(1) 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 2:33 p.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Alexander, Cochran, Murkowski, Hoeven, 

Lankford, Feinstein, Tester, Udall, and Coons. 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

HON. JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL 

WORKS), CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL, DEPARTMENT OF THE 

ARMY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS P. BOSTICK, LIEUTENANT GENERAL, 

COMMANDING GENERAL AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS 

ESTEVAN R. LO ́ PEZ, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

ACCOMPANIED BY TOM ISEMAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 

WATER AND SCIENCE 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

Senator ALEXANDER. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development will please come to order. 

Today’s hearing will review the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget request for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau 

of Reclamation, which is part of the Department of Interior. This 

is the subcommittee’s second budget hearing this year, and we will 

have two more budget hearings in the coming weeks. 

Now, we are going to change our procedure just a little bit, but 

it will not hurt to have a little more relaxed and informal hearing. 

We have four votes on the Senate floor that are scheduled to begin 

now, and I will give my opening remarks, and then will turn to 

Senator Feinstein for her remarks. Once Senator Feinstein and I 

have given our opening statements, we will take a brief recess to 

allow Senators to vote and come back, or if a Senator is here, we 

will just continue the hearing, alternating in between Senator 

Feinstein as Chairman of the Committee. 
2 

To allow Senators enough time to ask their questions, I am going 

to ask each Senator to withhold their opening remarks, and I ask 

unanimous consent that any written statements Senators would 

like to submit be included in the hearing record. 

Our witnesses’ written testimony, which we have, will also be included in the hearing record, and I would ask you to withhold your 

opening statements. And then as soon as Senators arrive, we will 

recognize them one by one for their 5 minutes of questions and conversations. And if there is anything in your opening statement that 

you would like to say when you answer questions, there will be 

plenty of time to say that. 

So basically during these votes, which are going to last about an 

hour and a half, we will have alternating Senators. But I hope we 

can continue to have our hearing all the way through the end—to 

the end. Several Senators had expressed an interest in coming 

today, and I know for certain that Senator Feinstein will be here. 

Our witnesses today include Jo-Ellen Darcy, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Ms. Darcy has been serving as 

the Assistant Secretary since 2009, and she has told me this may 

be her last budget hearing before this committee. I want to thank 

her for her many years of public service. I have enjoyed working 

with her both publicly and the visits we have had in our offices, 

and including her time working on the Senate Environment and 

Public Works Committee. So thank you, Secretary Darcy, for being 

here today. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JO-ELLEN DARCY

Thank you Chairman Alexander and distinguished members of the subcommittee 

for the opportunity to present the President’s Budget for the Civil Works program 

of the Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2017. We are pleased to have an opportunity to further expand on the Administration’s priorities and goals. Those priorities include promoting resilient communities to address current and future impacts of climate change and sea level rise; fostering and maintaining strong partnerships with local communities; and practicing sustainability and sound stewardship 

across all our missions. I also want to take this opportunity to touch on points that 

this Committee has raised in the past. 

This year’s Civil Works Budget reflects the Administration’s priorities through 

targeted investments in the Nation’s water resources infrastructure that will reduce 

flood risk to communities; facilitate commercial navigation; and restore degraded 

aquatic ecosystems. The 2017 Civil Works Budget provides $4.62 billion in discretionary appropriations for the Army Civil Works program, focusing on investments that will yield 

high economic and environmental returns or address a significant risk to safety. 

The Budget focuses on funding our three major mission areas: 

—42 percent of funding is allocated to commercial navigation, 

—26 percent to flood and storm damage reduction, and 

—8 percent to aquatic ecosystem restoration. 

Other practical, effective, sound investments include allocating $196 million of the Budget to hydropower, $200 million to regulatory activities, and $103 million to the 

clean-up of sites contaminated during the early years of the Nation’s nuclear weapons program. 

The Civil Works program, which this Budget supports, relies on the strong relationships between the Corps and local communities; these strong relationships allow 

us to work together to meet their water resources needs across all of our missions, 

as well as to address broader water resources challenges that are of concern at the 

national or regional level. 

The Budget supports a Civil Works program that has a diverse set of tools and 

approaches to working with local communities, whether this means funding studies 

and projects with our cost-sharing partners, or providing planning assistance and 

technical expertise to help communities make better-informed decisions. 
3 

PLANNING MODERNIZATION

The Budget supports the continued implementation of Corps efforts to modernize 

its planning process. The Budget provides funding in the Investigations account for 

49 feasibility studies, and funds 12 of them to completion. 

The Budget reflects full implementation of the SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Risk Informed, Timely) planning initiative, under which each feasibility 

study is to have a scope, cost, and schedule that have been agreed upon by the District, Division, and Corps Headquarters. The Budget supports efficient funding of 

these studies. 

Studies generally are funded with the presumption that they will complete in 3 years and for $3 million ($1.5 million Federal). In the first year, the Corps will work 

to identify the problem, develop an array of alternatives, and begin the initial formulation. The bulk of the study costs are anticipated to be incurred during year 

two, as the alternatives are narrowed down and a Tentatively Selected Plan is identified, which requires more detailed feasibility analysis and formulation. During the 

third year, the focus is on completing the detailed feasibility analysis, State and 

agency review, and finalizing the Chief’s Report. There are some exceptions to this 

funding stream, such as where an increase in the study cost or an extension in the 

study schedule is appropriate based on factors such technical complexity, public controversy, the need for more detailed work to address a specific issue, or the overall 

cost of a proposed solution. 

Over the past 3 years, the Corps began 29 new studies and resumed 10 studies. 

The fiscal year 2017 Budget focuses on managing these and other ongoing studies 

and bringing them to a conclusion. It includes funding for 14 studies and three 

preconstruction engineering and design efforts previously funded only through the 

annual Corps work plans. Among the studies budgeted for the first time this year 

are two of the feasibility studies that were recommended as focus areas in the North 

Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study, nine studies that are starting in fiscal year 

2016, and three disposition studies under the Disposition of Completed Projects remaining item. 

The Water Resources Priorities Study is one of the 10 studies started in the fiscal 

year 2016 work plan. This study will address the critical need to develop a baseline 

assessment of the Nation’s vulnerability to flood damages on both a national and 

regional scale. First, a baseline assessment will identify and analyze the key drivers 

of flood risks, including the ways in which some of those risks are changing or expected to change over time. The study will then examine the effectiveness of existing 

Federal, State, and local programs, and develop recommendations to improve these 

programs to reduce the economic and life safety risk associated with large-scale 

flood and storm events in ways that will also promote the long-term sustainability 

of communities and ecosystems. 

The Budget also helps to further combat the spread of invasive species by its proposals for funding work associated with the Great Lakes and Mississippi River 

Interbasin Study (GLMRIS). The Budget supports efforts to reduce the risk of 

interbasin transfer of aquatic nuisance species through the Chicago Area Waterway 

System (CAWS) in the vicinity of Brandon Road Lock and Dam. The Brandon Road 

effort will assess the viability of establishing a single point to control the one-way, 

upstream transfer of aquatic nuisance species from the Mississippi River basin into 

the Great Lakes basin near the Brandon Road Lock and Dam located in Joliet, Illinois. The Budget includes funding to continue this effort. 

Among the 12 feasibility studies funded to completion is the Mississippi River Hydrodynamic Model—Delta Management Study under the Louisiana Coastal Area 

Ecosystem Restoration Program. This greater than $25 million study effort will 

identify options to address the long-term sustainability of the lower Mississippi 

River Deltaic Plain and provide a model to assess the effects on navigation and sediment dynamics along the Mississippi River main stem associated with combinations 

of Mississippi River diversions. 

Investigation funds are also provided to continue to support State and local flood 

risk mitigation priorities through the ‘‘Silver Jackets’’ program. The Corps currently 

supports participation on ‘‘Silver Jackets’’ team in 44 States and the District of Columbia through which technical assistance activities are being implemented that 

support State and local community flood risk and floodplain management priorities. 

CONSTRUCTION

The Budget for the construction program includes funds to complete six construction projects, continue 27 ongoing projects, and start one new project. The one new 

construction project, Mud Mountain Dam in Washington State, involves construction 

of a fish passage facility to address a Biological Opinion. 
4 

Flood and Storm Damage Reduction 

The Budget includes $404 million for flood and storm damage reduction projects 

and remaining items, and funds the American River Watershed (Folsom Dam Modification), CA project and the Topeka, KS project to completion. 

Over the last several years, Congress has funded the dam safety program at a 

lower level than the Budget, based on revisions of capabilities that the Corps has 

provided to Congress subsequent to the Budget submission. These revisions—often 

but not always showing a lower capability than requested in the Budget—are 

caused by a variety of factors, including savings from contract awards, process efficiencies, and changed conditions. The Budget includes $239 million (not including 

$21 million for the Dam Safety remaining item) for the dam safety program that, 

when coupled with anticipated unobligated carryover balances on these important 

projects, will ensure that each of the Dam Safety Action Classification (DSAC) I and 

DSAC II projects funded in the Budget is able to progress efficiently and effectively 

to implement a risk reduction strategy for these structures. 

Coastal Navigation 

The Budget includes $105 million for coastal navigation and remaining items and 

funds the Oakland Harbor, CA (50-foot Deepening) project and the Delaware River 

Deepening, NJ, PA, & DE project to completion. The Savannah Harbor Expansion 

Project, GA project is funded at $42.7 million, which is over a 100 percent increase 

from the fiscal year 2016 Budget. The Columbia River at the Mouth, OR & WA 

project is funded at a level that will enable efficient progress toward mitigating the 

life safety risk that is presented by the deteriorated jetties. 

Inland Navigation 

The Budget funds inland waterways construction and remaining items at $246 million, of which $33.75 million will be financed through the Inland Waterways 

Trust Fund (IWTF) for the Olmsted Locks and Dams, IL & KY project, which at 

$225 million is funded at the highest amount ever budgeted for this project. With 

the passage of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 

2014), the Olmsted Locks and Dam, Ohio River, Illinois and Kentucky project is now 

cost-shared 85 percent General funds and 15 percent IWTF. This change reduced 

the cost of this project to the navigation users by around $500 million, and increased the amount that Federal taxpayers will have to pay by an equivalent 

amount. In the ABLE Act, the Congress also increased the tax on diesel fuel used 

in commercial transportation on certain of the inland waterways. As a result of both 

of these changes, over the next few years there will be somewhat more money in 

the IWTF to support the user-financed share of inland waterways capital investments. 

The Administration—as it has in recent years—will propose legislation to reform 

the way that we finance capital investments for navigation on the inland waterways. The Administration’s proposal includes a new user fee to produce additional 

revenue to help finance long-term future investments in these waterways to support 

economic growth. We would like to work with the Congress to enact this legislation. 

The Corps is also finalizing a Capital Investment Strategy for the inland waterways. The Corps has coordinated this effort with stakeholders and the Inland Waterways Users Board to provide an opportunity for their input. The process will include an estimate of the investment need over the next 20 years and objective nationwide criteria to provide a framework for deciding which capital investments 

should have priority for funding from a national perspective. While this Strategy 

will provide a benchmark, it is a conceptual plan and does not take the place of normal Budget processes or commit the Government to future actions. 

Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration 

The Corps continues to contribute to the Nation’s efforts to restore degraded environments; to that end, the Budget for the Corps funds restoration of several large 

aquatic ecosystems that have been a focus of interagency collaboration, including 

the California Bay-Delta, the Chesapeake Bay, the Everglades, the Great Lakes, 

and the Gulf Coast. Other funded efforts include the Columbia River, and priority 

work in the Upper Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

The Budget provides $2.705 billion for Operation and Maintenance, with $1.122 

billion for operation and $1.414 billion for maintenance, and an additional $169 million for remaining items. This encompasses a wide range of activities, from operating and maintaining our locks and dams to monitoring the condition of dunes and 

berms that reduce the risk of flooding in a hurricane from wave action and storm 
5 

surges, running the Corps recreation facilities that are visited by millions of Americans each year, and helping us be responsible stewards of the lands associated with 

Corps projects and operate them in an increasingly sustainable fashion. 

For example, the Budget helps us maintain and improve our efforts on sustainability. We are reducing the Corps’ carbon footprint by: 

—increasing renewable electricity consumption, 

—reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and 

—reducing non-tactical vehicle petroleum consumption. 

We are also making important investments to promote the sustainable management of Corps-owned lands, waters and cultural resources. The Budget provides 

$9.6 million to update 24 Master Plans and initiate work on 26 others that govern 

how we manage our facilities, which will helps us make better decisions about how 

to use the land and keep it healthy; $12 million to address impacts from invasive 

plants and animals at Corps facilities; and $6.9 million for enhancements and protections for habitat in support of the National Strategy to Promote the Health of 

Honey Bees and other Pollinators. The Budget also provides $35.5 million for the levee safety program, which will 

help ensure that Federal levees are safe and in line with the Federal Emergency 

Management Administration standards. 

The overall condition of the inland waterways has continued to improve over the 

last few years. The number of lock closures due to preventable mechanical breakdowns and failures lasting longer than one day and lasting longer than one week 

has decreased significantly since fiscal year 2010. However, the lock closures that 

do occur result in additional costs to shippers, carriers, and users. That is why the 

Budget continues to provide a high level of funding to operate and maintain the inland waterways, with emphasis on those that together carry 90 percent of the commercial traffic. 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 

The Budget provides $951 million from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 

(HMTF) to maintain coastal channels and related work, which is the highest 

amount ever budgeted. This includes almost 11 percent for Great Lakes harbors, 10 

percent for emerging harbors, $856 million from the O&M Account, $2 million from 

the Mississippi River & Tributaries account, and $65 million from the Construction 

account. 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Research, Development, and Technology is a component of the Science and Technology portfolio of the Corps and continues to address key strategic technology 

needs to inform policy-making and business processes. The fiscal year 2017 Budget 

includes $18.1 million for research and development. This funding will be used to 

extend the service life of water resources infrastructure through research, use of 

novel materials, and technology transfer. The Research, Development, and Technology program enhances our capabilities to facilitate marine transportation, assist 

flood and coastal storm preparation and recovery efforts, restore aquatic ecosystems, 

pursue sustainable environmental management, and respond to changing environmental conditions. 

REMAINING ITEMS

The Budget includes $276 million for remaining items, including $55 million in the Investigations account, $44 million in the Construction account, $169 million in 

the Operation and Maintenance account, and $8 million in the Mississippi River and 

Tributaries Account. 

Annual funding for these remaining items is determined based on current needs, 

such as the increased focus on technical assistance to States and local communities 

to improve resilience to climate change. 

REGULATORY PROGRAM

The Budget includes $200 million for the Regulatory program. 

ALTERNATIVE FINANCING AND PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

As part of looking to the future of the Army’s Civil Works program, we continue 

to consider potential tools to expand and strengthen our already strong partnerships, especially in the area of Alternative Financing. As part of this effort, we are 

actively talking with potential non-Federal partners about their ideas for how we 

can work together and soliciting suggestions and best practices from others in the 

Federal Government with experience in this area. 
6 

Increasingly, some non-Federal sponsors have been contributing or advancing 

funds for work that is authorized to be funded at Federal expense. In such cases, 

the project beneficiaries assume more (or all) of the cost. Before entering into an 

agreement to accept such funds, the Corps carefully evaluates its overall workload 

to ensure that execution of the proposed work will not adversely affect our directlyfunded programs, projects and activities. 

VETERANS CURATION PROGRAM

Finally, this Budget provides $6.5 million for the Veterans Curation Program, 

which was started in 2009 with support from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This program offers veterans the opportunity to learn tangible work skills 

and gain experience by rehabilitating and preserving federally owned or administered archaeological collections found at Corps projects. 

Thank you all for attending today. General Bostick will provide further remarks 

on the Army Corps of Engineers 2017 Budget. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick is 

the Chief of Engineers for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He 

has been serving as Chief of Engineers since 2012. Time goes awfully fast. This will be his last hearing before this subcommittee I 

am told, and I want to thank General Bostick. He has been responsive and straightforward to me as well as to other Senators, and 

I am deeply grateful for his many years of service to our country. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL THOMAS P. BOSTICK

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am honored to testify before your committee today, along with the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, the Honorable Jo-Ellen Darcy, on the President’s fiscal year 2017 Budget for the United States Army Corps of Engineers 

(Corps) Civil Works Program. This is my fourth and final time before this Subcommittee to testify on the Civil Works budget; thank you for your support in the 

past, and I look forward to continuing to work together during the remainder of my 

tenure as Chief of Engineers. 

I have been in command of the Corps for nearly 4 years, and I want to briefly 

update you on the four Campaign Plan Goals for the Corps. 

First, Support National Security. The Corps supports the National Security efforts 

of the United States. We continue working across the globe with presence in more 

than 110 countries, using our Civil Works, Military Missions, and Water Resources 

Research and Development expertise to support our Nation’s Combatant Commanders. We are proud to serve this great Nation and our fellow citizens, and we 

are proud of the work the Corps does to support America’s foreign policy. Civilian 

Army Corps employees from across the Nation have volunteered—and continue to 

volunteer—to work, in a civilian capacity, to provide critical support to our military 

missions abroad and humanitarian support to the citizens of those nations. Many 

of these volunteers have served on multiple deployments. 

Second, Transform Civil Works. The four elements of the Civil Works Transformation strategy will make the Corps more efficient and effective while continuing 

to support the Nation by addressing some of our greatest infrastructure needs. Civil 

Works Transformation focuses on modernizing the project planning process; enhancing the budget development process through a more streamlined process and the use 

of a systems approach, to identify and deliver more holistic outcomes to the Nation; 

evaluating the portfolio of existing water resources projects to support risk-informed 

investment decisions, identify priorities, and develop better solutions to water resources problems; and improving methods of delivery to produce and deliver quality 

products and services. 

Since the inception of Civil Works Transformation efforts in 2008, 58 Chief’s reports have been completed, with 45 Chief’s Reports completed in the last 4 years 

alone; we are learning and continue to become more efficient in our processes. 

Third, we must continue to be proactive and develop better strategies to Reduce 

Disaster Risks, as well as respond to natural disasters when they do occur, under 

the National Response Framework, National Disaster Recovery Framework, Public 

Law 84–99 as amended, and Corps project authorities for flood risk management. 

I continue to be amazed at the work the Army Corps does in this arena. For example, the Corps provided technical expertise to the State of South Carolina during 
7 

its historic flooding last year by assisting in inspecting over 600 locally owned dams 

to assess dam safety vulnerability. More recently, the Corps teamed with local communities and State-led Army National Guard units during the Mississippi River 

floodfight to help impacted communities in the flood’s aftermath. Additionally, I am 

pleased to report to you that all of the Federal flood risk reduction systems along 

the Mississippi performed as designed, demonstrating the effectiveness of the investments made. 

Fourth, Prepare for Tomorrow. This is about our people—ensuring we have a 

pipeline of the best Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics personnel, 

as well as strong Workforce Development and Talent Management programs. Efforts to tailor development programs to employee aspirations is helping to maximize 

talent retention and is instilling a career of service culture. We take seriously the 

importance of engaging and retaining our talented workforce and have significantly 

improved our agency ranking in the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey over the 

past year, on the list of best places to work in the Federal Government. Equally important is helping the Nation’s Wounded Warriors and transition out of active duty 

to find fulfilling careers. Last year, we set a goal to assist 150 transitioning Wounded Warriors. I am proud that we achieved more than double that goal. We assisted 

over 300 Wounded Warriors in finding permanent positions within the Corps and 

other organizations. Over the past 3 years, we have helped 631 Wounded Warriors 

find meaningful careers. 

We are equally focused on Research and Development efforts to help solve a host 

of the toughest challenges facing the Army and the Nation. Our Civil Works Program research and development efforts provide the Nation with innovative engineering products, some of which can have applications in both civil and military infrastructure spheres. By creating products that improve the efficiency of the Nation’s 

engineering and construction industry, and through providing more cost-effective 

ways to operate and maintain public infrastructure, Civil Works program research 

and development contributes directly to the national economy. 

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2017 BUDGET

The fiscal year 2017 Civil Works Budget is a performance-based budget, and reflects a focus on the work that will provide the highest net economic and environmental returns on the Nation’s investment or address a significant risk to safety. 

Investments by the Civil Works program will reduce the risks of flood impacts in 

communities throughout the Nation, facilitate comercial navigation, restore and protect significant aquatic ecosystems, generate low-cost renewable hydropower, and 

support American jobs. Continued investment in critical Civil Works infrastructure 

projects is an investment in the Nation’s economy, security, and quality of life—now 

and in the future. 

