion is a very good one. There are a couple of 

other ways that I would hope my colleagues would consider. 

One is that if a project is a trust fund funded project, that is to 

say Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund, Highway Trust Fund, that that would be a project that 

would be exempt from the earmark ban, and again, all would be 

vetted through this community. 

And then another possible way is if the project is Federal money 

flowing to another governmental entity, whether it be a State or a 

town or a county or some authority of some type. That also, but the 

fact that, you know, we have engaged in this in an effort to avoid 

wasteful expenditures of Federal money and yet as a result of 

being engaged in this we are wasting Federal money by virtue of 

not being able to follow up on projects that we have already authorized and funded, I mean, I think that is the ultimate irony. 

So I thank you, and if you would care to comment, I would appreciate your comment. 

Ms. LARSON. Well, thank you, and I will continue to raise that 

800-pound gorilla because I think this committee needs to resolve 

it. 

The other component of that that I think we really need to be 

mindful of when we are talking about policy reforms, we saw in the 

Senate version of the bill efforts to address perhaps particular 

problems, whether it was a biological opinion or something else. 

Because of the earmark moratorium instead of addressing a discrete problem, it grants sweeping authority, stating ‘‘the Secretary 

shall do whatever is necessary.’’ 

And that could be beyond congressional intent or even the underlying statute, but I think we need to be mindful of that. Those 

40 

sweeping grants of authority then would undermine the streamlining efficiencies that we are trying to put in. 

Mr. BISHOP. Keep raising the issue. 

Ms. LARSON. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very, very much. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. All right. Thank you. 

I am going to kind of wrap up here, but I first want to apologize 

for Chairman Shuster and I had to step out to meet with General 

Bostick. So I think it was worthwhile that we had to step out. 

Mr. Ojard, I know you are from Duluth, but you also represent 

the Council of the American Port Authorities. You know, we look 

at China. I think I saw a report that they are actually dropping 

down maybe just under 7 percent growth, GDP growth, which I 

wish we were there. We have got a long ways to go, but we have 

seen that expanding market. 

We have also seen Chinese investing in South America, in the infrastructure down there. Can you give us kind of a handle? The 

reason I ask this, I guess, is the potential because we have got 

Members like myself that do not have a port or are not in the inland waterway system, but the importance of the trade and what 

is happening with China. 

What kind of products do we see that we are exporting to China 

or vice versa? Can you just kind of fill us in on the potential we 

have with China, with that kind of growth, especially with their 

population? Their middle class is bigger than our entire population. 

Mr. OJARD. Well, certainly the access to China is going to be 

through our ports, and what we can offer in the world economy is 

going to be based on price, price and quality, and if we can price 

it because of our transportation infrastructure at a competitive 

price, we are going to sell American products to China and be it 

durable goods or some of the luxury items that that developing 

middle class is in desire of. 

China is also after, of course, a lot of raw materials, and just for 

the committee’s education, iron ore from Duluth, Minnesota, 2,340 

miles from the Atlantic ocean, is moving to China. It is supporting 

hundreds of jobs in Minnesota as well. 

So, again, that would not move to China if it was not for our waterway system and our harbor. The St. Lawrence Seaway System 

is providing the avenue to export into these global markets. 

Coal is moving from our port to northern Europe. It is that trade 

that is key to our future and to our future development, and I do 

not know how you access that trade without funding the ports, 

maintaining their efficiencies, and creating the necessary environment to move forward with construction, with the maintenance, 

and do it in an efficient manner. 

So I applaud the committee on the work to drive that efficiency. 

Mr. GIBBS. But you are confident in saying that. I have been saying this. One of the reasons that we have been globally competitive 

over decades is because we have been blessed with a maritime 

transportation system that is second to none in the world, and we 

have had the example that Chairman Shuster has talked about, 

the soybeans exports, you know, competing with Brazil, how we are 

41 

beating them by $50 or $60 a ton because of our transportation 

cost. 

I guess what I’m trying to say is we are falling behind, and we 

could actually lose that advantage. And if we do that, the effect on 

our economic growth and job creation in this country would be very 

apparent, I think. 

Mr. OJARD. Absolutely correct, and it is not only the waterway, 

but it is our connectors. It is how we connect to the rail. It is how 

we connect to the highway system, and developing that robust port. 

It has multimodal aspects to it. All of this drive our efficiency. 

So our transportation system is a system of efficiency that has 

certainly served us well, but I think if we went back and looked 

at the reports from the civil engineers, we are finding that it is 

definitely lacking for repair, for maintenance, and funding, and 

that is the spiral that I have talked about, and I think it is going 

to come home to roost if we do not recognize it. 

Mr. GIBBS. I know, Mr. Stephaich, the chairman alluded to it a 

little bit, but I want to just really cement it. You know, we talk 

about the cost and delays. The river system has not been shut 

down completely, but we have definitely had delays, and that adds 

to costs, and those costs obviously get passed on to our shippers 

and consumers, right? 

Mr. STEPHAICH. Absolutely. We look at scheduled outages and 

unscheduled outages. We have seen the number of unscheduled 

outages increase rapidly here over the last few years. There are 

good Corps statistics on that. 