The Budget focuses on high-performing projects and programs within the three 

main water resources missions of the Corps: commercial navigation, flood and storm 

damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The fiscal year 2017 Budget 

includes $4.62 billion in gross discretionary funding for Civil Works activities 

throughout the Nation, including the construction of water resources projects that 

will provide high economic, environmental and public safety returns on the Nation’s 

investment. 

The Budget also proposes the necessary level of funding for the Regulatory program to protect and preserve water-related resources of the Nation. 

INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM

The fiscal year 2017 Budget provides $85 million in the Investigations account, and $7 million in the Mississippi River and Tributaries account to evaluate and design projects within the Corps three main mission areas, with emphasis on those 

that are potentially the most promising on a performance basis; and for related 

work, including some research and development. The Budget also supports the 

Corps planning and technical assistance programs, including using its expertise to 

help local communities increase their resilience to, and preparedness for, flood risks 

such as the flood risks in coastal communities associated with hurricanes and sealevel rise. 

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

The Budget provides $1.09 billion for the construction program in the Construction account, and $64 million in the Mississippi River and Tributaries account, 

prioritizing projects with the greatest net economic and environmental returns per 

dollar invested, as well as projects that address a significant risk to safety. The 

Budget includes funds for one high-priority construction new start: Mud Mountain 
8 

Dam, Washington. In keeping with our Civil Works transformation strategy, the 

Budget provides construction funding to complete six projects, and deliver their benefits to the Nation. 

The goal of the construction program is to produce as much value as possible for 

the Nation from the available funds. The Corps uses objective performance measures to allocate this funding. For projects that are being funded primarily due to 

their economic return, these include benefit-to-cost ratios. For projects funded on the 

basis of their environmental return, priority is given to those projects that are highly effective at restoring degraded structures, functions or processes of significant 

aquatic ecosystems on a cost-effective basis. The selection process also prioritizes 

dam safety assurance, seepage control, static instability correction projects, and 

those that address a significant risk to safety. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) PROGRAM

All structures age and, over time can deteriorate, causing a potential decline in 

reliability. With proper maintenance and periodic rehabilitation, however, we can 

extend the effective life of most of the facilities owned or operated by, or on behalf 

of, the Corps for many years. As stewards of this infrastructure, we are working to 

ensure that key features continue to provide appropriate levels of service to the 

American people. 

The Corps is working to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its operation 

and maintenance program. The Budget focuses on investments that address infrastructure maintenance needs on a risk assessment basis. In fiscal year 2017, the 

Corps will further expand the implementation of a modern asset management program, dedicating an increased amount of its O&M funding to the key features of 

its infrastructure and for work that will reduce long-term O&M costs in real terms. 

The Budget also supports an energy sustainability program and pursues efficiencies 

in the acquisition and operation of our information technology. 

The Budget for the operation and maintenance program provides $2.705 billion 

in the O&M account, and $151 million in the Mississippi River and Tributaries account, with a focus on the operation and maintenance of key commercial navigation, 

flood risk management, hydropower and other facilities. The Budget gives priority 

to coastal ports and inland waterways with high levels of commercial traffic, and 

includes $951 million for work financed through the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund. The Budget also funds some small ports, with emphasis on those that support 

significant commercial fishing, subsistence, or public transportation benefits. The 

Budget provides O&M funding for safety improvements at Federal dams and levees 

based on the risk and consequence of a failure. According to our analyses, 297 of 

the 709 dams in our current inventory have required some form of modification or 

interim risk reduction measure, or may require them over the next 50 years, if they 

are to continue to serve their authorized purposes. Many interim risk reduction 

measures have been implemented already and additional measures are considered 

and evaluated as new and existing issues are identified. 

Generally, the O&M program supports completed works owned or operated by the 

Corps, including administrative buildings and laboratories. Work to be accomplished 

includes: operation of locks and dams along the inland waterways; dredging of inland and coastal Federal channels; operating multi-purpose dams and reservoirs for 

flood risk reduction, hydropower, recreation, and related purposes; maintenance and 

repair of facilities; monitoring of completed projects; and general management of 

Corps facilities and the land associated with these purposes including work to serve 

as a responsible steward of the resources on Corps lands. 

The fiscal year 2017 Budget provides $194 million in the O&M account for hydropower activities in order to maintain basic power components such as generators, 

turbines, transformers and circuit breakers at Corps hydropower facilities to keep 

them operating efficiently and effectively. The Corps is the largest hydropower producer in the U.S., operating 24 percent of the Nation’s hydropower capacity. 

REIMBURSABLE PROGRAM

Through the Interagency and International Services (IIS) Reimbursable Program, 

the Civil Works program assists other Federal agencies, State, local, Tribal governments, and those of other countries with timely, cost-effective solutions to support 

their programs. These agencies can turn to the Corps, which already has these capabilities, rather than develop their own internal workforce and expertise to oversee 

project design and construction. Such intergovernmental cooperation is effective for 

agencies and the taxpayer, and uses the skills and talents that we bring from our 

Civil Works and Military Missions programs. The work is principally technical oversight and management of engineering, environmental, and construction projects— 
9 

the work itself is typically performed by private sector firms—is financed by the 

agencies we service. IIS Reimbursable Program activities in support of our domestic 

stakeholders totaled $657 million in fiscal year 2015. We only accept agency requests that are consistent with our core technical expertise, in the national interest, 

and that can be executed without impacting our primary mission areas. 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

The fiscal year 2017 Budget provides $30 million in funding for the Flood Control 

and Coastal Emergencies account to enable the Corps to prepare for emergency operations in response to natural disasters. The Budget for the emergency management program also includes $4.5 million for the National Emergency Preparedness 

Program. An additional $3 million is included in the Investigations account for the Corps 

participation in the development and expansion of intergovernmental teams, known 

as Silver Jackets, which collaboratively reduce the risks associated with flooding 

and other natural hazards. The Silver Jackets program is an innovative program, 

which provides a national forum to address State and local flood risk management 

priorities. Each team is developed at the State level. The teams share lessons 

learned at the State level with each other, and each team works to apply the available Federal and State resources effectively to meet its State’s flood risk management priorities. There are now 45 active teams (44 States and the District of Columbia); our goal is to have a Silver Jackets team for every State. The flooplain management program of the Corps complements this effort by providing technical assistance. 

CONCLUSION

The fiscal year 2017 Budget represents a continuing, fiscally prudent investment 

in the Nation’s water resources infrastructure and restoration of its aquatic ecosystems. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is committed to a performance-based 

Civil Works Program, based on innovative, resilient, and sustainable risk-informed 

solutions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of Subcommittee. This concludes my 

statement. I look forward to answering any questions you or other Members of the 

Subcommittee may have. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Estevan Lo ́pez is Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. As far as I know, he is not going anywhere 

right now. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ESTEVAN LO ́ PEZ

Thank you Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, and members of this 

Subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss with you the President’s fiscal year 

2017 Budget for the Bureau of Reclamation. I appreciate the time and consideration 

this Subcommittee gives to reviewing and understanding Reclamation’s budget, 

projects, and programs and I look forward to working with the Committee in the 

future as Reclamation continues to address water issues in the West. Reclamation 

is committed to prioritizing and implementing its overall program in a manner that 

serves the best interest of the American public. 

The Budget sustains our efforts to deliver water and generate hydropower, consistent with applicable Federal and State law, in an environmentally responsible 

and cost-efficient manner. It also supports the Administration’s and Department of 

the Interior’s (Department) priorities to ensure healthy watersheds and sustainable, 

secure water supplies; build a landscape-level understanding of our resources; celebrate and enhance America’s great outdoors; power our future; strengthen Tribal 

nations; and engage the next generation. 

The extreme and prolonged drought facing the western States affects major U.S. 

river basins throughout the West. Exceptional drought in many western States, specifically California, Nevada, Washington, and Oregon, affects households across the 

country because of the adverse impact on agricultural production. Drought is estimated to cost the Nation billions of dollars and impact thousands of jobs. In California alone, the estimated cost of the 2015 drought on agriculture—crop production, 

livestock, and dairies—is $2.7 billion with a total loss of 21,000 seasonal and parttime jobs. The effects of the current drought on California’s Sacramento and San 

Joaquin River Basins, its water, its agricultural economy, and its communities are 

particularly acute. The Colorado River Basin—crucial for seven States and several 
10 

Tribes, in addition to two countries—is also enduring historic drought. Nearly 40 

million people rely on the Colorado River and its tributaries for some, if not all, of 

their municipal needs. The Basin is experiencing the worst drought in recorded history; the period from 2000 through 2015 was the driest 16-year period in more than 

100 years of record keeping. In 2015, Lake Mead, behind the Hoover Dam on the 

Colorado River, has declined to its lowest elevation since the 1930’s. Snowpack, 

which functions as reservoir storage for many western basins, is diminishing. 

Water year 2016 is shaping up to be influenced by the periodic ‘‘El Nino’’ anomaly 

associated with warmer ocean temperatures in portions of the Pacific, a phenomenon that generally leads to a wetter than normal year in areas of the western 

U.S., including California. However, one wet year alone will not alleviate the impacts of the multi-year drought. This water year exists against the backdrop of longterm sustained climatic change; both short-term and long-term droughts are expected to intensify. Although Reclamation continues to emphasize strategic priorities and operational activities to understand, and effectively adapt to, the risks and 

impacts of a changing environment on western water management, groundwater 

must be replenished before runoff can fill rivers and reservoirs, and the hydrologic 

system as a whole will need time to recover. As one of the Nation’s primary suppliers and protectors of water, Reclamation needs to continue to plan and prepare 

for the next drought and its successors, despite cautious optimism in 2016. 

This Budget addresses Reclamation’s priorities by allocating funds based on objective and performance-based criteria to most effectively implement its management 

responsibilities for water and power infrastructure in the West. Reclamation’s goals 

and priorities—including water supply reliability and power generation, climate variability adaptation, water conservation, aging infrastructure, sound science to support critical decisionmaking, and ecosystem restoration— were balanced in the formulation of the fiscal year 2017 budget. Reclamation continues to look at ways to 

more efficiently plan for the future challenges confronting water resources management, and to improve the way it does business. 

In order to meet Reclamation’s mission goals, we are building a landscape-level 

understanding of our resources and the protection and restoration of the aquatic 

and riparian environments influenced by our operations. This budget is focused on 

meeting National priorities for Indian water rights settlements, ecosystem restoration, and healthy watersheds and sustainable, secure water supplies. Further details of these efforts will now be discussed. 

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

The fiscal year 2017 Budget for Water and Related Resources, Reclamation’s principal operating account, is $813.4 million, a reduction of $305.6 million from 2016 

enacted. This reflects the budgetary shift of $106.2 million from this account to establish a separate Indian Water Rights Settlement Account, and $36.0 million to establish a separate discretionary account within the San Joaquin River Restoration 

Fund. 

The Budget includes a total of $383.5 million at the project and program level for 

water, energy, land, fish and wildlife resource management, and development activities. This provides for planning, construction, water sustainability activities, management of Reclamation lands, including recreation areas, and actions to address 

the impacts of Reclamation projects on fish and wildlife. 

The Budget also provides a total of $429.9 million at the project level for water 

and power facility operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation activities. Reclamation emphasizes safe, efficient, economic, and reliable operation of facilities, ensuring systems and safety measures are in place to protect the facilities and the public. 

Providing adequate funding for these activities continues to be one of our highest 

priorities. 

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2017 BUDGET FOR WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

I would like to share with the Committee several highlights of Reclamation 

projects and programs within the Administration’s Budget. The Budget continues to 

promote and support efficient water management, increased renewable energy production, the construction of new infrastructure and sound maintenance of existing 

facilities, restoration of aquatic environments, and the continued use of applied 

science and new technologies to help safeguard sustainable water deliveries and energy production. As a result, Reclamation continues to play an important role in 

providing a strong foundation for economic activity across the American West. 

WaterSMART Program.—One method Reclamation employs to stretch water supplies in the West and prepare for these ongoing challenges is the WaterSMART 

(Sustain and Manage America’s Resources for Tomorrow) Program. The programs 
11 

included in WaterSMART are collaborative in nature and work to effectively achieve 

sustainable water management. WaterSMART Grants, Title XVI Water Reclamation 

and Reuse, and the Water Conservation Field Services Program, along with other 

Reclamation activities, support the Department’s Priority Goal for Water Conservation. The Basin Studies component of WaterSMART supports the Department’s priority goal Ensuring Healthy Watersheds and Sustainable, Secure Supplies. 

In the fiscal year 2017 Budget, the Administration proposes to fund WaterSMART at $61.5 million. The WaterSMART components include: WaterSMART Grants funded at $23.4 million; the Basin Study Program funded at $5.2 million; the Title XVI 

Water Reclamation and Reuse Program funded at $21.5 million; Water Conservation 

Field Services Program, funded at $4.2 million; the Cooperative Watershed Management Program, funded at $1.8 million; the Drought Response program, funded at 

$4.0 million; and the Resilient Infrastructure program, funded at $1.5 million. 

Rural Water Projects.—Congress specifically authorized Reclamation to undertake 

the design and construction of six projects intended to deliver potable water supplies 

to specific rural communities and Tribes located primarily in Montana, New Mexico, 

North Dakota, and South Dakota. The fiscal year 2017 Reclamation budget includes 

$38.1 million for rural water projects; $18.6 million of that total is for operation and 

maintenance of completed tribal systems, while the remaining $19.5 million is for 

continued construction for authorized projects. 

Dam Safety Program.—A total of $86.1 million is provided for Reclamation’s Safe- ty of Dams Program, which includes $64.5 million to correct identified safety issues. 

Funding also includes $20.3 million for safety evaluations of existing dams and $1.3 

million to oversee the Interior Department’s Safety of Dams Program. 

Site Security.—A total of $26.2 million is provided for Site Security to ensure the 

safety and security of the public, Reclamation’s employees, and key facilities. This 

funding includes $4.1 million for physical security upgrades at high risk critical assets and $22.1 million to continue all aspects of Bureau-wide security efforts, including law enforcement, risk and threat analysis, personnel security, information security, risk assessments and security-related studies, and guards and patrols. 

Powering Our Future.—The Budget includes $1.3 million to support Reclamation’s 

Sustainable Energy Strategy and actions identified through the Sustainable Hydropower MOU with our partners at the Department of Energy (DOE) and U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. This funding will provide for increased hydropower development 

at existing Reclamation facilities, and will allow Reclamation to work with Tribes 

to assist them in developing renewable energy sources. These important projects 

will assist in the production of cleaner, more efficient energy and will support the 

Renewable Energy Resource Development Priority Goal. 

Strengthening Tribal Nations.—The fiscal year 2017 Reclamation budget supports 

the Strengthening Tribal Nations initiative through a number of activities and 

projects. For example, the budget includes $10.4 million for Reclamation’s Native 

American Affairs Program in support of Reclamation activities with Tribes, including technical assistance, Indian Water Rights Settlement negotiations, implementation of enacted settlements, and outreach to Tribes; and $15.7 million to continue 

the operation and maintenance associated with the delivery of up to 85,000 acrefeet of water to the Ak-Chin Indian Community in Arizona. Ongoing authorized 

rural water projects also benefit both tribal and non-tribal communities. Projects in 

the fiscal year 2017 Budget benefiting Tribes include the rural water component of 

the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, Garrison Diversion Unit; Fort Peck Reservation/Dry Prairie; and Rocky Boy’s/North Central Montana; and operation and 

maintenance funding only for tribal features of the Mni Wiconi Project following 

completion of construction. Numerous other projects and programs, such as the Columbia/Snake River Salmon Recovery Program, Klamath Project, and the Yakima 

River Basin Water Enhancement Project also benefit Tribes. In fiscal year 2017, 

$106.2 million for planning and construction of three recent Indian Water Rights 

Settlements is being proposed in a new separate account as described below. 

River Restoration.—To meet Reclamation’s mission goals of securing America’s energy resources and managing water in a sustainable manner for the 21st century, 

our programs also focus on the protection and restoration of the aquatic and riparian environments influenced by our operations. Ecosystem restoration involves 

many activities, including Reclamation’s Endangered Species Act recovery programs, 

which directly address the environmental aspects of the Reclamation mission. In fiscal year 2017, a total of $135.5 million in the Budget for Reclamation projects and 

programs directly supports the goals of the America’s Great Outdoors Program, 

through local and basin-wide collaboration in watershed partnerships. Several of the 

programs are described below. 

The Budget has $27.3 million for Endangered Species Act Recovery Implementation programs within the Bureau of Reclamation, including $19.9 million in the 
12 

Great Plains Region to implement the Platte River Endangered Species Recovery 

Implementation program. Within California’s Central Valley Project, $11.8 million 

is for the Trinity River Restoration Program, with an additional $1.5 million from 

the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund. 

Many other projects and programs also contribute to ecosystem restoration including the Lower Colorado River Multi-species Conservation Program, Middle Rio 

Grande Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program, the Columbia/Snake River 

Salmon Recovery Program, and the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement 

Project. 

Research and Development.—Reclamation continues to promote research and development to advance the science and technology that supports best management 

of the country’s natural resources and heritage. In fiscal year 2017 the research and 

development (R&D) budget totals $28.6 million, with $22.8 million for Science and 

Technology and $5.8 million for the Desalination and Water Purification Research 

Program. Scientific discovery, technological breakthroughs, and innovation are the 

primary engines for expanding the frontiers of human knowledge, which are vital 

for responding to the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. Scientific and 

engineering innovation promotes sustainable economic growth and job creation, 

moves us toward a clean energy future, and helps us manage competing demands 

on environmental resources. 

Desalination and water purification research strives to produce new clean water 

technologies, reduce costs, and decrease environmental impacts while converting unusable waters into viable water supplies. Reclamation’s budget for these efforts also 

supports the Administration’s science and technology priorities, including sponsorship of technology prize competitions, to spur innovative breakthroughs and research related to climate adaptation and clean energy. 

In addition to the highlights just discussed, the fiscal year 2017 Water and Related Resources budget provides $110.8 million to operate, manage, and improve 

California’s Central Valley Project; this amount reflects the shift of $36.0 million for 

a separate discretionary account within the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund, 

as discussed below. The next three accounts are also related to California water and 

restoration. 

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION FUND

Reclamation proposes $36.0 million of current funds for the San Joaquin River 

Restoration Fund account in fiscal year 2017. The fiscal year 2017 Budget funds activities consistent with the settlement of Natural Resources Defense Council v. Rodgers as authorized by the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Act 

includes a provision to establish the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund to implement the provisions of the Settlement. The Settlement’s two primary goals are to 

restore and maintain fish populations, and restore and avoid adverse impacts to 

water supplies. Under the Settlement, the legislation provides for nearly $2.0 million in annual appropriations from the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund for 

this purpose. 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

The fiscal year 2017 Budget includes a total of $55.6 million for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund (CVPRF). This amount is determined on the basis of 

a 3-year rolling average not to exceed $50.0 million per year and indexed to 1992 

price levels. These expenditures are offset by collections estimated at $55.6 million 

from mitigation and restoration charges authorized by the Central Valley Project 

Improvement Act. 

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

The fiscal year 2017 Budget provides $36.0 million for California Bay-Delta Restoration. The account focuses on the health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem and improving water management and supplies. The Budget will support the coequal goals of 

environmental restoration and improved water supply reliability, under the following program activities including: $2.2 million for a Renewed Federal State Partnership, $5.3 million for Smarter Water Supply and Use, and $28.5 million for Habitat Restoration. These program activities are based on the Interim Federal Action 

Plan for the California Bay-Delta issued December 22, 2009. 

INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS

In fiscal year 2017, Reclamation will enhance support of Tribal nations. The fiscal 

year 2017 Budget proposes $106.2 million for Indian Water Rights Settlements 
13 

(IWRS), in a new account of the same name. Reclamation is proposing establishment of an Indian Water Rights Settlements account to assure continuity in the construction of the authorized projects, and to highlight and enhance transparency in 

handling these funds. This account is proposed to cover expenses associated with Indian water rights settlements contained in the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–291) and the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project within Title X of the 

Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–11). Of this amount, $6.4 million is for the Aamodt Settlement (Pueblos of Nambe, 

Pojoaque, Tesuque and San Ildefonso in New Mexico); $12.8 million for the Crow 

Settlement (Crow Tribe in Montana); $87.0 million for the Navajo-Gallup Settlement (Navajo Nation in New Mexico). These settlements will provide permanent 

water supplies and offer economic security for the Tribes and pueblos described 

above. The agreements will build and improve reservation water systems, rehabilitate irrigation projects, construct a regional multi-pueblo water system, and codify 

water- sharing arrangements between Indian and neighboring communities. 

Per the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, in addition to the discretionary funding 

included in this Budget, additional mandatory funds have already been made available to Reclamation, in order to realize the deadlines mandated in the settlement 

acts. The White Mountain Apache Tribe activities will continue in fiscal year 2017 

using mandatory funds. 

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

The fiscal year 2017 Budget for Policy and Administration, the account that fi- nances Reclamation’s central and regional management functions is $59.0 million. 

The account supports activities necessary for the management and administration 

of Reclamation that are not chargeable directly to a specific project or program, such 

as corporate oversight, policy and overall program management, budget preparation, 

finance and procurement, and management of safety and health, human resources, 

and information technology. 

PERMANENT APPROPRIATIONS

The total permanent appropriation of $106.8 million in fiscal year 2017 primarily includes $103.6 million for the Colorado River Dam Fund. Revenues from the sale 

of Boulder Canyon power are placed in this fund and are available without further 

appropriation to pay for operation and maintenance of the project and other costs. 

2016 THROUGH 2017 PRIORITY GOALS

Priority goals are a key element of the President’s agenda for building a high-performing government. The priority goals demonstrate that our programs are a high 

value to the public and they reflect achievement of key Departmental milestones. 

These goals focus attention on initiatives for change that have significant performance outcomes, which can be clearly evaluated, and are quantifiable and measurable 

in a timely manner. Reclamation’s participation in the Water Conservation and Supply Enhancement, Renewable Energy Resource Development, Climate Change Adaptation, and Engaging the Next Generation priority goals helps to achieve these objectives. 

Water Conservation and Supply Enhancement.—The fiscal year 2017 Budget will 

enable Reclamation to achieve water conservation capability for agricultural, municipal, industrial, and environmental uses in the western United States by 1,040,000 

acre-feet/year cumulatively (since 2009) through September 30, 2017. This will be 

accomplished through the use of the WaterSMART Program to assist communities 

in stretching water supplies while improving water management and increasing the 

efficient use of water. By the end of fiscal year 2015, Reclamation had already exceeded the prior goal of 975,000 acre-feet through partnerships with States, Tribes, 

irrigation and water districts and other organizations with water or power delivery 

authority. 

Renewable Energy Resource Development.—The Budget also supports efforts to increase approved capacity authorized for renewable energy resources affecting Department of the Interior managed lands to at least 16,600 Megawatts (since 2009) 

by September 30, 2017. Reclamation contributes to the Departmental goal primarily 

through the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Hydropower with the Departments of Interior, Energy, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 

signed March 24, 2010. The MOU encourages the development of sustainable hydropower at Federal facilities in order to help meet the Nation’s needs for reliable, affordable, and environmentally sustainable hydropower by prioritizing goals and coordinating hydropower research and development efforts through studies and assessments. The Budget includes $1.3 million for Reclamation to implement an auto-
14 

mated data collection and archival system to aid in hydropower benchmarking, performance testing, and strategic decisionmaking. 

Climate Change Adaptation.—Consistent with the direction in the President’s 

2013 Climate Action Plan, Reclamation is developing and implementing approaches 

to understand, and effectively adapt to, the risks and impacts of a changing environment on western water management. Some examples include: 

—The Basin Study Program takes a coordinated approach to assess risks and impacts; develop landscape-level science; communicate information and science to 

other entities and agencies; and work closely with stakeholders to develop adaptation strategies to cope with water supply and demand imbalances in a collaborative manner. 

—The Drought Response Program will implement a comprehensive new approach 

to drought planning and will implement actions to help communities manage 

drought and develop long-term resilience strategies. 

—Through the Resilient Infrastructure Program, Reclamation will proactively 

maintain and improve existing infrastructure for system reliability, safety, and 

efficiency for water conservation to prepare for extremes and to support healthy 

and resilient watersheds. Reclamation will continue to develop, implement, and 

test an enhanced decisionmaking criteria framework for selecting resilient infrastructure investments and will identify opportunities to integrate operational efficiencies more compatible with climate variability adaptation goals, as part of 

the Bureau’s ongoing infrastructure investments. 

—Reclamation’s Science and Technology Program conducts water resources research to improve capability for managing water resources under multiple 

stressors, including a changing climate. This research agenda will collaborate 

with and leverage the capabilities of the Interior Climate Science Centers. 

Reclamation’s WaterSMART Grants, Water Conservation Field Services, and Title 

XVI Programs are enabling the West to better adapt to the impacts of a changing 

environment by helping to conserve tens of thousands of acre-feet of water each year 

in urban and rural settings, on both large and small scales. 

Engaging the Next Generation.—By September 30, 2017, the Department of the 

Interior will provide 100,000 work and training opportunities over four fiscal years, 

2014 through 2017, for individuals ages 15 to 35 to support the Department’s mission. In fiscal year 2017, Reclamation will continue to provide work and training opportunities by leveraging funding through agreements with 21st Century Conservation Service Corps partners. Reclamation will continue to use the Public Land Corps 

Act authority and the Youth Conservation Corps Act to enter into partnership 

agreements. These agreements will be used to assist on-the-ground projects and internships involving youth in cooperative efforts in cultural and natural resource conservation related to Reclamation projects. In addition, a partnership agreement with 

the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation will help provide additional youth conservation employment opportunities. 

President’s Build America Investment Initiative.—To help advance the goals and 

priorities of the Department, a new Center for Natural Resources Investment was 

recently launched by the Department as part of the President’s Build America Investment Initiative. Reclamation fully supports this activity, as the new center will 

promote increased private investment in water infrastructure and facilitate locallyled water exchange agreements in the western United States to increase resilience 

of water supplies and drive additional investment in conservation technologies. 

Appropriations/Authorization Language Proposals.—The Administration is proposing two significant changes in authorizations, for which language is included in 

the fiscal year 2017 Budget. The first is to extend the California Federal Bay-Delta 

Authorization Act, as amended, from 2017 through 2018, so the CALFED program 

can continue its mission—even more important given the current drought. Language 

is also included to increase the authorized appropriations ceiling of Section 9504(e) 

of the Secure Water Act of 2009 from $350 million to $400 million to provide the 

appropriations ceiling needed for much of the funding for Reclamation’s 

WaterSMART program, one of our most effective programs. 

CONCLUSION

Importantly, the fiscal year 2017 Budget demonstrates Reclamation’s commitment 

to addressing the water and power demands of the West in a fiscally responsible 

manner. This Budget continues Reclamation’s emphasis on managing, operating, 

and maintaining its public infrastructure and delivering water and power in an environmentally and economically sound manner, in the interest of the American public. Reclamation is committed to working with its customers, States, Tribes, and 
15 

other stakeholders to find ways to balance and support the mix of water resource 

demands in fiscal year 2017 and beyond. 

This completes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And Tom Iseman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of Interior, is also 

here. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS ISEMAN

Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, and members of the Subcommittee, I am Tom Iseman, Interior’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and 

Science, and I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you about the water related 

programs of the Department of the Interior, and the President’s 2017 Budget. My 

office oversees the Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Geological Survey activities. 

This is a strong budget that builds on our accomplishments. Our request enables 

us to carry out our important missions—maintain our core capabilities, meet commitments, and invest in key priorities. The investments in this request show the 

Administration remains focused on meeting the Nation’s greatest challenges looking 

forward and ensuring our economy works for all. 

Our budget is part of the President’s broader strategy to make critical investments in domestic and national security priorities while adhering to the bipartisan 

budget agreement signed into law last fall, and lifts sequestration in future years 

to continue investment in the future. This Budget recognizes the importance of the 

programs of Reclamation and the USGS to the overall strength of the Nation’s economy, and its infrastructure. To put this into perspective, the U.S. Department of the 

Interior Economic Report for fiscal year 2014 States, Interior-managed lands and activities contributed about $360 billion in national economic output, supporting an 

estimated two million jobs. Of this, Reclamation’s contribution, including recreation 

activities, was $48.4 billion, supporting over 360,000 jobs. 

At the same time, the Department of the Interior’s 2017 proposed investments lay 

the groundwork for promoting renewable energy development, wise water utilization, managing the Nation’s lands responsibly, helping to protect communities in the 

face of climate change, and investing in science to inform natural resource management. This request addresses significant resource challenges for the Nation, including water availability, particularly in the arid West, and makes important investments in America’s water infrastructure. 

Interior’s 2017 budget includes $1.0 billion for research and development activities 

throughout the Department, an increase of $84.5 million from the 2016 enacted 

level. Activities supported include scientific analysis of natural systems and applied 

field research to address specific problems, such as thawing permafrost, invasive 

species, and flooding. With multiple science programs across the Department’s bureaus and offices, science coordination remains a critical component in the process 

of effective science application. Interior is well served by the deployment of science 

advisors in each bureau. These advisors serve critical roles within the organizations 

and across the Department by sharing information application. The Interior 2017 

budget reflects high priority needs identified for scientific research across the Department, which is the foundation for the $28.6 million requested for research and 

development for Reclamation. This request supports the Administration’s efforts to 

collaborate with non-Federal partners on advanced water treatment and clean water 

technologies while conserving scarce Western water and protecting species habitat. 

THE 2017 BUDGET ADVANCES A RECORD OF ACHIEVEMENT

This budget builds on a record of achievement across Interior’s diverse mission 

in general, as well as within Reclamation’s specific mission. To support the 

Powering Our Future Initiative, the 2017 Reclamation budget includes $1.3 million 

to implement an automated data collection and archival system to aid in hydropower benchmarking, performance testing, and strategic decisionmaking; investigate 

Reclamation’s capability to integrate large amounts of renewable resources such as 

wind and solar into the electric grid; and work with Tribes to assist in developing 

renewable energy sources. These important projects will assist in the production of 

cleaner, more efficient renewable energy. 

In addition, the 2017 budget sustains President Obama’s strong commitment to 

tribal self- determination, strengthening tribal nations, and investing in the future 

of Native youth, as illustrated by Reclamation’s continuing investment in endangered species recovery, rural water, and water rights settlement programs. In fact, 
16 

the Department’s overall budget continues to address Indian water rights settlement commitments and programs to support Tribes in resolving water rights claims, 

developing water sharing agreements, and supporting sustainable water management. 

Interior continues to engage in innovative efforts to leverage youth engagement 

and partnerships to advance the Department’s extraordinary mission, and Reclamation is a contributor to this effort. 

Bureau of Reclamation projects funded from 2010 through 2015 exceeded the cumulative water savings target of 910,000 acre-feet of water/year, achieving savings 

of over 970,000 acre-feet, roughly the amount of water needed for household use in 

Phoenix and the surrounding area each year. The budget keeps Reclamation on 

track to conserve 1,040,000 acre-feet by the end of fiscal year 2017. 

PROMOTES THE CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION OF AMERICA’S NATURAL AND

CULTURAL RESOURCES

America’s public lands and waters offer space to get outside and get active, and 

provide living classrooms with hands-on opportunities to build skills. The Administration launched the Every Kid in a Park Initiative to inspire the next generation 

to discover all America’s public lands and waters have to offer. Starting with the 

2015–2016 school year, all fourth grade students and their families are able to receive free admission to all national parks and other Federal lands for a full year. 

Reclamation’s mission goals of securing America’s energy resources and managing 

water in a sustainable manner for the 21st Century demands a focus on the protection and restoration of the aquatic and riparian environments influenced by its operations. Ecosystem restoration involves many activities, including Reclamation’s Endangered Species Act recovery programs, which directly address the environmental 

aspects of Reclamation’s mission. In 2017, a total of $135.5 million in Reclamation’s 

budget directly supports the goals of America’s Great Outdoors Initiatives, through 

local and basin-wide collaboration in watershed partnerships. This supports efforts 

to manage and promote the health and resilience of ecosystems on a landscape 

scale, including a continued focus in priority landscapes such as the California BayDelta. 

IMPLEMENTS THE PRESIDENT’S CLIMATE ACTION PLAN

As manager of roughly 20 percent of the land area of the United States and a 

partner with tribal, Federal, State, local, and territorial government land managers, 

the Interior Department works to address the challenges of natural hazards brought 

on by a changing climate as an integral part of its mission. The budget includes 

funding to improve the resilience of communities and ecosystems to changing 

stressors, including flooding, severe storm events, and drought as part of the Administration’s effort to better understand and prepare for the impacts of a changing climate. 

Healthy communities require secure, sustainable water supplies. This is particularly challenging with record drought conditions and increasing demand taxing watersheds throughout the country, especially in the arid West. To help increase the 

security and sustainability of Western watersheds, the budget continues investment 

in the Department’s WaterSMART program to promote water reuse, recycling, and 

conservation, in partnership with States, Tribes, and other partners. Funding is also 

included for research, development, and challenge competitions to find longer term 

solutions through new water technologies. The budget invests in the Nation’s water 

infrastructure to ensure millions of customers receive the water and power that are 

the foundation of a healthy economy. 

IMPROVES OVERSIGHT AND USE OF FEDERAL DOLLARS

Interior has several multi-year efforts underway to reduce its nationwide facilities 

footprint, and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its information technology 

infrastructure and financial reporting capabilities. Funding for these specific efforts 

is included in the Department’s budget request. Reclamation is participating in 

these efficiency endeavors, as well as improving reporting and increasing data quality and transparency, as envisioned in the DATA Act. Reclamation is also implementing the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act, to improve 

standardization of information technology investments by strengthening the role of 

the Department’s Chief Information Officer in strategic planning, budget formulation and execution, and acquisition of information management and technology activities. 
17 

NATURAL RESOURCE INVESTMENT CENTER

The Department has established a Natural Resource Investment Center to spur 

partnerships with the private sector to develop creative financing opportunities that 

support economic development goals while advancing the Department’s resource 

stewardship mission. 

The Center will use market-based tools and innovative public-private collaborations to increase investment in water conservation and critical water infrastructure, 

as well as promote investments that conserve important habitat in a manner that 

advances efficient permitting and meaningful landscape-level conservation. The 

Center will work closely with the private sector and others to identify innovative 

ideas and financing options for projects that conserve scarce Western water resources and protect species habitat. 

RECLAMATION HIGHLIGHTS

The 2017 budget for Reclamation and the Central Utah Project Completion Act 

(CUPCA) totals $1.1 billion and focuses on investments in Indian water rights settlements, ecosystem restoration, healthy watersheds and sustainable, secure water 

supplies. 

Funding for Water and Related Resources shows a reduction of $305.6 million 

from 2016, reflecting the shift of $106.2 million to the requested new Indian Water 

Rights Settlements account and $36.0 million for a separate discretionary account 

within the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund. 

Reclamation requests establishment of an Indian Water Rights Settlements account in 2017 to assure continuity in the construction of the authorized projects and 

to highlight and enhance transparency in handling these funds. The budget includes 

$12.8 million to implement the Crow Tribe Rights Settlement Act, $6.4 million for 

the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act, and $87.0 million for the Navajo-Gallup 

Water Supply Project. 

The extreme and prolonged drought facing the western States affects major U.S. 

river basins in virtually every western State. The effects of the current drought on 

California water, its agrarian economy, and its communities are particularly acute. 

According to the Economic Analysis of the 2015 Drought for California Agriculture 

by California Department of Food and Agriculture, University of California-Davis 

and California Department of Water Resources, the estimated cost of the 2015 

drought on California agriculture-crop production, livestock, and dairies is $2.7 billion with a total loss of 21,000 seasonal and part-time jobs. The Colorado River 

Basin— crucial for seven States and several Tribes, in addition to two countries— 

is also enduring historic drought. Nearly 40 million people rely on the Colorado 

River and its tributaries for some, if not all, of their municipal needs. The Basin 

is experiencing the worst drought in recorded history; the period of 2000–2015 was 

the driest 16-year period in more than 100 years of record keeping. 

WATERSMART, WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICES AND TITLE XVI PROGRAMS

Reclamation’s WaterSMART program, requested at $61.5 million, is helping to address the drought and other water supply issues across the West. WaterSMART 

Grants, Water Conservation Field Services, and Title XVI Programs, along with 

other Reclamation activities are enabling the West to better adapt to the impacts 

of a changing environment by helping to conserve tens of thousands of acre-feet of 

water each year in urban and rural settings, and on both large and small scales. 

The Drought Response Program will implement a comprehensive new approach to 

drought planning and will implement actions to help communities manage drought 

and develop long-term resilience strategies. Reclamation continues to promote research and development through its Science and Technology and Desalination and 

Water Purification Research Programs to produce new clean water technologies, reduce costs, and decrease environmental impacts while converting unusable water 

into viable water supplies. The 2017 budget includes $8.5 million for an X-Prize 

competition to encourage innovative water purification and treatment technologies. 

WaterSMART enables the USGS and Reclamation to make focused and leveraged 

investments to address water resource challenges. The USGS budget provides an increase of $18.4 million for science to support sustainable water management, nearly 

doubling the investment made in 2016. As climate models forecast increasingly frequent and more intense droughts, improving water management science is a paramount concern for land and water management agencies, States, local governments, 

and Tribes. The USGS budget would improve water use information and research, 

provide grants to State water resource agencies, and create hydrologic models and 

databases for better decision support. The USGS budget also includes $3.9 million 
18 

for drought science and $4.0 million to develop methods to assess regional and national water use trends during drought. 

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACT

The Central Utah Project Completion Act, or CUPCA, Office is a Department of 

the Interior program that reports directly to the Office of Water and Science. The 

fiscal year 2017 Budget proposes $5.6 million, a reduction of $4.4 million from 2016 

enacted, and includes $1.3 million to be transferred to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission. The 2017 reduction in construction funding is 

the result of difficult choices necessitated by the constrained fiscal environment. The 

Budget provides funding through the CUPCA office to continue the partnership with 

the Central Utah Water Conservancy District in completing the Spanish Fork Canyon-Provo Reservoir Pipeline (Northern Pipeline) of the Utah Lake System delivering 30,000 acre-feet of water to Salt Lake County; required program oversight activities; and endangered species recovery program implementation. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the President’s 2017 budget request 

for the Bureau of Reclamation and CUPCA. This budget is responsible, and proposes 

to maintain core capabilities with targeted investments to advance water conservation and the stewardship of water resources. I thank you again for your continued 

support of our mission. I look forward to answering questions about this budget. 

This concludes my statement. 

Senator ALEXANDER. As I said, we are here today to review the 

President’s fiscal year 2017 budget request for the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, and I am going to focus my 

questions on three main areas. Number one, making investments 

in our Nation’s water infrastructure a priority. We have made some 

real progress there in the last few years. Properly maintaining our 

inland waterway system. We have also made progress there. And 

deepening and widening our coastal harbors. We have made 

progress there, and I would like to keep making that progress. 

Number one, in my opinion we should be spending more, not 

less, on our Nation’s water infrastructure. Last year, Congress 

made record investments in our water infrastructure by providing 

nearly $6 billion to the Corps of Engineers, the largest amount of 

funding for the Corps in a regular appropriations bill. Instead of 

building on that investment, however, the President’s budget request this year proposes to cut funding for the Corps of Engineers 

to $4.620 billion, which is $1.4 billion, or a 23 percent, cut below 

fiscal year 2016. 

This is an enormous step backwards. In fact, if we simply approve the President’s request, the Corps of Engineers would receive 

less than what Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2006, setting 

us back more than a decade. And if we look at the condition of the 

locks and dams that the Corps operates across the country, for example, we should be able to see exactly why these investments are 

needed. 

The National Academy of Sciences in 2011 said that the Corps 

has 138 locks in operation that are over 50 years old, and that the 

average age of our locks is 58 years. These locks are critically important to jobs. They ought to be among our highest priorities in 

Federal spending and support. Using locks is the only way for inland waterway shippers to move things like grain, steel, fertilizer, 

and coal up and down rivers. And having to unexpectedly shut 

them down for extended periods of time could be catastrophic for 

agriculture and other commodities that rely on them to get their 

goods to the market. 
19 

Yet as these facilities age, major upgrades, maintenance, sometimes replacement is required, so I think it is fair to ask why would 

the President cut funding for the Corps of Engineers at a time 

when more investment is needed? I believe President Obama 

should make funding our Nation’s waterways a priority, but this 

year’s budget request certainly does not reflect that, and I am 

going to ask our witnesses why that is the case. 

PROPERLY FUNDING OUR INLAND WATERWAY SYSTEM

The President’s budget request proposes significant cuts to our 

12,000-mile inland waterway system. Critical projects, such as replacing Chickamauga Lock in Tennessee, have been piling up for 

years due to a lack of funding, and many of us in Congress have 

recognized that we needed to take steps to increase funding for the 

Corps of Engineers to address this backlog. 