We can plan around a scheduled maintenance outage with our 

customers and pre-ship or ship afterwards, but when we are caught 

off guard, so to speak, it is a real problem and the costs are driven 

up. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Larson, just one quickly here. I think there was 

some discussion on the headwaters of the tributaries. I know the 

Corps has been looking at trying to save costs on some of the locks, 

on the hours of operation. I think that is a concern of yours, to 

make sure that we can at least facilitate, schedule appropriately so 

that we do not shut down the barges coming in from the tributaries 

into the main system. 

Ms. LARSON. That is correct. We need to make sure that the cuts 

in service are coordinated, and not, as on the Oklahoma-Arkansas 

River waterway system, 4 hours in Oklahoma and a different 4 

hours in Arkansas that were not aligned. It is like traffic lights in 

the District that are not aligned. It is not productive, and it slows 

down transportation even more. 

So those two particular districts, the Little Rock and the Tulsa 

district, are working to make sure that they have a better coordinated system. 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, I want to thank you all for coming and continuing to work on this. You know, we understand the importance 

of this, and I know Chairman Shuster and I have committed to try 

to bring something to fruition here that will be beneficial to the 

American people and our economy and job creation. 

So this concludes our first hearing on WRDA. 

[Whereupon, at 12:21 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

42 


Insert offset folio 5 here 80437.005
43 


Insert offset folio 6 here 80437.006
44 


Insert offset folio 7 here 80437.007
45 


Insert offset folio 8 here 80437.008
46 


Insert offset folio 9 here 80437.009
47 


Insert offset folio 10 here 80437.010
48 


Insert offset folio 11 here 80437.011
49 


Insert offset folio 12 here 80437.012
50 


Insert offset folio 13 here 80437.013
51 


Insert offset folio 14 here 80437.014
52 


Insert offset folio 15 here 80437.015
53 


Insert offset folio 16 here 80437.016
54 


Insert offset folio 17 here 80437.017
55 


Insert offset folio 18 here 80437.018
56 


Insert offset folio 19 here 80437.019
57 


Insert offset folio 20 here 80437.020
58 


Insert offset folio 21 here 80437.021
59 


Insert offset folio 22 here 80437.022
60 


Insert offset folio 23 here 80437.023
61 


Insert offset folio 24 here 80437.024
62 


Insert offset folio 25 here 80437.025
63 


Insert offset folio 26 here 80437.026
64 


Insert offset folio 27 here 80437.027
65 


Insert offset folio 28 here 80437.028
66 


Insert offset folio 29 here 80437.029
67 


Insert offset folio 30 here 80437.030
68 


Insert offset folio 31 here 80437.031
69 


Insert offset folio 32 here 80437.032
70 


Insert offset folio 33 here 80437.033
71 


Insert offset folio 34 here 80437.034
72 


Insert offset folio 35 here 80437.035
73 


Insert offset folio 36 here 80437.036
74 


Insert offset folio 37 here 80437.037
75 


Insert offset folio 38 here 80437.038
76 


Insert offset folio 39 here 80437.039
77 


Insert offset folio 40 here 80437.040
78 


Insert offset folio 41 here 80437.041
79 


Insert offset folio 42 here 80437.042
80 


Insert offset folio 43 here 80437.043
81 


Insert offset folio 44 here 80437.044
82 


Insert offset folio 45 here 80437.045
83 


Insert offset folio 46 here 80437.046
84 


Insert offset folio 47 here 80437.047
85 


Insert offset folio 48 here 80437.048
86 


Insert offset folio 49 here 80437.049
87 


Insert offset folio 50 here 80437.050
88 


Insert offset folio 51 here 80437.051
89 


Insert offset folio 52 here 80437.052
90 


Insert offset folio 53 here 80437.053
91 


Insert offset folio 54 here 80437.054
92 


Insert offset folio 55 here 80437.055
93 


Insert offset folio 56 here 80437.056
94 


Insert offset folio 57 here 80437.057
95 


Insert offset folio 58 here 80437.058
96 


Insert offset folio 59 here 80437.059
97 


Insert offset folio 60 here 80437.060
98 


Insert offset folio 61 here 80437.061
99 


Insert offset folio 62 here 80437.062
100 


Insert offset folio 63 here 80437.063
101 


Insert offset folio 64 here 80437.064
102 


Insert offset folio 65 here 80437.065
103 


Insert offset folio 66 here 80437.066
104 


Insert offset folio 67 here 80437.067
105 


Insert offset folio 68 here 80437.068
106 


Insert offset folio 69 here 80437.069
107 


Insert offset folio 70 here 80437.070
108 


Insert offset folio 71 here 80437.071
109 


Insert offset folio 72 here 80437.072
110 


Insert offset folio 73 here 80437.073
111 


Insert offset folio 74 here 80437.074
112 


Insert offset folio 75 here 80437.075
113 


Insert offset folio 76 here 80437.076
114 


Insert offset folio 77 here 80437.077
115 


Insert offset folio 78 here 80437.078
116 


Insert offset folio 79 here 80437.079
117 


Insert offset folio 80 here 80437.080
118 


Insert offset folio 81 here 80437.081
119 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 82 here 80437.082