First, Congress passed a law that reduced the amount of money 

that comes from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund to replace 

Olmsted Lock, a project in Illinois and Kentucky that was soaking 

up almost all the money that is available for inland waterway 

projects. Second, Congress worked with the commercial waterways 

industry to establish a priority list for projects that needed to be 

funded on which Chickamauga ranks near the top in fourth place. 

And third, 2 years ago, working together in a bipartisan way, we 

increased the user fee that commercial barge owners asked to pay 

in order to provide more money to replace locks and dams across 

the country, including Chickamauga Lock. These user fees are deposited into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. These steps increased the amount of funding that was available for inland waterway projects from about $85 million—at least the amount of money 

from the trust funds that was available from $85 million in 2014 

to now $106 million this year. 

Overall, these changes permitted us to spend over $400 million 

on our locks and inland waterways when they were matched with 

funds from the General Treasury. Yet the President’s budget request only proposes to spend $34 million instead of $106 million 

from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, leaving about 75 percent 

of the available funds unspent. That means, in effect, that we 

would be collecting taxes from commercial barges to go through the 

locks in order to improve the locks, and then we would be keeping 

the money, putting it in the bank, and not spending it for the intended—for the intended reason. 

The budget request also proposes to fund a single project, 

Olmsted Lock, and eliminates funding for three other projects that 

received funding last year, Monongahela Kentucky Locks and 

Chickamauga Lock. Replacing Chickamauga Lock is important to 

all of Tennessee, and if Chickamauga Lock closes, it will throw 

150,000 more trucks onto I–75, yet the Administration continues to 

not include it in the budget. I have worked with Secretary Darcy 

and General Bostick, and I thank them for this, over the past few 

years with the money that we have appropriated here in the Congress. And I deeply appreciate the fact that we found a way to restart construction on Chickamauga Lock, which has now been 

funded for two consecutive years. 
20 

But this budget proposal is a huge step backwards in this area, 

and I will be asking witnesses today why the Administration has 

not proposed to spend all the funds that have been collected, especially since commercial barge owners asked Congress to increase 

user fees they pay to improve our inland waterway infrastructure. 

We hear about unhappy Americans today in this election season. 

I would think one reason they would be unhappy if we raise their 

taxes at their request to improve the locks, and then took the 

money and did not spend it for the reason that we said we were 

raising the taxes. 

DEEPENING AND WIDENING OUR COASTAL HARBORS

The budget request also fails to make critical investments in our 

Nation’s harbors. To maintain our economic competitiveness, our 

harbors need to be able to accept the larger ships that are expected 

to come through the Panama Canal. Significant work and funding 

is necessary to deepen and widen our coastal harbors to accommodate these bigger ships, yet the Administration’s budget proposes 

major cuts for this program as well. 

To ensure that these critical investments are made to our harbors, Congress enacted spending targets for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund in the 2014 Water Resources Reform and Development Act. The target for fiscal year 2017 is about $1.18 billion, 

yet the Administration only proposes to spend $986 million, a 

shortfall of $194 million. 

Now, we are talking about harbors that need work badly—Mobile, Charleston, Savannah, New York, Jacksonville. These are important to the future of our country. For 2 years, we have in Congress done what we said we would do and matched our targets for 

these critical investments. Yet the Administration would knock us 

back by about $200 million this year. So I will ask our witnesses 

how they plan to make these important upgrades to our harbors 

without requesting sufficient resources to do it. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

I would also like to recognize our witnesses from the Department 

of Interior and Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau of Reclamation 

delivers water to one of five farmers in the West, irrigating more 

than 10 million acres of some of the most productive agricultural 

land in the country. We have a farmer from the West on our committee. My guess is that he will probably have some questions in 

this area. Although Reclamation does not manage water resources 

in Tennessee, I know of its deep importance to Senator Feinstein 

and other Senators on this subcommittee, and we look forward to 

hearing your testimony. 

Now, Senator Feinstein is not here, and what I think we will do 

is, Senator Tester, because of the votes today, what we—have you 

voted already? So what we decided to do was to go ahead and try 

to make the hearing a movable feast here, and they are going to 

submit their questions for the record, and Senators will have a 

chance to ask questions as they come in. If Senator Feinstein arrives, she will make her opening statement and ask her questions. 

If she does not before I leave, then I will turn to you and let you— 

if I may do that, and let you take questions. 
21 

INLAND WATERWAYS

Let me start with a few questions, and then I will go—then I will 

go vote. Ms. Darcy, we worked well together to improve funding for 

inland waterways, but this budget is a big disappointment. Can 

you explain why the Corps’ proposed budget does not seem to reflect the President’s statements that we should be investing more 

in our Nation’s infrastructure? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator Alexander, given the fiscal realities that we 

are facing, the President’s overall budget for the Army Civil Works 

Program is what is affordable at this time given all the other competing requirements for the budget, including even deficit reduction. So at this time, it is what is affordable for us to be able to 

move forward with inland waterways as well as others in the overall President’s budget. 

Senator ALEXANDER. But we collected money from the commercial users of the locks. I mean, it is one of those unusual circumstances where the barge owners came and said would you 

please raise our taxes and use those taxes to improve the locks and 

the waterways. And so, we have done that, and you cooperated 

with that last year very well, and that permitted us to match the 

user fee money with appropriations and have more than $400 million. 

Yet this year if we take the President’s budget, we would only 

have about $225 million, and we would be leaving $72 million in 

taxes that we collected unspent. What should I say to those commercial barge owners who paid extra taxes so we would use it to 

improve the locks when we not use it? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, as you know, with any funding coming out 

of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, which is collected from the 

taxes, there has to be a match from the General Treasury from our 

budget, a 50/50 match for everything within the Inland Waterways 

Trust Fund. In the 2017 budget, the President funded Olmsted 

Lock and Dam at $33.5 million out of the Trust Fund, because 

there was a change made in the law year before last that the cost 

share for Olmsted would not be 50/50. It would be 15 percent from 

the Trust Fund and 85 percent from the General Treasury. 

In order to meet that match, the remaining money in the Trust 

Fund could not be matched for the other projects. In 2017, we are 

funding Olmsted Lock’s capability, and then in the coming years, 

as you say, there is an unexpended balance in the Trust Fund. I 

think it will be $106 million. 

But over time, when we are buying down and completing 

Olmsted, which we expect to have completed in 2018, we will be 

able to free up other monies and match them with the Trust Fund 

in the out-years for other projects on the capital strategies list for 

inland waterways. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Let me stop my questioning just for a moment. Senator Cochran, have you already voted? 

Senator COCHRAN. Yes and no. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So you have to go over and vote? 

We have got about three minutes left I think in the voting. 

Would you like to make your opening statement before we go vote? 

Senator COCHRAN. I have to go vote. 
22 

Senator ALEXANDER. Okay. Well then, why don’t we do this. Why 

don’t you and I go vote, and then we will come back, and then I 

will recognize you. And, Senator Tester, would you assume control 

of the committee here? 

Senator TESTER. That is a dangerous thing. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I know, but I trust you. 

Senator TESTER. I will do it. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And when Senator Feinstein comes, if you 

could hand over the gavel to her? 

Senator TESTER. I would be more than happy to do that. I will 

hold the fort down while you are gone doing your job. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. 

Senator TESTER [presiding]. Thank you. Thank you all for being 

here. I appreciate your work. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 

the flexibility. 

RURAL WATER PROJECTS

I am going to be starting with you, Commissioner Lo ́pez. I believe we have got a half a dozen major rural water projects that 

are in progress, that are being constructed. I think the request this 

year is $19.5 million for construction on those six projects. I think 

it is probably north of $1 and a half billion if we are going to complete them all right now, and that might be pretty conservative, 

quite frankly. 

Montana has two of them that are pushing between $250 and 

$300 million each, give or take a few million dollars, and the request is for $19.5 million. Now in past years we plussed that account up, I think $47 million last year and $31 million the year before that. I guess I do not know how the Department is doing its 

budget, but is it—are we coming in at such a low number just assuming we are going to bump it up, and then you can look fiscally 

conservative, and we do not look so fiscally conservative? What is 

the thought process behind that, because $19.5 million is not even 

close to keeping up with the rate of inflation. 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ. Good afternoon, Senator, and thank you for your 

question. My answer is very similar to Secretary Darcy’s earlier remarks, working within the fiscal constraints that we are. Much of 

our infrastructure is quite old, 50 to 100 years old. So the vast majority of our funds go towards the continuing O&M and upkeep of 

that existing infrastructure. We try and maximize the amount that 

remains for this construction of new projects. Unfortunately, it is 

a very small remainder. 

Senator TESTER. Yeah, I would guess. And one of the problems 

is that, you know, we are probably—I hope we plus this up again. 

But if you came asking for a few more bucks, we might be able to 

get more than just what we are going to plus it up by, because, I 

mean, the need here is for $100 million, not $19.5 million, and I 

think you agree with that. It could easily be used when you get 

these water projects done, move onto the next piece of infrastructure, and be done with it. Is there a long-term plan as far as—or 

a short-term plan—I do not care, either one—within the Agency to 

complete these projects? 
23 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ. Within the current budget constraints, we are doing 

what we can. We do thank Congress for the plus up. It certainly 

has helped us get moving along, but it has been inadequate. 

Senator TESTER. So what you are saying is that as long as we 

are under these budget constraints, they will continue to—these 

projects will continue to flounder for dollars. 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ. Senator, unfortunately we have to maintain our existing infrastructure and make sure that that continues to function. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. Well, there was a proposal out there that 

my predecessor, Max Baucus, I believe, put forth about taking a 

funding stream out of the Reclamation Fund. Is that something 

that you think is appropriate? Is that something you would support? 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ. Senator, obviously I would have to coordinate with 

the Administration as to an Administration position. However, I 

think your idea was the original intent of that Reclamation 

Fund—— 

Senator TESTER. Yes, it is. 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ [continuing]. To plow back into investment and infrastructure. It seems like that would be a wise use of some of that 

money. 

Senator TESTER. I will take that as an endorsement. Thank you. 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ. I think it was. 

IRRIGATION WATER

Senator TESTER. Assistant Secretary Darcy, my guess is at this 

point in time in your life, you would like to see the term ‘‘intake 

dam’’ go away. It has been—I am going to tell you from my perspective it has been—I do not know if we would go as far as calling 

it a nightmare, but it has not gone smoothly, let us just put it that 

way. There is active litigation currently on this project. I do not 

want you to get into those details. 

But could you comment on what you are doing to make sure that 

the irrigators have access to irrigation water that they would normally get from intake? I think it is about 52,000 acres. 

Ms. DARCY. We are trying to maintain existing operations. However, as you know, building the intake structure is currently under 

litigation, and we are forbidden from going forward with construction. But we have let a construction contract, so we would be ready 

to go if and when the litigation is resolved. 

Senator TESTER. So do you anticipate that litigation is going to 

be solved by this month? 

Ms. DARCY. I would not say this month, Senator. 

Senator TESTER. Oh, okay. 

Ms. DARCY. I would like to say this fall. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. Well, that is instructive. Here is the problem. Are these folks going to have water this season? I do not know 

what they are planning, but they could be putting in the ground 

at the end of this month, like I say, depending on what the crop 

is. It could be in April. It could be in May. It could be in June. That 

is long before fall. Are they going to have water this year? 

Ms. DARCY. I would have to say I do not know. 

Senator TESTER. Whoa. 

Ms. DARCY. General Bostick? I do not know. 
24 

Senator TESTER. That is not the right answer. 

Ms. DARCY. I know. 

Senator TESTER. Can somebody else shed some light on it? 

General BOSTICK. A lot of our effort to move forward is going to 

depend on the completion of the EIS, and that EIS is not going to 

be completed until the fall. But once that is completed, then we can 

move forward with the construction. 

Senator TESTER. I gotcha. 

General BOSTICK. Beyond that, it would be difficult for us to commit. I know the water is needed earlier than that, but it would be 

difficult to do without the court ruling to move forward. 

Senator TESTER. So by fall, just so you know, I mean, you guys— 

I hope you know this. By fall, the growing season is over. So is 

there anything we can do? Talk to me, please. 

General BOSTICK. I think we can continue to work to accelerate 

it as much as we can. 

Senator TESTER. So that you know, I do not know what crop insurance does in cases like this for these guys. I do not know if they 

can easily convert back to a dry land system. I doubt it. I do not 

know if Mother Nature will smile upon them this year so they will 

not need as much water. But we could—without irrigation water, 

we really—I mean, these guys could be—literally lose the farm. 

And I do not know their operations, but I do know that if it was 

my operation and I was counting on irrigated yield to pay my bills 

and I got dry land yield, it would be very difficult to maintain that 

operation. So—— 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ. Senator, if I may. 

Senator TESTER. Sure, go ahead. 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ. If I may address that just a little bit. We are working 

with the Lower Yellowstone Board of Control to seek an extension 

of a permit that would allow the continued rock piling of that diversion weir to try and get water this season. Obviously it is not 

certain that we will be totally successful, but we are going to do 

everything that we can to make sure that the farmers get some 

water. 

Senator TESTER. You know what. Thank you. I mean, that is all 

I can ask for, you do everything you can do to make sure those 

folks get their water, and they will get their water. I appreciate 

that. 

I feel bad not to—not having more questions for you because I 

have got time, and usually this never happens, okay. 

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS

I guess what I will say is that I appreciate what you are doing, 

and I do appreciate the work everybody at this table and their priorities for the fiscal year. I think the issue when it comes to infrastructure is it is expensive, and it is needed. You talked about 50 

to 100, and probably east of Mississippi it is 150 years old some 

of that water infrastructure. And it is in dire need of rebuild or replace. 

And in some cases in Montana it is in dire need of just getting 

water in places that do not have water. It is critically important 

if we are going to have any kind of economy. And so, hopefully 

through your work, and if you continue to lay out the case and be 
25 

honest with Congress about what the needs are and what your capacity is under the current budget restraints, we will get enough 

votes in this outfit to try to get some solid infrastructure improvements around this country. It is something that my parents’ generation got. Unfortunately my generation does not, at least the 

ones that serve here in Washington, DC. 

So thank you for your work, whether it is in recreation, or flood 

protection, or hydropower production, or irrigation for agriculture, 

or drinking water. I certainly appreciate what you do. 

With that, I guess if I was in the military, I would say ‘‘at ease, 

smoke them if you got them.’’ But we are in a building that you 

do not do that in, and I will wait for Senator Feinstein’s arrival, 

and we will go from there. 

Okay. We will recess until the Chair, or Vice Chair, or a member 

of this Committee shows, and then I can go vote. Thank you all. 

[Recess.] 

Senator ALEXANDER [presiding]. The committee hearing will resume. Thanks to the witnesses. I understand we exhausted Senator 

Tester. 

He missed his opportunity of a lifetime, but he appreciated the 

chance to question you. I will proceed with some of my questions 

until another Senator arrives, particularly Senator Feinstein, Senator Cochran I know, and we will talk a little bit. And I will defer 

to them whenever they come or as other Senators come. We have 

three more votes, but still we should be able to give Senators an 

opportunity to have a good discussion. 

CHICKAMAUGA LOCK

General Bostick, I want to go back Chickamauga Lock on which 

I have worked with you before. I generally do appreciate the work 

that you and Secretary Darcy have done in the past 2 years to restart Chickamauga Lock. I know you have looked at it carefully. 

You have stayed within your—within the established priorities 

within your Department. But you had sufficient funds to spend $3 

million in 2015 of unallocated money, and then this past year the 

funding that Congress provided gave sufficient funds to do what 

you needed to do with the first three priorities on that priority list 

and left $29 million for work on the fiscal year 2016 work plan for 

Chickamauga Lock. 

I am perplexed about why the Corps would want to restart a 

project and then not propose to fund it until it is finished. So let 

me ask you this. How much funding could Chickamauga Lock use 

during fiscal year 2017? 

General BOSTICK. Senator, you are asking about the capabilities, 

and I thought I would first talk about how we look at the capability 

on a project. 

Senator ALEXANDER. That would be fine. 

General BOSTICK. When we look at the civil works budget, it is 

a performance-based budget as we look at our projects. We look at 

each project based on what we can obligate each year, and that 

would be what we call the capability. It is also important to understand that when we look at capability, we identify the capability 

for each project without regard to the amount of money that we 

might have for the whole civil works budget. So if you added the 
26 

capability of every project, it would obviously be more than the capability that we could execute in a given year. 

Given that, $37 million would be the capability of Chick Lock in 

fiscal year 2017. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So, well, thank you for such a precise answer. So if you sufficiently funded the first three priorities on your 

list, then the question would be whether you had $37 million for 

Chickamauga Lock, which is fourth. Is that also correct? 

General BOSTICK. If we sufficiently funded the first three 

projects, would we have—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. No. I guess the way you would be looking 

at it. Let us go back to this year. I think what you did this year, 

you looked at the first three priorities on your capital list and determined that you had a sufficient amount of money. What would 

the capability be for each of those. 

General BOSTICK. Correct. 

Senator ALEXANDER. You did that, and you had $29 million left, 

and you spent that on Chickamauga Lock. Is that basically right? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes. 

General BOSTICK. The $29 million, correct. That was out of the 

work plan. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So in the next year it would be—$37 million 

would be the amount you could spend if you had it available. 

General BOSTICK. $37 would be what we could obligate in fiscal 

year 2017. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you for your answer. I am now going 

to call on Senator Feinstein for her opening statement. I know that 

Senator Cochran, the committee’s chairman is coming, hoping to— 

he was here earlier, hoping to make a statement. And we will continue until every Senator has a chance to do that, and we will go 

back and forth to voting. Senator Feinstein. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, 

first of all, let me give my apologies to you and to our witnesses 

as well as to the people that were here. As you know, I had an 

amendment on the floor and spoke on it, and at least am pleased 

that it passed unanimously. So that is the good news part of this. 

I want to welcome our witnesses. I want to thank you for your 

testimony today. And, General Bostick, I understand you are retiring this year, so I want to extend my gratitude for your service to 

this country. It is very much appreciated. 

General BOSTICK. Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You have served with distinction within the 

Army, both at home and abroad, and we are very proud of you. So 

thank you. And you have done work on behalf of California, which 

I thank you for. 

Turning the President’s 2017 budget request, Mr. Chairman, I 

have to say I am disappointed in the proposals from both agencies 

represented here today. A 23 percent drop in the Corps’ budget and 

a 13 percent drop in Reclamation’s budget is simply unacceptable 

when one considers all of the water resource needs our Nation 

faces. The work your agencies do to provide tangible benefits to 
27 

more people on a daily basis than perhaps anything else funded in 

our bill. 

You are responsible for providing drinking water, water to 

produce food. You are tasked with protecting lives, homes, businesses from floods. You maintain navigation channels and ports. 

You restore the ecosystem to help combat climate change. So it is 

disappointing that every year we go through the same exercise of 

examining an Army Corps budget that has been cut by over $1 billion from the previous year’s enactment level, and that is not your 

doing. It is the executive branch’s doing. 

It seems to me your job is already difficult enough, and I am not 

pleased to have to play these games with the Administration for 

yet another year. So I hope we can come to some agreement on 

numbers that allow you to do the job well. 

I am equally disappointed with Reclamation’s proposed budget, 

which is a 13 percent decrease from fiscal year 2016. The subcommittee has undertaken herculean efforts to provide $150 million more than was requested over the last 2 years to address the 

drought facing the West. And so, once again the Administration did 

not propose to continue that funding. That is $150 million that we 

put in that they did not continue, and indeed did not request any 

additional funding for the drought. That, as a Californian, is really 

unacceptable. 

My constituents are also the President’s constituents, and I am 

really frustrated that the Administration seems unwilling to help 

me do something about this drought. One El Nino year alone will 

not be enough to end this drought, and Californians are really 

hurting. It should matter. 

It is a huge State, 40-plus million people. Sixty-nine communities 

in our State have significant water supplies and water quality 

issues. Our economy lost $42.7 billion from the drought last year. 

One million acres of California farmland was fallowed in 2015. The 

drought has led to 35,000 permanent jobs lost. Land subsidence 

from pumping too much groundwater has caused large areas of the 

San Joaquin Valley to sink by as much as two inches per month. 

As a result, bridges, aqueducts, and roads have already begun to 

crack. 

Fifty million large trees are dead or likely will die. Another—and 

get this number—888 million trees experienced loss of canopy cover 

since 2011. And I said to my staff, Commissioner, this cannot be 

right, and they said, oh, yes, we have checked it, it is. 

There are two themes I want to highlight today. The first is data 

versus intuition, and the second is win-win scenarios. Commissioner Lo ́pez, this subcommittee has provided the Bureau with extraordinary resources over the past 2 years to provide more water 

to people in the West. Yet I continue to hear that water pumping 

decisions are still being based on intuition of when protected fish 

might be near the pumps rather than when we know they are actually present. 

For example, Interior may reduce pumping if even one smelt this 

size is found as far away as 17 miles from the pumps near a monitoring station called Prisoner’s Point. But outside, biologists and 

scientists believe that Reclamation is reducing pumping prematurely. These experts believe that the Agencies could continue 
28 

with higher pumping levels, even if smelt are found at a monitoring station that is only 12 miles from the pumps. Why? Because 

they can still move back. 

So we need to know who is right, and that is why I believe, and 

what we have proposed, is daily boat monitoring in turbid waters 

because that water is critical to making an informed decision and 

increasing the Agencies’ operational flexibility. Reclamation has 

been given significant funds to make more data driven decisions 

grounded in the latest science, and so I hope you will do so. 

Secretary Darcy, while water supply is not your primary mission, 

I believe that water supply can be achieved also during the course 

of the Corps’ traditional work on flood protection, navigation, and 

ecosystem restoration. I believe there are numerous opportunities 

for the Corps to find these win-win scenarios, and you have done 

a good job, and I just want to encourage you to look for doing that. 

For example, seismic retrofits could be coupled with dam raises, 

and we have that in one proposal of such in the San Joaquin Valley. Better weather forecasting resulting in less water being unnecessarily released from damns. I met with the Army Corps head 

from Sacramento yesterday about Folsom Dam. Folsom Dam is just 

60 percent filled, and yet they are releasing water because of the 

possibility of rain, which could possibly produce flooding. 

Now, I do not know if 60 percent is the right level to begin that— 

to do that or not, but I really think in view of the drought we ought 

to take a look at that. And ecosystem restoration projects can provide for additional groundwater recharge as well. 

So, Mr. Chairman, let me say one thing. We have worked well 

together, and I have so appreciated your leadership over these 

many years. But this drought is the hardest thing I have ever done 

in my 23 years in the Senate. And I really want to make sure that 

the two agencies testifying today are working hand-in-hand with 

each other, with other Federal agencies, and with State and local 

partners. We are the most populous State in the Union, a significant source of our Nation’s food, at least 50 percent. That means 

that drought is a problem for the whole Government and will require a whole of Government solution. 

So, Mr. Chairman, what I am saying today is I look forward to 

working with you. You have always been a great one to work with, 

and I really appreciate it. And I hope that we will be able to reallocate some funds to solve some of these big problems. So thank you 

very much. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. We have had 

an excellent working relationship on this committee and with the 

witnesses. For the information of Senators, what we decided to do 

today, we dispensed with their testimony. That has been submitted 

to the record. We dispensed with opening statements except for the 

chair and the ranking member. And because of the votes we are 

giving Senators an opportunity to take their five minutes in terms 

of questions or statements in order. 

And so, Senator Feinstein, if I may suggest, I am going to ask 

you to chair for the next few minutes, and I will go take the—I will 

vote early on vote three, and then I can get back here I think in 

time for you to go. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Good. 
29 

Senator ALEXANDER. And after you are through, if Senator Cochran comes back, he would be next. And if he is not, Senator Murkowski would. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So if you could please do your questions and 

then go to the next Republican member, I will be back by that 

time. 

WATER PUMPING DECISIONS

Senator FEINSTEIN [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

My main question is on delta operations, and I am concerned 

that Reclamation has pumped less water in 2016 during this El 

Nino year than it did in 2015 when California was in extreme 

drought. Flows were as high as 50,000 CFS in the Sacramento 

River, yet the Agencies reduced pumping to the low end of the biological opinions because of one smelt. 

I continue to hear that water pumping decisions are still being 

based on when protected fish might be near the pumps rather than 

when we know they actually are present. For example, Interior 

may reduce pumping even if one smelt is found as far as 17 miles 

away, as I have said, at Prisoner’s Point. And I mentioned what 

outside biologists and scientists believe. I will not go into that 

again. 

So here is the question. What are you doing to test whether or 

not smelt identified past the Prisoner’s Point monitoring station 

can still survive and make their way back out to the central delta. 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ. Senator, first of all, let me start by saying that I understand your frustration and that of the water users. We are 

equally frustrated. Having said that, I need to answer this by talking a little bit about what I understand the fish agencies are relying on. 

And basically what they are concerned about is that once fish get 

to that point, Prisoner’s Point and south of there, they are essentially entrained in the system. If they get into that area, they are 

not going to survive, nor are they going to spawn. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Excuse me. As long as we concur that Prisoner’s Point is 17 miles from the pumps, right? That is all. 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ. That is correct. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Please continue. 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ. So we operate the pumps under the biological opinions, and the Fish and Wildlife Service regulate the conditions of 

the biological opinion of the smelt. They have a Smelt Working 

Group that is, in essence, the best minds on the issues of the smelt 

and its survivability. 

They are of the opinion that once smelt get to that point around 

Prisoner’s Point and points south, if the flow into the Old and Middle River is reversed, the smelt essentially moves on towards the 

pumps, they become entrained there, and they will not survive. So 

they are concerned about smelt even at a very long distance away 

from the pumps. 

In fact, what has happened in recent timeframes of high flows, 

as you have mentioned, the Smelt Working Group has recommended even lower pumping rates than what we have done. But 
30 

David Murillo, our regional director of the Mid-Pacific, whom you 

know well, he and the fish agencies have a very good working relationship. They have agreed to essentially try something that is beyond what has been recommended, and that is what they have 

been doing. 

One of the reasons that they are trying to prevent the entrainment is that we had an instance in the winter of 2012–2013 where 

the smelt did get entrained in that area. Once they got entrained, 

they got pulled into the pumps and we reached the take limit, and 

at that point we had to re-consult, and then we were even further 

constrained on pumping. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me ask you this question. Would you be 

willing to sit down with those biologists and agencies that believe 

that in the distance from 17 miles away and 12 miles away that 

those fish can still return, that they will not be entrained, would 

you at least sit down with them and listen? 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ. Senator, absolutely, I would. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. I will set it up. 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ. However, I also want to mention that the entity that 

has to be convinced is the Fish and Wildlife Service and their biologists. They, in essence, regulate what we do. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. We will include them, too. 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ. Yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. But, look, I do not intend to quit, so I am 

going to be at this, and there are so many conflicting opinions. 

Maybe if we get them in one room and listen to them, it might be 

profitable. So I very much appreciate that. 

Senator Murkowski, welcome. You have a heavy load today I 

know. 

KING COVE

Senator MURKOWSKI. We are all busy, and I apologize. We are all 

kind of jumping up and down like jack-in-the-boxes here to go vote 

because this is so important. I have what I hope will be three very 

quick questions. 

The first one is relating to King Cove. Senator Feinstein indicates she is not giving up. I am not ever giving up on King Cove 

and getting my 10-mile—the people of King Cove a 10-mile, onelane gravel non-commercial use road. 

I am told, because I had the Secretary of Interior before me 

today in Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and last week in 

Energy, that the study that she asked the Corps to do about alternatives for King Cove was done by the Corps. When I asked her 

if she could make that public, she said she did not know if she 

could. She was going to have to check with the Corps. And I said, 

well, conveniently, I have got the Corps in front of me this afternoon, so I will ask if we will be able to get a copy of that report 

that was requested by the Secretary. 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, I am—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Excuse me. Ms. Darcy, if you could wait. I 

will go down and vote, and you just continue on. Is that agreeable, 

Senator? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 
31 

Senator MURKOWSKI [presiding]. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, in response to your question, we did a report at the request at the Department of Interior for the non-road 

alternatives. And I will personally ask the Secretary of the Interior 

if we can make it public. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I would appreciate that. I think the people 

of King Cove would appreciate that, so I will look forward to that. 

ARCTIC DEEP PORT STUDY

Let me ask you about the Port of Nome, and more specifically to 

a deepwater port in the Arctic. As you know, I have been a long 

proponent of making sure that we have infrastructure in the Arctic 

as we see developments taking place up north, and the increased 

traffic in the Bering, the Beaufort, and the Chukchi. 

Last year, the Corps placed a strategic pause on the proposed 

port in Nome. When the President was up in September, he announced the need for a deepwater port that would be north of 

Dutch Harbor. Given the President’s support for this, why have we 

not included construction funding going forward in this next fiscal 

year? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, the Arctic deep port study that you are referencing was indeed put on pause last October in conjunction with 

the local sponsor, the State of Alaska. Since that time and since 

the President’s visit, we are now going to look at further scoping 

of that study, because it was limited to just some economics involving oil and gas. But there are other things that we think can be 

included in this, for instance, that the Port of Nome may be considered a port of national significance, in addition to the fact that it 

could possibly house the Coast Guard’s icebreaker in the future, as 

well as other benefits that could come from that. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate the additional scoping, and I 

think that it is important that—life safety reasons. Like the socioeconomic benefit that accrues to a community, to a region when 

you have a port that is accessible that can reduce the cost of goods 

that come in, reduce the cost of fuel that comes in, just the general 

cost of living. 

But I do find it just really quite surprising that the assessment 

for a port could have been built upon one project without recognition of, again, the expanded role, the activities in the region. This 

is one of those areas where when you talk to the people, whether 

they are in Nome or anywhere south of that, they say the Arctic 

is more than just oil and gas exploration. 

It is just more than just shale up north. It is about having infrastructure to accommodate a reality, a daunting reality that—it is 

almost as if a new ocean has been discovered at the top of the 

globe. And so, how are we preparing for that? You cannot really be 

in the game, you cannot be that Arctic participant unless we have 

that system of ports. So know that we are going to continue to 

press on this. 

SECTION 107 SMALL NAVIGATION PROGRAM

The last thing that I wanted to ask you, and I actually have constituents that are waiting to see me from the community of St. 

George on the Pribilof Islands. I had asked about the Section 107 
32 

Small Navigation Program last year. Many of my constituents have 

thanked me for advocating on behalf of that program because it 

really is a great fit, a great fit for these small villages, these small 

communities that are trying to construct a small harbor, break 

water. But the waiting between WRRDA (Water Resources Reform 

and Development Act) bills has been a little bit lengthy, and just 

these are projects, as you and I know, just compete on that national scale. 

And what I would ask from you is just further commitment from 

you, from your staff to continue to work with my office so this Section 107 Program can continue to benefit these small communities. 

I know for a fact that the people of St. George that are waiting for 

me as I go to this next vote are going to want to know that this 

type of support is going to continue. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, the CAP programs are an important part of our 

entire program, and we have three 107 projects now ongoing in 

Alaska. And that program is one that it is for smaller projects that 

do not need the full-blown WRDA authorization, and that is why 

it has been successful, especially in small communities like those 

in Alaska. 

LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS EXPORTS

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, we will work with you on that. And 

since nobody is back, I will take an opportunity. I was in Houston 

last week at CERAWeek, which is the big oil and gas summit really in the country. And a lot of discussion about the fact that we 

had just seen that Wednesday the first shipment of LNG leaving 

Louisiana to head out to Brazil. Obviously exports of LNG (liquefied natural gas) are a big deal for me both because of the Alaska 

LNG project and because of the energy bill that we are working on 

that would expedite these approvals. 

SABRINE-NECHES WATERWAY

The Sabine-Neches Waterway is probably one of the more important waterways in the Nation. By all accounts it is poised to play 

a key role in the buildout of LNG exports from the United States, 

specifically Louisiana and Texas. So if you could just give us a 

quick update on the 2014 authorization that we need to deepen 

that waterway. 

Ms. DARCY. You are talking about Sabine-Neches? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Yes. 

Ms. DARCY. That project currently has a benefit to cost ratio that 

does not compete well for budgeting at a 7 percent rate. However, 

our Galveston district is doing and economic update and that economic update I think will be approved in the third quarter of this 

year. So with an uptick in the economics, there is a possibility that 

the benefit-to-cost ratio would be improved and make it more competitive for budgeting. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Do you anticipate that that would, given 

what we expect to see coming out of Louisiana and coming out of 

Texas with LNG exports? 

Ms. DARCY. I think in considering those, since the 4-year ban has 

been lifted and that can happen now, that will change the economics. 
33 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And that will be included as part of your 

analysis. 

Ms. DARCY. It will be considered in it, yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Okay. I appreciate that. I am going to utilize a little bit of executive authority and call a recess for the committee until other members get back so that I do not miss this important vote. So we are recessed to the call of the chair. 

Senator ALEXANDER [presiding]. Thank you for your flexibility. 

The hearing will come to order. That was the last vote, so Senators 

will be here, and Senator Coons was here earlier, so I will call on 

Senator Coons at this point for his five minutes of statements and 

questions. 

Senator COONS. Thank you very much, Chairman Alexander. 

Thank you both for your forbearance and for your sound and solid 

leadership of this subcommittee and others. Thank you for your 

service and for the opportunity to talk with you today about the 

Army Corps of Engineers. 

DELAWARE RIVER DREDGING

I have been particularly pleased with the service of the colonel 

who is charged with the Philadelphia district, Lieutenant Colonel 

Mike Bliss. And I am grateful for your continued support for a 

project that is near and dear to my constituents, the Delaware 

River dredging. I am pleased there is another $55 million overall 

in the work plan to complete the project, so I just want to start by 

saying thank you since I know not every opportunity is taken to 

thank you for budget support and for leadership. 

DELAWARE BEACH PROTECTION

If I might, Assistant Secretary Darcy, I just want to talk about 

Delaware’s beaches. We have several world-class beaches. They are 

a key driver of tourism in our region, and they are essential to the 

economy of southern Delaware. We had a significant storm recently 

that imposed some very hard damage. We were grateful for previous investment in beach nourishment that protected those beaches, but most of what had been provided in recent years was torn 

away. That has left a lot of our coastal communities and their infrastructure exposed. I am hopeful that we can work together to 

find resources. 

The President’s budget, to my disappointment, did not include 

funding for Bethany Beach or South Bethany Beach, and as the 

project information reports from the Philadelphia district come into 

your office describing damage to Delaware’s beaches, I am hopeful 

that you conclude that the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies 

Act Funds that remain unspent from Sandy could be used for Rehoboth, Bethany, and South Bethany. 

Do you think that is possible or likely, and if not, what else do 

you think we could do to rebuild Delaware’s beaches and its coastal 

defenses? 

Ms. DARCY. As you say, Senator, we are in the PIR stage which 

will inform as to what damages were done and what the actual cost 

of those repairs will be. 

As far as using Sandy supplemental funds, I am going to have 

to defer because I believe that those can only be used for damages 
34 

that were incurred from Super Storm Sandy as opposed to subsequent storms. That is something we will check into if the need for 

the repairs is unmet. 

Senator COONS. Given just a visual inspection as well as detailed 

reports from local government leaders suggest to Delaware’s congressional delegation that there will be some significant needs 

here, what funding source do you think is most likely relevant or 

appropriate to take action this year? 

Ms. DARCY. Probably the FCCE account. That is our Flood and 

Coastal Emergencies account, but it would depend on how they are 

evaluated as far as relative to the most recent storm. 

Senator COONS. I will join comments made by other of my colleagues earlier in this hearing that it is disappointing that the Administration’s funding request is insufficient for what are the likely 

needs of the whole country. As a member of this subcommittee, I 

am happy to commit to continuing to support needed increased 

funding that will make it possible for you to address the needs of 

Delaware and many other States. 

PORT OF WILMINGTON

Let me also turn to the Port of Wilmington. It is on a dredging 

cycle that really is not sufficient to meet the needs of this port. It 

is a relatively small port, but it is an important port for my home 

State. It silts in about every 6 to 9 months, and right now it is 

causing havoc with the number of customers at the port. I am 

hopeful that going forward you will consider including funding for 

two dredging cycles a year. Is this something you are familiar 

with? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, I am aware that we did provide 2016 O&M 

dredging for this port at $3.845 million, and also in the President’s 

2017 budget request we have $4.355 million for the next dredging 

cycle. So I think an additional dredging cycle is what your question 

is, sir? 

Senator COONS. Yes. 

Ms. DARCY. I believe that currently we are budgeting on a single 

dredging cycle, and that is what I think those numbers reflect. 

DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION

Senator COONS. Well, I will urge you to reconsider, based on experience at the port, two dredging cycles a year. Let me in my closing moments simply recommend to you again funding for the Delaware River Basin Commission. Although there is a congressionally 

approved compact that requires a Federal contribution, the Federal 

contribution has been forthcoming, I think, in 19 of the last 20 fiscal years. 

HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND

I also am an advocate for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

You have made some significant, I think, improvements. The request is higher. Our funding has improved, but it is still 20 percent 

less this year than what was appropriated last. I think it would 

make a significant different for harbors across the country, not just 

in my home State of Delaware. 
35 

So please note me as an advocate for working to ensure that the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is put to its appropriate purposes, 

and that we invest to the level we need to in order to ensure that 

our export and import businesses that go through our vital ports 

and harbors are appropriately maintained. 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, sir. 

Senator COONS. Thank you very much. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Senator Udall, I think we have other Republican members coming, but since you are here, I will call on 

you. And what we have done is because of the votes, we have asked 

the witnesses to put their statements in the record, Senators have 

put their opening statements in the record, and now you have five 

minutes for statements or questions, whatever you would like. Senator Udall. 

NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER PROJECTS

Senator UDALL. Senator Alexander, Chairman Alexander, thank 

you very much. And I guess I lucked out with not having to alternate here. 

I want to thank you both for working with the Albuquerque District to fund some important New Mexico projects over the last few 

years. New Mexico often has a tough time in the President’s budget 

request, so additional discretionary funds that this committee provides and your hard work is really critical in my State. 

We have had some good success funding flood control projects in 

Alamogordo, Socorro, the Southwest Valley, and others, and I am 

very relieved that we have continued the New Mexico Acacias Program. I hope you know what that is, Honorable Jo-Ellen Darcy. 

Ms. DARCY. I visited about 4 years ago. 

Senator UDALL. Good. Good. And to support the historic—these 

are various, you know, historic irrigation canals that also help our 

local ecosystems and manage water flows. 

Additionally, I am pleased that for 2016, the Corps has funded 

the Rio Grande Environmental Management Program for the first 

time. It will be important to continue that effort which will link together stakeholders and watershed information to encourage collaboration on water challenges and minimize the potential for 

counterproductive conflicts. And finally, I am glad we are making 

progress on reimbursements under the Environmental Management Accounts, specifically for Rio Rancho in 2016. We talked 

about this issue last year, and I wanted to thank you for your attention to this issue. 

The Corps signed agreements years ago with a variety of New 

Mexico communities to fund water projects, and we need to close 

these accounts out. So given our recent success—hopefully this is 

an easy question—will you continue to work with this committee 

and stakeholders in New Mexico to advance these kinds of projects 

in a fiscally responsible way if this committee continues to provide 

additional discretionary funding for the Corps? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, Senator. 
36 

GILA RIVER DIVERSION PROJECT

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. And now turning to the 

commissioner of Bureau of Reclamation Estevan. Good, solid New 

Mexican is back here. Good to see you again. 

Commissioner Lo ́pez, I want to touch on an issue that is very important to me and one I know you are familiar with, the proposed 

Gila River diversion project. The Gila River is the crown jewel of 

the Southwest and one of the last remaining free-flowing rivers in 

the United States. The river provides amazing opportunities for 

recreation, wildlife habitat protection, and has unique historic 

value. And, of course, we are also very sympathetic to the water 

needs of nearby communities and the agricultural needs. 

I understand why any proposal that could mean more water resources is a discussion worth having, but from everything I have 

seen, this project simply does not add up. My understanding is that 

a diversion has the potential for about 14,000-acre feet of water, 

but with significant technical challenges, and only in a wet year 

that will not happen very often, with construction costs estimated 

near a billion dollars and would need NEPA approval for disturbing a relatively untouched river system. In short, this does not 

seem like a viable or wise project. 

I understand that the environmental review process is the next 

step, and the Bureau of Reclamation along with the New Mexico 

Interstate Stream Commission are joint leads on this. What kinds 

of analyses will be included in your comprehensive review process? 

Will the costs associated with this project be fully reviewed in an 

objective way, because I have said, and please go ahead with those, 

Estevan, and then I will just finish with these last couple of questions. 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ. Good afternoon, Senator. It is good to see you. 

Senator UDALL. It is a pleasure. Great to see you. 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ. And so, to date New Mexico has yet—the New Mexico 

Unit entity has yet—to propose a project, so we have not yet begun 

that process. Once they do, it will be a few months before we begin 

a public scoping process. We would develop a full range of alternatives that would be evaluated in that process, and we would assure that there is a robust analysis that would comport to the Federal principles, requirements, and guidelines for water and land related resource implementation studies. That was part of the agreement that was entered into last November. 

Specifically, you asked what type of studies would be looked at. 

We would intend to look at the impacts on fish and wildlife, hydrology, land use, cultural resources, recreation, and ecosystems, and, 

by all means, the economics of any proposal that comes forth. We 

are committed to a robust evaluation of this. As you say, the Gila 

is truly a jewel in the Southwest, and it is something that needs 

to be protected. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. And, Senator Alexander, I will submit the rest of my questions to Mr. Lo ́pez for the record. But I just 

want to say that I have seen estimates that range from half a billion to $1 billion for construction. I cannot see any White House Office of Management and Budget clearing a new billion-dollar Federal water supply project with such limited potential. So thank you, 
37 

and I will submit additional questions, and look forward to your 

answers. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

Senator Lankford. 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS DISPOSITION STUDIES

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 

being here and for the work that goes into this. General Bostick, 

good to see you again. Let me pepper you with questions. It is so 

good to see you. How about that? 

We have talked a couple of times before about the 2014 water bill 

that put into it a request to the Corps to say give us an inventory 

that is not needed—this was the quote—‘‘not needed for the mission of the Corps of Engineers.’’ Obviously it is trying to determine 

if there may be any properties or entities that are anywhere within 

the Corps of Engineers that are not needed so that we can spend 

money on what is essential for the Corps. 

How is that study, that assessment going, and when can we expect to have that report? 

General BOSTICK. It is good to see you again, Senator. There are 

a number of activities going that I think are related that I wanted 

to highlight and talk about. And the first is the deauthorization report that we had to come back to Congress with, $18 billion worth 

of deauthorizations. 

Senator LANKFORD. If my memory serves me correctly, about $14 

billion in that $18 billion request. 

General BOSTICK. We were able to come up with $14 billion, but 

in coming with that, we had to do an assessment of many of our 

projects, so the assessment is underway. We are not complete. We 

still have a lot of work to do. It is not directly tied to the 6002 report, but it is related. The other thing that—— 

Senator LANKFORD. So give me a ballpark on timing when that 

assessment might be complete. 

General BOSTICK. I cannot give you a ballpark time on that. 

What we are trying to do, because we have not started the 6002 

report because we have put all of our focus on trying to get the deauthorization report accomplished. We did that, and now we are 

doing the annual deauthorization, and we will be finished with that 

in September of 2016. 

I think combining the two efforts, we will be closer to doing an 

overall assessment. What we have done is completed an overall 

operational assessment of our projects, but we have not made an 

assessment of which ones we should retain, which ones we should 

divest ourselves of, and which ones should be repurposed. That is 

going to be a longer effort. 

Senator LANKFORD. Sure. Well, that is why we started it early 

because you know my next question on that is the disposal process, 

and once we determine some of the things that might. And I say 

‘‘might’’ because we are not asking you to choose those, but at least 

to start to put together a list of things that are not central to the 

mission of the Corps. Once we have that list, we have got to work 

through the process of how do we actually dispose of that. 
38 

Any ideas at this point on disposal authorities that the Corps 

may need once that list is out there? 

General BOSTICK. Well, you do have authorities under Section 

216, and rather than waiting until we have the complete report finished, we are starting now with disposition on two projects, disposition studies on the Kentucky River Lock and Dam and the West 

Pearl Navigation Project. So those disposition studies will go on 

this year. 

Many activities are working in parallel. We are not going to wait 

until the complete report is done, but we are using the deauthorization requirement, both the annual and the one time report required in WRRDA, and also moving forward with 216 authorities. 

Senator LANKFORD. Okay. That will be one of those things we 

will want to talk about at length is if there are additional authorities or ways we can help in that process. Obviously if we have an 

area where we are not authorizing or allowing or transferring, we 

do not want it to be more expensive than actually maintaining it. 

We want to actually have an efficiency of the process with this so 

you all do not have to worry about that. 

ACCEPTING NON-FEDERAL FUNDING DURING EMERGENCIES

Let me ask about another question that came up from the 2014 

WRRDA, and that is accepting materials and services from nonFederal entities in the case of an emergency situation. Obviously 

this has implications around the country, especially in inland waterways and places where we may have an emergency situation. 

Congress passed that, and asking for a set of—asking for implementation. We were pretty clear to give that authority. I am trying 

to figure out if the Corps has the implementation on that, the 

guidelines for that done at this point. Are those guidelines complete? 

General BOSTICK. Yes, we are finalizing initial Implementation 

Guidance on that. I think where we are finding challenges at the 

local level is we can accept funds on an emergency disaster type 

situation, but we cannot accept funds for some of our projects 

where we have not been able to maintain them. 

Senator LANKFORD. So what about—this is an emergency situation just starting with that. What about services? You accept services. So if someone had materials, had equipment, had personnel, 

a contractor that was there, and a State or a private entity said 

this is an emergency, we want to be able to help with that. Are you 

all in a position now with these guidances to be able to accept 

those goods or services in the time of an emergency? 

General BOSTICK. If it is related to a disaster, my answer would 

be yes. 

Senator LANKFORD. Okay. Yeah, all these are contingent on an 

emergency. That was the definition that was on it, which is left 

open of what is an emergency. When I talked to several of the folks 

in the different areas, there seems to be a hesitancy in the field 

and in the regional offices to accept goods or services or be able to 

discuss that even of what the process would be in case of an emergency. 

Those folks want to plan contingencies, and what I hear is, well, 

we are studying it. There are not those guidelines in place in the 
39 

field. So I do not know if those guidelines had just been released 

or not, but the individuals that this would actually affect cannot 

plan their contingencies because they do not know how to connect 

to the Corps at this point in case of an emergency. 

General BOSTICK. We will go back and redouble our efforts to 

make sure that the Implementation Guidance that we will put out 

is understood in terms of what they can and cannot accept. 

Senator LANKFORD. Okay. If there are additional authorities that 

are needed on that, we just need to know because if this is going 

to be an issue of, yes, we technically can, Congress gave us permission, but there are liability risks, and who is going to pay for what 

if it breaks. And suddenly we are in a position where there is actually not done what Congress said we could do, and there is some 

gap in it, we need to know in that process so we can actually resolve this. So can you help us with that? 

General BOSTICK. We will follow up. 

Senator LANKFORD. Great. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Senator Lankford. 

Senator Hoeven. 

RED RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 

begin by thanking Secretary Darcy, also General Bostick, and I see 

that you brought Colonel Price with you as well. Thank you for 

your help and your commitment to move forward with permanent 

flood protection both in the Minot region as well as in the Fargo/ 

Moorhead region in the Red River Valley. It is much appreciated 

and very important for both regions, so I would like to thank all 

of you. I would also like to thank the chairman of this committee. 

I appreciate it very much. 

My first question would be to Secretary Darcy and also to General Bostick. And that is in terms of moving forward with the Red 

River permanent flood protection, if you would please describe for 

me how you anticipate approaching the Minnesota DNR process. 

Ms. DARCY. In the 2016 work plan when we funded this project 

for $5 million, there was a provision that said that in order to work 

through the current issues with the DNR, that we would need to 

have all of those issues addressed before May of this year when the 

Environmental Impact Statement is due. And then I would need to 

make a determination as to whether those conditions were met by 

July of this year in order for us to be able to execute a Project Partnership Agreement by August 30th of this year. 

Senator HOEVEN. And I would ask both you, Secretary Darcy, 

and General Bostick to address, your thoughts on the DNR process, 

but then also how you are going about addressing upstream concerns as well in regard to the project. 

General BOSTICK. I do not have anything else to add beyond 

what Secretary Darcy talked about on the DNR. 

Senator HOEVEN. Okay. And then both of you, just your thoughts 

on, again, working to bring everybody together and advancing the 

project, but also working with upstream interests. 

Ms. DARCY. Because this is a two-State project, we always have 

to consider the upstream impacts as well as the downstream. In 
40 

this particular situation, given the alternative financing arrangements, we need to be able to work with the upstream interests in 

order to be able to go forward with both the upstream portion as 

well as the downstream portion because the downstream portion is 

the Federal part of the project, and the upper portion is what the 

local sponsor as well as their private partners are going to be able 

to finance. 

ALTERNATIVE FINANCING

Senator HOEVEN. And if you would, either or both of you talk for 

just a minute about the unique public/private financing model, and 

what you hope to accomplish here, and how you see that can provide benefits not only here, but to the Corps in general going forward. 

General BOSTICK. When you look at some of the work that we are 

doing now, just the work that we are currently putting money in 

our overall program, it would cost about $19.7 billion of additional 

funds to finish that work currently in construction. And we receive 

about a billion dollars in construction each year so, on average, it 

is going to take about $20 billion or 20 years to finish the work 

that we are currently doing at this rate. 

I think it is very important that we look at alternative means of 

financing where we bring in the private sector, the public sector, 

to see if we can accelerate these projects because when you take 

that long to complete these projects, the benefits are not accruing 

obviously, and the BCRs come down, and the people are just 

unsatisfied. So I think alternative financing is something that we 

must do. This is a first effort to move out on them. 

Senator HOEVEN. Madam Secretary, did you have anything you 

wanted to add? 

Ms. DARCY. I would concur with General Bostick’s comments, 

and the fact that this is one of the first times the Army Corps of 

Engineers has approached a project in this way, it shows that we 

are open to looking at alternative ways of financing these projects 

with limited funding. In this instance because there are upstream 

concerns as well as downstream, we are going to take a really close 

look at all of this. I am going to have someone from my staff work 

with the upstream States in the next month to try to make sure 

that we can get this all agreed to in the timeframe that we have. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you. And also, I want to, I guess, again 

emphasize the creativity that you are showing in both of these 

projects, not only the public/private partnership, but also in Minot 

you are—by providing for a study, you are allowing the State and 

locals to go forward and build flood protection while we are working on a—on the Federal portion of the project. 

That is the kind of creativity that is not only going to save billions of dollars across the country for the Corps and for the Federal 

Government, but it is going to get these projects done sooner. So 

that creativity in the case of the Minot region is enabling them to 

start building using State and local funds. And so, I think, you 

know, just incredibly important that you are providing this flexibility, and, again, I want to thank you for that. 
41 

And, Mr. Chairman, I do have some more questions. I will certainly defer until the next round, but I just wanted you to be 

aware. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Senator Hoeven. Just to—we will 

have a second round of questions. Just a comment on that. This 

has been an interesting discussion with me. The leadership of the 

committee has worked with Senator Hoeven and with the Corps of 

Engineers on a new approach toward dealing with this backlog of 

important projects. And it will be interesting to see if this significant State and local contribution, when matched with the Federal 

flexibility and Federal dollars, provides a way in the future to take 

that $20 billion figure and move more rapidly in it. 

So I appreciate the flexibility that you have shown in your leadership of the Corps to work with this committee and with Senator 

Hoeven on that issue. I think taxpayers would be pleased with us 

for seeing how this works, and particularly taking a project where 

there has been such a significant State and local investment. It is 

easy for me to say because North Dakota is a long way from Tennessee. 

Let me ask two or three questions here, and then I will go to 

Senator Feinstein, and then we will see if other Senators have 

other questions. 

HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND

Let me talk about the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. This is 

something that—well, a few years ago several of us, including Senator Feinstein, reared back and asked our staff what would a great 

country like the United States—what kind of harbors do we need, 

particularly in light of the widening of the Panama Canal. We 

came up with a figure, and Congress passed a bill, set a target, and 

we have met that target for a couple of years. 

Now, we are talking about ports like Los Angeles, Long Beach, 

Oakland, Mobile, Savannah, Charleston, Memphis, Louisiana, 

Cleveland Harbor. These are important parts of our commerce in 

this country, and for two straight years this committee has been 

able to meet our goals in terms of deepening these harbors so the 

ships can do their work there and not do it in ports in other places 

in the world. 

Now, we also collect money from the private sector when they 

come into the harbors. So my question, Secretary Darcy, is how 

much money do you expect to collect in fiscal year 2017 in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, I believe that the Treasury has made an estimate that in 2017 we would be collecting $1.6 billion. I think it 

is down from what Treasury projected in 2016. I think it is $1.6 

billion. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Okay. How much—— 

Ms. DARCY. In collections in 2017. 

Senator ALEXANDER. In collections in 2017 to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is the Treasury estimate. How much does the 

budget propose that we spend of that $1.6 or $1.7 billion? 

Ms. DARCY. The President’s budget request for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is $951 million for fiscal year 2017. 
42 

Senator ALEXANDER. So we are collecting taxes for a dedicated purpose at about $1.6 or $1.7 billion to deepen ports to improve 

commerce, but we are just going to keep the money and not spend 

it even though we take it. And as a result of those kinds of practices, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund today has over $9 billion 

in it, money that was collected from ports, from people doing business in the port with the expectation that it would be spent to keep 

the ports in good shape and we are just stacking it up in the Federal bank. 

INLAND WATERWAY TRUST FUND

We talked a little earlier about the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. 

We do not want that to happen there. We do not have much money 

in the Inland Waterway Trust Fund that is unspent. Am I correct 

about that? 

Ms. DARCY. Currently, I think the unspent balance in the Inland Waterway Trust Fund is $106 million for 2017. 

Senator ALEXANDER. The unspent, but we could spend that for— 

I mean, that is yet to be determined how much of that we are going 

to spend, correct? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, because that would have to be matched with 

other revenues from the budget. 

Senator ALEXANDER. But if we matched it in 2017 as we did in 

the current year, then there would be almost no unspent money in 

the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. Am I correct about that? 

Ms. DARCY. If there was a 50 percent match coming from General Treasury and coming from the Corps budget to match, that is 

possible. 

Senator ALEXANDER. But on the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund, we already got $9 billion that should have been spent on our 

harbors, yet the President’s budget only asks for $986 million, 

about $194 million short of the target that Congress set for this 

year. So we are going to continue to build up the unspent money 

in the trust fund. I am very concerned about that. 

NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY

Let me ask you a different—completely different question. TVA, 

the Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers all mitigate the 

loss of fish caused by the dams that they operate. This is a general 

subject that Secretary Darcy and I have discussed before, but not 

a specific one. The Corps of Engineers purchases fish from the National Fish Hatchery at Dale Hollow and Irwin to restock fish in 

the Cumberland River where there are dams and excellent fishing, 

by the way. TVA is mitigating that loss of dam—loss of fish due 

to the dams. It operates on the Tennessee River. 

So you are already doing what I think you should be doing. But 

my question is, does your budget request sufficiently reimburse the 

Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure our Nation’s mitigation fish 

hatcheries can continue to meet the mitigation needs? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, it does, Senator. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Secretary Darcy, and I greatly 

appreciate your personal attention to that. 

I am about out of time, so why do I not go to Senator Feinstein, 

and then I see Senator Hoeven, I think, also has questions. 
43 

BOAT TURBIDITY STUDIES

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 

Chairman, you and I and certain members in the House of Representatives were able to get $100 million in the omnibus for 

drought. That money is still there. The President did not ask for 

the money to be continued in 2017; however, it is there for the remainder of the year. And I am wondering, Commissioner Lo ́pez, 

would it be possible to use some of that money to begin to do boat 

turbidity studies in the turbid waters both 12 miles and 17 miles 

from the pumps to determine with some accuracy the degree of 

smelt that are present? 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ. Senator, I think that we have created a spending 

plan for that money, and we have tried to build in maximum flexibility to use that in the way that is going to be deemed the most 

useful. So I think that we can. I think my answer to your question 

is that we can expend some of that money for those purposes. 

I have recently seen some correspondence in preparing for this 

hearing that calls into question the utility of that sort of thing simply because there are so few smelt that are out there. But I can 

certainly look into that, and I think we do have a mechanism by 

which we could use some of that money for that purpose. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I thank you very much for that. Now, 

we know the smelt gravitate toward turbid waters. 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ. That is right. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And so, it seems to me that the monitoring 

should be in the turbid places, and the turbid places where decisions are made about operations of the pumps. We are in a drought 

emergency proclaimed by the governor. It seems to me that this is 

an appropriate use of that money, and I would like very much to 

work with you to see that the appropriate monitoring gets set up 

as quickly as possible because time is a-wasting. If we have El 

Nino, it is going to be in the next couple of months or this month 

and maybe through March, so this means moving with it. So I am 

going to get out my needle and start poking at you, and I thank 

you for that answer. 

SHASTA DAM AND LOS VAQUEROS

I would also like to ask this question, and I go to pages 407 and 

408 of the omnibus. 407 stated that ‘‘The commissioner of Reclamation shall complete the feasibility studies,’’ and in this section on 

407 it refers to Shasta Dam. That was completed in December of 

2015. The next section on 408 refers to sites in Los Vaqueros by 

November 30th, 2016. Will you complete those studies? 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ. Senator, for both Sites and Los Vaqueros, we need to 

work with non-Federal partners to fund even the study portions of 

these. And to date, we do not have those agreements in place, further—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Commissioner, it is has been 9 years. We are 

in our 10th year. 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ [continuing]. The proponents, the Sites JPA and 

Contra Costa, have both recently—as recent as last week, come to 

us and asked that we actually slow the process down a little bit 

to be more in line with the State’s process of the funding proposals 
44 

that will be taken in November of 2017. They want to assure that 

the study we do comports not only with our requirements, but 

whatever requirements the State is going to have. And so, we are 

working with them to try and position—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, let me say something. This is a law. It 

is not ‘‘may complete.’’ It is ‘‘shall complete.’’ So if you would relay 

to the Sites JPA my concern that this has taken too long, and you 

are now mandated by law to complete these studies. Sir, I suggest 

you do it. 

SAN LUIS EXPANSION

There is a third one, and that is the feasibility study that has 

to do with the San Luis expansion, ‘‘shall be completed not later 

than December 31, 2017.’’ This is not up to the Sites JPA to make 

these decisions. You have the law. 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ. Senator, going back to sites, we do have that mandate. You are absolutely correct. We recognize that. What we do 

not have is we do not have the funds to do the work that is—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Then I suggest you use some of the drought $100 million to get it done. 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ. We will look into it, Senator. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. But really, sir, you have got one California 

Senator that is going to ride this. We worked hard to get these 

things in that omnibus, and they are there now. And it is not 

‘‘may,’’ it is ‘‘shall.’’ And I think—I have met with the committee. 

I think they are doing very good work, but they are not the law, 

and this is the law. So you can quote me, and if they have a problem, they can come see me, okay? 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ. Senator, I will convey that to them. 

SEISMIC SAFETY PROJECTS

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. Secretary Darcy, there are four 

critical seismic safety projects, California VA projects: L.A., San 

Francisco, Long Beach, and San Diego. And they will be part of 

this new construction partnership between the Army Corps and the 

VA. And I would like to ensure that they proceed as quickly as possible because the seismic risk in California is not going down. It 

is going up. So when do you expect to execute the joint agreement 

with the VA regarding the new collaboration? 

Ms. DARCY. I do not know. I am going to ask General Bostick if 

he might know. He has been working more closely with the VA on 

these issues than I. 

General BOSTICK. I have worked with Secretary McDonald very 

closely in discussions on how some of these projects would transfer. 

The first one obviously was the Aurora Hospital in Colorado, and 

we are complete with that transfer, and we are starting to work 

on it. We are taking each of these one at a time and assessing them 

on a case-by-case basis, but moving out as rapidly as we can. Much 

of—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Could you give me some times, please? I do 

not want to ask your successor 10 years from now, if I am still 

alive, what happened. 

General BOSTICK. The overall understanding is already completed. If it is over $100 million, as in the cases of the California 
45 

hospitals, there is already agreement that the Corps will take those 

on. The next step is to determine if the designs are appropriate for 

us to move out and award a contract. That work is ongoing. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. Well, that is good news. Do you have 

a specific timeline for when seismic safety projects can proceed? 

General BOSTICK. I do not have a timeline, but I will respond—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. May I ask that perhaps before you leave you 

could get a timeline? You set the course for your successor? 

General BOSTICK. I will do that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. This is important, so thank you. And is there 

any—do you have any thoughts on how this collaboration, and 

maybe it does not affect these projects. But will they introduce of 

themselves time delays? 

General BOSTICK. I cannot speak to the group of them in total, 

but if the project has not started, and some of these are brand new 

projects if they have a design, then we can just take that design 

if the design is adequate, then we can move out and award a contract. In the case of Aurora, for example, that took us a lot longer, 

a number of months in order to transition that one. So I would say 

it is a case-by-case situation, but I think it could be a clean transfer depending on the design. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So my job would be to see if the VA facilities 

in L.A., San Francisco, Long Beach, and San Diego have a design. 

Is that correct? 

General BOSTICK. We can work on that, Senator. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. Well, we will check. 

General BOSTICK. We will follow up with you on that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And I would appreciate it if you could let me 

know. 

General BOSTICK. We will. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. The question is do they have a design, and 

I thank you, General, very much. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks you. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. 

Senator Hoeven, whatever time—take time to ask whatever 

questions you may have. 

LAKE TSCHIDA

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner 

Lo ́pez, we have discussed Lake Tschida, Heart Butte Dam a number of times. You have been out, and I appreciate you coming out. 

I am drafting legislation to try to address this issue. We continue 

to work on trying to find a solution. 

Specifically, my legislation would direct the Bureau to allow permittees in the trailer areas around Lake Tschida to keep their existing trailers on the lots as long as they comply with anchoring requirements set forth by the Bureau. These permittees have made 

investments and improvements to the lots and trailers over the 

years, all with the consent of the Bureau. I think this would be a 

good compromise to ensure dam safety while also allowing trailer 

owners to get full use out of the investments that they made honestly with the approval of the Bureau. 

So my question is, would you be willing to work with me to find 

agreement on legislative language that would satisfy the Bureau’s 
46 

concerns while giving fair treatment to the trailer owners around 

the lake? 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ. Senator, I would certainly be willing to work with 

you on trying to develop legislation that would meet both those 

needs. You know my concerns about the trailers being within the 

flood pool and the concerns that that creates for us. If there is legislation to be worked on, we would work with you on it. 

MARKET RENT SURVEYS

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you. I appreciate that. The other question I have is in regard to some of the recent market rent surveys 

that have been done by the BOR. As a result of those surveys, 

rents will double at Heart Butte Dam, Lake Tschida, but they triple at the Jamestown Reservoir and the Dickinson Reservoir. And 

my understanding is that any rents received go into maintenance 

and management of the reservoir. 

And so, my first question is, is the Federal Government making 

a profit on this, or is all that money being put back into management and maintenance at those reservoirs? 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ. Senator, I do not believe we are making any profit 

on anything, and the money that we collect is used in the O&M of 

those reservoirs. 

Senator HOEVEN. Well, and essentially where I am going with 

this is, you know, those are very significant increases. We are hearing from the people that live around those reservoirs and have 

homes around those reservoirs. And there is a real concern that the 

rents are being raised well above what is going into management 

and maintenance at the reservoir, and well in excess of what those 

management and maintenance needs or expenses are. 

And that is a real concern because I think those rents are supposed to be limited to the management and maintenance need costs 

of those specific reservoirs. And so, I would ask that you work with 

us to look at those and make sure that the increases are not unreasonable, and that the money is not being used for some other purpose. 

Mr. LO ́ PEZ. Senator, I commit that we will look into that question, and assure that we are not collecting any more than we can 

use for those purposes. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Commissioner. I appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are all the questions I had. I appreciate it. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Senator Hoeven. I have got a couple of questions. 

INLAND WATERWAYS

Secretary Darcy, back to inland waterways. When we took the 

big step forward on inland waterways, Congress, among other 

things, got an agreement about what the priorities are for the inland waterways. The users agreed to that as well, and that helped 

us have some priority. That was the 2010 Capital Development 

Plan. Last year—the Congress then asked—told you to do a 20-year 

plan, but in our appropriations bill last year we said you should 

use the 2010 Capital User Development Plan priorities until we 

have a chance to review the new plans. 
47 

So my question is, will the Corps’ new plan keep the list of priorities in the 2010 Capital Development Plan that has been endorsed 

by the inland waterway users? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, we will be having the new capital investment strategy delivered to you all before the month is out, so we 

will be able to discuss the specifics of that while you are putting 

together the bill for this year. I have not reviewed the final study 

to be quite honest with you, so I cannot answer whether they are 

the same priorities or not. But as I say, we will be getting that to 

you before the month is out, so. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, you know the priority I am interested 

in. 

Ms. DARCY. Let me guess. 

REHABILITATION PROJECTS

Senator ALEXANDER. Yeah. And along that line, as you make 

your review, let me ask you to comment on something that really 

affects all of your projects, and that is the economic analysis that 

you use to justify a project, which I would assume you are going 

through now as you make up—as you finish this new plan. Funding the projects is largely based on their so-called benefit-to-cost 

ratio. The higher the ratio, the better the chance the project gets 

funded, the higher up the priority list. 

I am concerned that the economic analysis for a project may not 

accurately take into account the true benefits. For example, your 

economic analysis may—let us take the Chickamauga Lock, for example. In 2004, 2.7 million tons of cargo were moving through the 

lock every year. That was 12 years ago. Today it is closer to one 

million tons. 

Now, one big reason it has gone from 2.7 to one million tons is 

because the lock is in bad shape and needs to be replaced. And so, 

if you based your benefit-to-cost ratio upon the current lock cargo, 

it would not be realistic because when you fix the lock, one would 

assume that you would be back up to some number. I do not know 

what number. Maybe it would be 2.7, or maybe it would be more, 

maybe it would be a little less. 

But do you not think that has become outdated or inappropriate 

to base your benefit-to-cost ratio on the way things are today in a 

lock that has for 12 years been in such bad shape that a lot of 

cargo simply could not go through it? 

Ms. DARCY. I do agree, Senator, because in our equations that we 

developed for rehabilitation projects, I do not think that we take 

into account the historic significance of these projects. And I think 

that we are losing those benefits in making a future calculation. 

As you know, rehabilitation projects do not compete well in the 

budget because they have a lower benefit-to-cost ratio because of 

that. I think we need to look at how we do the evaluations for the 

benefit-to-cost ratio and rehabilitation projects in a different way, 

and account for not only historic patterns—historic benefits that 

they have brought, but without that lock, what would have been 

lost if we did not have that lock. That calculation, and all of the 

benefits that it has brought not only up until one point in time, but 

historically, I think needs to be calculated for a rehabilitation 

project. 
48 

COMPLETING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, that is important testimony coming 

from someone with your experience both in Congress and in your 

current position. And finally, there also ought to be something to 

consider—I mean, should we not complete projects we have already 

started to build? For example, in Kentucky Lock we have already 

spent $471 million, and on the Chickamauga Lock, we have already 

spent $216 million. And as we have discussed, over the last 2 years 

working with Congress, you restarted construction. 

But should we not take into account the fact that we complete 

projects that we have already started to build? 

Ms. DARCY. I think we should take that into consideration, and 

I think finishing what you have started is a laudable goal. It is just 

not always one that we are able to achieve in the current fiscal situation. 

Senator ALEXANDER. There were several rules of life I learned 

from my parents, and one that I learned from my father was finish 

what you start, which turns out to be a pretty good rule of life, and 

might even be good for the Corps of Engineers. 

I do not have any more questions. I will ask Senator Feinstein 

if she does, and then after that, her comments, we will conclude 

the hearing. 

RESPONDING TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE’S QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

Senator FEINSTEIN. I have one, and I think it will surprise you. 

Madam Secretary, this committee held the Army Corps fiscal year 

2016 budget hearing last year on February 11, after which members of this subcommittee submitted about 50 questions for the 

record. Believe it or not, we just received the responses to those 

questions yesterday evening, so it took a full year after the hearing 

to get the answers back to us. 

I do not think you find that acceptable, and I do not find it acceptable. So can you help me understand why it took the Corps 

over a year to provide the responses to questions from this subcommittee? 

Ms. DARCY. Senator, it is an unacceptable time, and for that I 

apologize. There is a lengthy review process within the Administration that takes place in order to respond to questions, and it is too 

long. And I will try to come through with a commitment to make 

it a shorter time because I will not be here a year from now, so 

I want to be able to get you the answers to your questions in a 

more timely manner this year. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, let me ask you, what do you think is 

a reasonable response time, because we are going to submit some 

questions from this hearing. And, candidly, I would like them back 

in a couple of weeks because there are issues that are pressing. 

Ms. DARCY. They are answers to questions that you need the answers to in order to formulate your bill. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. That is right. 

Ms. DARCY. And, you know, that happens this summer and this 

fall. I think 3 months is more than enough time for us to be able 

to respond to your questions. 
49 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So are you saying you put a response time 

of 3 months, and that we would have our questions answered in 

3 months? 

Ms. DARCY. That is my goal. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. What do you think? 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, if you had not asked that, I was going 

to. So here is what I think. My guess is that part of the fault lies 

with the Office of Management and Budget. I do not expect you to 

comment on that. But I think here is what we ought to do. I 

think—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, can I? Are you saying the Office of 

Management and Budget reviews the answers to questions? 

Senator ALEXANDER. My guess is they do, right? 

Ms. DARCY. That is correct. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. They do? 

Ms. DARCY. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Yeah, that is the way they work. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Ask her if she could tell us why. 

Ms. DARCY. Okay. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Why? 

Ms. DARCY. Any of the responses that come to Congress from 

agencies are reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Oh, my god. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, I would say to Senator Feinstein, and, 

you know, I would guess that the idea of underfunding the inland 

waterways and the Harbor Maintenance Account did not come from 

the Army Corps of Engineers, but probably came from the budget 

process. And so, here is what I think we should do. 

Three months, Senator McConnell, and he has talked to Senator 

Reid about this. We hope to move rapidly on the appropriations 

process this year. We hope to keep big controversial riders off the 

committee bill. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Good. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And they can debate them on the floor if 

they want to do that, and hopefully Senator Feinstein and I could 

do that. So we are moving pretty fast. This is our second hearing. 

We have got two more, and we would like to be finished by when, 

Tyler? 

[Off audio.] 

No, with the bill. 

Well, he said early May. I am thinking maybe mid-April would 

be—would be better. So 3 months, that is just 6 weeks away. So 

I would suggest Senator Feinstein and I write a letter both to the 

Corps of Engineers and to the Office of Management and Budget 

and say we find this unacceptable. You have said you are going to 

do your best to get answers in at least by 3 months, that we are 

moving on a fast pace on appropriations. And there may be some 

questions that we would like to have an answer to more rapidly 

than that. 

You have got a background of work on the Hill, and we can talk 

with you about that in an informal way. But it is very important 

to us to know your thinking before we write the bill. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes, that is right. 
50 

Senator ALEXANDER. So we will formally write the letter would 

be my suggestion if you would agree. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. That is fine with me. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And then we will ask staff to work with you 

informally on the questions that we think are the most important 

to us as we draft the bill. We would like to be among the first in 

line when we present a bill to Senator McConnell and Senator Reid 

to put on the floor, and I am hoping it is mid-April or not long after 

that when we are finished with the bill. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And I hope that we can keep our questions 

relatively limited to the need for this particular session and our 

budget—our appropriations bill. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Yeah, so we will work with you. I mean, 

Senator Feinstein and I will work with you, and if you say, look, 

I have got 100 questions here, are there 20 that are more important, we will help you—we will help prioritize that. And that will 

be easier for you to give us responses to that. And there may be 

some cases where you could simply give us an oral response. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. That is right. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Just answer a question, and we do not—we 

will not have to go through a lengthy process. Senator Feinstein, 

do you have other questions or comments? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. No, I am fine. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, I want to thank all the witnesses for 

being here today. I am sorry about the voting interrupting, but I 

think we Senators had a chance to ask their questions and to make 

their testimony. We, again, thank Secretary Darcy and General 

Bostick for working with us, especially since this may be their last 

hearing before the subcommittee. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

The hearing record will remain open for 10 days. Members may 

submit additional information or questions for the record within 

that time if they would like. We would like to have all responses 

to questions to be provided within 30 days of receipt. You said 3 

months. For the priority questions or most questions, we would like 

to ask for 30 days. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HON. JO-ELLEN DARCY

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

Question. Currently, the General Reevaluation Report (GRR) and accompanying 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Port of Mobile is ongoing. Together, they are expected to take approximately 4 years to complete, which 

is around 2019 or 2020. Secretary Darcy, can you give me an update on the status 

of this undertaking and what, if anything, can be done to expedite this process? 

Answer. Preparation of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, will 

require consultation with various resource agencies to satisfy the National Environmental Protection Act requirements. Coordination with a wide variety of Federal, 

State, and local agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine 

Fisheries Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the State Historic Preservation Office, etc.) is currently on-going. Coordina-
51 

tion is also ongoing with State and Federal Environmental Agencies to include discussion of the modeling needs of the project and begin the process of identifying realistic beneficial use opportunities for the dredged material from this project. Sediment removed in association with the potential deepening and widening of up to 37 

miles of channel could generate up to 63 million cubic yards of material. Currently, 

the U.S. Army Engineer Research Development Center is collecting data to establish 

the existing and baseline environmental conditions of the project area. The Corps 

has met with the USFWS and work has begun on the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report. Additionally, the documentation of the existing conditions for the 

benefit-cost analysis is complete. This task included gathering economic and demographic data, close review of Mobile Harbor’s operational practices and trends, and 

gathering historical commodity flows and fleet data. Coordination is ongoing with 

the Corps’ Institute of Water Resources and the Port to determine the commodity 

forecast for the Port, which is a critical step in the benefit analysis. 

The proposed study duration was initially 56 months, but has been expedited to 

allow the study to be completed in 48 months. Currently, no additional measures 

have been identified that would allow the study schedule to be further accelerated. 

Question. Assistant Secretary Darcy, an issue of importance to the State of Alabama is the ongoing water dispute involving Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and the 

Army Corps of Engineers. This Committee, included language in the last year’s appropriations bill specific to this issue. In addition, the 2013 WRDA Conference Report contained language in Section 1051 that encouraged the governors of Alabama, 

Florida, and Georgia to reach a compromise to once and for all resolve this matter 

stating that ‘‘[a]bsent such action, the Committees of jurisdiction should consider appropriate legislation to address these matters including any necessary clarifications 

to the Water Supply Act of 1958 or other law.’’ Unfortunately, a resolution to this 

decades long dispute does not seem any closer than when it began. On May 4, 2015, 

the Corps signed a Record of Decision regarding a Water Control Manual (WCM) 

update that applies to the ACT River Basin. Both States of Alabama and Georgia 

have filed lawsuits relating to the ACT WCM, with no resolution in sight. 

Subsequently, on October 2, 2015, the Corps released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) pertaining to the WCM for the ACF River Basin. In comments recently submitted regarding the ACF DEIS, Alabama, Florida, and even the 

Environmental Protection Agency noted multiple concerns that the current proposal 

is contrary to legal rationale, public policy, and prioritizes one State’s water needs 

over others. Assistant Secretary Darcy, can you respond directly to and elaborate 

on the concerns surrounding both the ACT WCM and the proposed ACF WCM? In 

addition, given its troubled history of decisionmaking in both the ACT and ACF basins, wouldn’t it be best to leave such decisions to the affected States to work out 

their difference regarding these basins without unproductive Corps interference, including Federal legislation enabling such, if necessary? 

Answer. The purpose of Water Control Manuals is to determine how Federal 

projects should be operated for their authorized purposes, in light of current conditions and applicable law. The Corps commenced its most recent efforts to update 

the master water control manuals for the systems of Federal improvements in the 

Alabama, Coosa, and Tallapoosa (ACT) and Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint 

(ACF) River Basins in October 2007 and January 2008, respectively. The purpose 

of the updates is to reflect changes in water usage and best practices about water 

resource management. 

The water control manual updates will not determine how the waters of either 

basin will be allocated among the States. However, the Department of the Army has 

continuously expressed to the Governors of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia the 

Army’s willingness, within the limits of its authority, to adjust the operation of the 

Corps projects in the ACT and ACF systems to accommodate any allocation of waters within those basins upon which the three States agree, and to provide technical 

assistance if requested by the States in reaching an agreement. 

The Corps is currently in the process of reviewing public comments submitted on 

the draft EIS and water control manuals for the ACF basin. The Corps is considering all comments, and is committed to working with State and Federal agencies 

and stakeholders to address concerns. A final EIS and approval of the updated ACF 

master manual are anticipated by March 2017. 
52 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

VETERANS AFFAIRS CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Question. Secretary Darcy, the 2016 Defense Authorization Act directed the Department of Veterans Affairs to work with the Army Corps to make the VA construction process more efficient, and Congress provided an additional $100 million 

to compensate the Corps for this new mandate. 

There are four critical seismic safety projects at California VA facilities (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Long Beach, and San Diego) that will be part of this new construction partnership between the Army Corps and the VA, and I want to ensure 

that they proceed as quickly as possible, given the seismic risk in California. 

When do you expect to execute the joint agreement with the VA regarding the 

new collaboration? 

Answer. The Corps and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have already entered into the initial Inter-Agency Agreements (IAA) for two of the four of the 

projects in question. The San Francisco IAA was signed on November 13, 2015 and 

the Long Beach IAA was signed on February 4, 2016. The agreements for the two 

remaining projects, West Los Angeles Buildings 205/208 and San Diego are expected 

to be signed in the coming months. As the projects proceed towards construction 

award this will require the agencies to modify these IAAs. 

The Corps will make every effort to process IAA modifications in a timely manner 

and ensure that these projects are completed efficiently. The Corps will remain vigilant to avoid unnecessary cost growth and incorporate sound engineering practices 

to protect public safety. 

Question. Do you have a specific timeline for when seismic safety projects in California can proceed? 

Answer. Based on an initial assessment of the projects, the Corps is forecasting 

a spring 2017 construction award for most portions of the Long Beach, San Francisco, San Diego, and West Los Angeles projects. San Diego and West Los Angeles 

projects were already completely designed under contract by the VA, and Long 

Beach and San Francisco are anticipated to have completed designs in June 2016 

and November 2016, respectively. The construction award date in spring 2017 is a 

forecast, because the Corps must also perform a Design and Cost Validation process 

in order to accept these projects. Once the Corps completes this process, and they 

are satisfied that the technical solution, design and construction approach, and cost 

is appropriate, they can work to solicit and award the projects. As the Corps continues with this assessment phase of the individual project designs, they will refine 

schedules accordingly with the intent of saving time, where possible, while still implementing sound engineering practices. The duration for construction completion 

for each project is still pending further evaluation and will be based on the required 

work for each of the facilities. 

Question. How will you ensure that the new collaboration does not introduce 

lengthy delays into the process? 

Answer. There have been many discussions between the VA and the Corps to reduce delays and gain efficiencies where practicable. On the other hand, the new collaboration may itself lead to some delay in execution. Introducing a new responsible 

design and construction agent requires that the agency assume many significant responsibilities; the Corps must ensure that the work already done meets public safety needs, application of sound engineering practices, and code requirements, and 

that in entering into this collaboration, it does so with a goal of achieving and managing cost and schedule expectations. Public safety, sound engineering, the maintenance of professional relationships, and the appropriate due diligence to cost and 

execution issues are paramount. The Corps assessment process evaluates the technical solution and design approach, estimated construction cost, and forecasted construction duration to ensure that expectations are met and public safety is assured. 

The Corps understands that many areas of California have seismic risks, and will 

work with the VA to mitigate risk and avoid unnecessary delays. 

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE

Question. The San Francisco Bay region is extremely vulnerable to rising sea levels as a result of climate change. Nearly 200 square miles of the communities in 

the region sit in low-lying areas along the shoreline, including some that are more 

than 13 feet below sea level. 

The South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study was originally authorized by Congress in 2002, but the Chief’s Report was only just completed in December of 2015, 

more than a decade later. 
53 

Secretary Darcy, as you well know, this project is very important to me. It will 

restore 2,900 acres of former salt ponds, create a new recreation area, and construct 

a four mile long levee to protect homes, high-tech businesses, and the new Silicon 

Valley water purification center. This work is very important to the local economy, 

safety, and quality of life for my constituents. 

I want to thank you for including $3 million in the fiscal year 2016 work plan 

for pre- construction engineering and design work for Phase 1 of the project. 

What is the timeline for this step in the process, and when do you expect the 

project to be ready for construction? 

Answer. The next scheduled milestone is execution of a Design Agreement for 

Preconstruction, Engineering and Design (PED) with the non-Federal partners. The 

current schedule identifies completion of PED by September 2017. 

Question. How long do you estimate Phase 1 construction will take? 

Answer. The Corps estimates that it would take around 4 years to construct phase 

I of this project once physical construction begins, assuming the availability of funding at the maximum level that the Corps can efficiently and effectively use for this 

project. 

Question. Do you plan to prioritize funding the in fiscal year 2017 work plan for 

studies for the next phase of this project? 

Answer. Should the Congress provide additional funding for which this study of 

the next proposed phase of this project would qualify, the study would be considered 

for funding in the 2017 Corps work plan along with other programs, projects, and 

activities across the Nation in competition for the available Federal resources. 

CALIFORNIA DROUGHT AND ARMY CORPS ‘‘BIG PICTURE’’ 

Question. California’s population has grown to 40 million people according to recent census data. However, the State’s water infrastructure is largely unchanged 

from when it was built 50 years ago when California was home to only 16 million 

people. 

The drought in California is a powerful example of how important it is for our 

country to keep up with changing water infrastructure needs. 

I understand that the Army Corps has conducted a large-scale study to assess 

flood risks and ecosystem restoration opportunities in California’s Central Valley 

and in the Delta. 

I also understand that there have been studies of individual watersheds in and 

around the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. 

Given continuing population growth and more unpredictable weather as a result 

of climate change, it is more important than ever that the Federal Government 

looks at water infrastructure in a ‘‘big picture’’ way rather than on an individual 

study-by-study basis. 

Secretary Darcy, what steps has the Corps taken to look at water infrastructure 

in a holistic way and ensure that different individual projects are incorporated into 

a ‘‘big picture’’ understanding of future needs? 

Answer. California’s water resources management challenges are complex. As the 

Corps carries out its missions of flood and storm damage reduction, commercial 

navigation, and aquatic ecosystem restoration in this State, we are mindful that 

tens of millions of people live and work there. 

In Northern California, an example of a Corps effort in support of watershed-level 

planning is the Sacramento and San Joaquin Comprehensive Basin Study (also 

known as the Central Valley Integrated Flood Management Study (CVIFMS)), 

which focuses on the Sacramento River Basin. CVIFMS is intended to be a Federal 

companion to the California Department of Water Resources’ Central Valley Flood 

Protection Plan, which is the State’s plan for long-term sustainable flood management in the Central Valley. The goals of CVIFMS are to: 

—Develop and share a consistent and mutually complementary system-wide strategy for flood risk reduction and environmental stewardship with the State of 

California; 

—Provide a blueprint to connect water resources management actions across the 

Sacramento, Yuba, American, and Feather River watersheds. 

In evaluating water resources options in the Sacramento River Basin, the Corps 

is building on earlier studies, such as the American River Common Features and 

West Sacramento General Reevaluation Reports, and the Sutter Basin Feasibility 

Study, to update the system’s multi-purpose performance baseline. The Corps work 

on CVIFMS continues to inform other studies, such as the Sacramento River General Reevaluation Study which began in July 2015, and has enabled the Corps to 

strategically align many of its regional, interagency activities. 
54 

In Southern California, the Corps is currently working with the Responses to Climate Change team and in particular with regard to impacts to Corps’ projects due 

to extreme drought. A Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) Project Delivery Team 

(PDT) is working to assess the applicability of current available Drought Contingency Plans documents, as well as the need for updating these documents. The DCP 

PDT consists of Corps personnel nation-wide, with at least one representative from 

each Division. This endeavor to derive updated guidance for preparation of DCPs 

is still ongoing. 

Question. When evaluating projects, particularly in California, does the Corps consider how they impact the State’s overall water supply infrastructure and needs? 

Answer. The Corps’ role in water resources management is focused on its three 

main missions—flood and storm damage reduction, commercial navigation, and 

aquatic ecosystem restoration. The Bureau of Reclamation has responsibility for the 

Federal Government’s involvement in water supply planning and operations in California. 

However, the Corps is cognizant of California’s significant water supply challenges. While Corps studies and projects focus on its three main mission areas, the 

Corps works with the Bureau of Reclamation, the California Department of Water 

Resources, as well as other Federal, State, and local agencies, in order to ensure 

the Corps work in California complements their effort on water supply. 

An example of this coordination is the Joint Federal Project at Folsom Dam. This 

project is a cooperative effort between the Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Once completed, it will help to further reduce the flood risk in the Sacramento region; and at the same time, Reclamation (which is the owner and operator of the 

dam) will have more flexibility in maintaining water storage levels at the Dam. 

Also, at the request of the non-Federal sponsors, the Corps is currently working 

on two Feasibility Studies to conserve water for Whittier Narrows Dam and Prado 

Dam. The dams’ original authorization are for flood control, however the Feasibility 

Studies will look at water conservation opportunities such as permanent changes to 

dam operations and the timing of water releases following storm events. Constraints 

for these studies include ongoing dam safety issues as well as the inherent flood risk 

in these areas with unpredictable flash flooding. The local sponsor for the Whittier 

Narrows Dam Water Conservation Feasibility Study is the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. The Prado Basin Ecosystem Restoration and Water Conservation Study is a dual-purpose study that includes both aquatic ecosystem restoration and options for a change to the water control plan for water conservation 

year-round at a higher elevation at Prado Dam. The local sponsor for the Prado 

Basin study is the Orange County Water District. 

Question. Does the Corps have a system-wide strategy to address water and ecosystem problems in the Sacramento—San Joaquin River Delta? 

Answer. The Corps Central Valley Integrated Flood Management Study (CVIFMS) 

is exploring options for system-wide flood risk management and ecosystem restoration strategy in the Sacramento River Basin, the San Joaquin River Basin, and the 

Bay-Delta. As mentioned above, the first phase of CVIFMS focuses on the Sacramento River Basin, while the next phase would focus on the San Joaquin River 

Basin. 

ARMY CORPS PROJECTS AND WATER SUPPLY

Question. Secretary Darcy, I understand that the Corp’s primary mission is flood 

protection. However, there are many instances in which flood protection projects 

also impact other important issues like water storage and ecosystem restoration. 

For example, seismic retrofits on a dam can also be used to raise the height of 

a dam and store more water. Better forecasting of impending storms can result in 

more scientific decisions on when to release water from a reservoir and when to hold 

it, potentially providing water supply benefits. 

Secretary Darcy, how does the potential for these ‘‘win-win’’ type of outcomes influence the Corps’ internal policies and evaluation of projects? 

Answer. The Corps agrees that projects do not necessarily have to be constrained 

to benefit only one purpose. The Corps seeks to achieve multiple public benefits at 

individual projects to maximize returns on Federal, State, and local investments. 

The Corps has extensive experience managing reservoirs for multiple project purposes throughout the United States, but the consideration of multiple project purposes is a matter of making trade-offs. Currently, the Sacramento River General Reevaluation Report underway is investigating both flood risk reduction and ecosystem 

restoration opportunities in the lower Sacramento River Basin. 

With regard to reservoir operations, the Corps incorporates flexibility to consider 

other objectives like water supply storage when applicable. The Corps has always 
55 

relied on weather forecasting as one of a wide range of factors to determine when 

reservoir releases should be made or held back to meet its public safety mission and 

other objectives. Improved forecasting has allowed the Corps to adapt and be more 

agile in responding to changing conditions. 

The Corps water control manuals are not static, and are continuously examined 

to determine if revisions are necessary based on engineering manuals and regulations. In addition, especially during times of significant drought, the Corps may 

allow for temporary deviations of water control manuals in order to increase water 

supply through conservation measures. As discussed below (Question #6), the Corps 

has almost completed the Folsom Water Control Manual Update project for the Folsom Dam; the update incorporates the use of forecasts in flood release operations. 

Lessons learned at Folsom, as well as at Lake Mendocino, could inform operations 

at other projects, and help the Corps and its partners achieve the multiple purposes 

that these reservoirs serve. 

The Corps will continue to consider and evaluate opportunities for multi-purpose 

water management strategies at both Corps-owned and operated dams and those 

‘‘Section 7’’ dams where the Corps may not own or operate the facility but has purchased flood pool space and provides oversight in accordance with the Water Control 

Manual, in consultation with stakeholders, and in accordance with law and policy. 

Question. Are there any legislative barriers that hinder the Corps in assisting 

with drought mitigation, especially in light of the ongoing investments the Army 

Corps is making in California water infrastructure from a flood control and ecosystem restoration standpoint? 

Answer. No. There are no legislative barriers. The Corps is closely coordinating 

with other Federal, State, and local partners to determine how they can help support other agencies’ objectives—such as water storage and supply —while operating 

within its defined main missions, which are flood and storm damage reduction, commercial navigation, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. 

For example, 15 Federal, State, and local agencies have agreed to coordinate with 

one another to identify and potentially implement compatible Federal and non-Federal actions in the Yolo Bypass to achieve multiple public benefits, including flood 

risk reduction, fish and wildlife habitat restoration, water quality and supply improvements, agricultural land preservation, recreation. 

Question. In general, what is the Corps doing to help with drought conditions in 

California? 

Answer. The Corps has collaborated and communicated with the State, resulting 

in conservation measures in some California reservoirs, which, in turn, has helped 

to mitigate the effects of the drought on urban, agricultural, and environmental sectors. 

Below are some of the Corps ongoing activities: 

Water Management.—The operations manuals for many Corps dams includes a 

specific subset of instructions for drought conditions that allow flexibility in making 

flood releases from the Corps ‘‘flood control space’’ while the drought continues. The 

Corps water management team is fully engaged with other State and Federal agencies regarding operations and conditions, and is responsible for responding to deviation requests from our local water partners at Corps-owned dams. Water releases 

are closely coordinated and managed with local water users, power generating partners, and the Corps water management team, including times when drought conditions dictate that water releases fall below required or recommended flows. 

Emergency Operations.—Under the Flood Control and Coastal Emergency Act 

(Public Law 84- 99, as amended), the Corps can provide emergency water assistance 

due to drought. The Corps has the authority to transport emergency water supplies 

of clean drinking water for human consumption to any locality designated as a 

drought distressed area. Affected localities also have the option of purchasing storage space where available at Corps reservoirs. Also, the Corps is authorized to construct wells in drought distressed areas if the option is not commercially available. 

Regulatory Division.—During drought conditions, local water interests may consider temporary and permanent measures to improve water extraction such as 

pumps, siphons, wells, and dredging. Most activities fall under the Corps Nationwide Permit Program or the District’s general permit for emergency actions, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act. 

In some emergency situations, procedures may be approved by the Corps to issue 

a permit more quickly following informal coordination with resource agencies. For 

example, the Corps expedited a permit that allowed the California Department of 

Water Resources to construct a large temporary drought barrier in June 2015 to 

hold back saltwater from the interior Delta, and thus protect its freshwater supply. 
56 

Contracting.—PL 84–99 emergency response requests typically come with a contracting component—such as contracting for emergency services, supplies, construction, or system design. Contracting Division has the authority to streamline the contracting process where appropriate. Additionally, the Corps could modify existing 

contracts to change water use or conservation measures at our sites. 

Real Estate Division.—Where needed, the Real Estate Division is authorized to 

procure land or buildings that might be needed to store water for pumping or for 

staging water bottle distribution. 

The Corps currently has a deviation to the water control plan in effect for Whittier Narrows Dam for the purpose of water conservation. Last flood season the 

Corps had a short-term deviation in effect for Prado Dam and the Corps is considering a request for a 5-year deviation for Prado Dam. The deviations allow the 

Corps to impound additional water for water conservation purposes. In fiscal year 

2016, Whittier Narrows Dam conserved 1,300 acre-feet of water from the deviation. 

Similarly, Prado Dam conserved 7,300 acre-feet. 

BENEFICIAL USE OF CLEAN DREDGE MATERIAL

Question. I understand that more than 400 ports and 25,000 miles of navigation 

channels are dredged throughout the United States to keep ship traffic operating 

efficiently. The operations and maintenance of our ports falls under the jurisdiction 

of the Army Corps of Engineers. 

Aquatic ecosystem restoration is also a critical mission of the Army Corps. Coastal 

resilience projects, like wetland construction, often require additional clean sediment material. This is true in many places all along the California coastline. 

It seems to me that there is an opportunity here for a ‘‘win-win’’ scenario by using 

clean material dredged from ports for ecosystem restoration projects that have a 

need for additional dredged material. 

Secretary Darcy, does the Corps have a process for pairing up projects so that material dredged from one project can be used in a second project? 

Answer. Yes. There is coordination across Corps mission areas that can reduce 

overall costs. The beneficial use of dredged material is considered when and where 

practicable. The Corps also has a Regional Sediment Management Program to establish regional management strategies and link sediment management actions at 

authorized Corps projects. Management activities with other Federal agencies, 

State, and local governments are coordinated within the boundaries of physical systems, including inland watersheds, rivers, estuaries, and the coast. 

Question. Given the need for dredged material in ecosystem restoration projects, 

does the Army Corps currently view dredged material as a resource, rather than 

just as a waste product from waterways? 

Answer. Yes. The Corps considers dredged material as a resource and has been 

using dredged material beneficially for decades. There are numerous examples of 

the Corps using dredged material to nourish eroding shorelines and create offshore 

berms to reduce wave energy and provide a sand source for littoral drift. Dredged 

material has also been used to create wetlands, oyster reefs, submerged aquatic 

vegetation, bird islands, and other aquatic habitat, as well as to restore Brownfields, 

cap landfills, and enrich soil for agriculture. Dredged material has even been used 

as a construction product. Examples include restoration of the Middle Harbor Enhancement Area using dredged material from the Oakland Harbor project; construction of the Senator Paul S. Sarbanes Poplar Island Ecosystem Restoration project 

with dredged material from the Baltimore Harbor & Channels project; restoration 

of wetlands in the Mississippi River Delta using dredged material from the Mississippi River Baton Rouge to the Gulf project; and the use of sand from many coastal projects to re-nourish beaches and reduce erosion. While many of these beneficial 

use alternatives can be costly, some can be accomplished as the least cost alternative. 

Question. Are there any barriers to using dredge materials more productively 

other than cost? 

Answer. There are many factors that must be considered in deciding whether or 

not dredged material can be used beneficially, and where the material can be 

placed. These include, but are not limited to, the type of material (whether it is 

sandy, rocky, fine- grained, etc.), whether or not there is contamination in the 

dredged material, the needs of any biological resources that would be benefitted, 

time of year restrictions for the dredging and placement activities, and type and 

availability of equipment required to place the material. For instance, it is not good 

practice to use fine-grained or contaminated material to re-nourish beaches or create 

oyster bars. 
57 

UPDATING DAM OPERATION MANUALS

Question. The technical decisions made by reservoir operators regarding when to 

release water have become particularly important during the prolonged California 

drought. We want to make sure that we are not wasting even a single drop of water 

by releasing it when we don’t have to. 

In California, I understand that many regions receive a large portion of their annual rainfall from intense, but geographically narrow storm events called Atmospheric Rivers. 

It seems to me that if we are better able to predict these storm events and the 

amount of precipitation they bring, we would be able to make more informed decisions about how we operate and manage our dams and reservoirs. 

I believe this is another instance of bureaucratic inertia rather than prioritization 

of the latest science. We must ensure that the Federal Government is actually using 

the latest science to make informed water decisions. 

Secretary Darcy, how is the Corps incorporating the latest science regarding Atmospheric Rivers into the way it operates dams? 

Answer. The Corps is closely following the latest science on Atmospheric Rivers. 

In operating Corps-owned dams, and in managing flood releases at Section 7 dams, 

the Corps has incorporated the latest science. Corps dams are designed for extreme 

weather events. Given the fact that the Corps dams are designed for the extreme 

events, the agency must also balance the needs for flood control and other authorized purposes, relying heavily on several tools to ensure that the water conservation 

efforts do not compromise the safety of the dam. Such tools include: (1) Weather 

forecasts from the National Weather Service and private weather contractors; (2) 

Flow forecasts from the River Forecast Center; and (3) Corps Water Management 

System (CWMS) numerical models that can predict the water level at the dams 

from forecasted precipitation. 

The Corps continues to evaluate its portfolio of dams with regard to risk and vulnerability to an array of potential scenarios that might impact the overall safety of 

the facilities. This could be attributed to a host of factors, including extreme design 

events and loading scenarios, as well as hydrologic and seismic events, and pertinent maintenance challenges associated with aging infrastructure. One of the contributing factors that is evaluated is the development of inflow frequency curves 

that explore the full range of loading conditions (including extreme events). This 

will help dam operators estimate how frequently the extreme events occur at each 

dam and how those loading events influence decisions with respect to Federal investment strategies to address infrastructure needs. Specifically, the Corps has almost completed the Folsom Water Control Manual Update project which is incorporating the use of forecasts in the flood release operations rule set for that Section 

7 reservoir. 

The Corps is currently participating in a 5-year research study to investigate use 

of the latest science in forecasting of the Atmospheric Rivers. If promising, the results of the study could be incorporated into operation of reservoirs. The study is 

known as the Forecast-Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO) research in Lake 

Mendocino, and it is a pilot study that would use atmospheric river (advanced 

hydro-meteorological) forecasting data to inform water management decisions in a 

manner which reflects current and forecasted conditions. The study was scoped in 

2014, and began in 2015. The research is projected to be a 5-year effort, and the 

results may indicate whether this technology can be applied in actual operations of 

certain projects. The Corps is participating in this pilot project with a consortium 

led by Scripps Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes, along with the 

Sonoma County Water Agency, California Department of Water Resources and State 

Climate Office, Bureau of Reclamation, NOAA’s National Weather Service, Earth 

Systems Research Laboratory, and Restoration Center, USGS, and the private sector. 

Question. How does the Corps prioritize which dam operations manuals need to 

be updated and when? 

Answer. Updates are prioritized based on several factors, such as significance of 

the changes to original design components, operations, hydrology, environmental 

changes and/or a need to evaluate proposed changes to existing water control plans, 

vulnerability of the populations downstream of the dam, and interest from downstream partners. Prioritization of water control manual updates must also be made 

alongside other competing demands within the Corps budget. 

Question. What is the Army Corps’ basis for refusing to accept non-Federal contributions to pay for upgrades to these flood control manuals? 

Answer. The Corps can—and does—accept funding to update manuals for Corpsoperated and maintained dams. Paragraph (5)(B) of Section 1046(a) in WRRDA 
58 

2014 states, ‘‘The Secretary [of the Army] may accept and expend amounts from 

non-Federal entities and other Federal agencies to carry out this subsection and reviews of project operations or activities resulting from those reviews.’’ This only applies to projects that are ‘‘operated and maintained by the Secretary [of the Army]’’, 

meaning projects operated and maintained by the Corps of Engineers. Section 1046 

does not allow the Corps to accept funds for projects operated and maintained by 

other agencies. 

Question. How is the Corps ensuring that rigid water release schedules do not undermine other Federal efforts to increase water storage? 

Answer. The Corps uses operational flexibility afforded by the water control 

manuals to store water for the longest period of time possible, helping meet the 

needs of partners without compromising the flood control mission. The water release 

schedules prescribed by the Corps consider the most recent forecasts available as 

well as the results of coordination with our partners. Water release schedules are 

reevaluated on a 6-hour basis during flood events and daily during non-flood events 

to ensure that changes to the reservoir, stakeholder concerns, and forecasts are appropriately considered. The Corps also has a process for deviations from control 

plans, outlined in ‘‘Guidance on the Preparation of Deviations from Approved Water 

Control Plans,’’ Regulation No. 10–1–04, dated 18 December 2014. This allows the 

Corps to operate reservoirs to meet flood control requirements while considering 

other objectives, such as increased water storage. 

Question. How has California’s drought affected the Corps’ management of Federal dams? 

Answer. In general, the drought decreased the amount of water coming into and 

being stored in Corps reservoirs, which reduced the number of occasions where 

water was released solely for flood control reasons. It has also showcased the importance of coordination with partners, especially when the storage levels in the reservoirs entered the flood control space. Consistent communication between the 

Corps and its partners has helped keep all parties aware of upcoming water demands, inflow and precipitation forecasts, and changes to reservoir release schedules. 

Question. When updating operation manuals, is the Corps accounting for its other 

missions, like aquatic ecosystem restoration, to ensure that water storage and releases benefit the California water system in multiple ways? 

Answer. The Army Corps always considers its missions and the reservoirs’ authorized purposes, including when updating water control manuals. The Corps works 

collaboratively with Federal and non-Federal partners to update water control 

manuals to identify and incorporate benefits for different missions, and Corps partners have opportunities to provide comments before any documents are finalized. 

MERCED ARMY CORPS PROJECT

Question. Merced County, a rural county in California, has been struggling for 

years to complete project elements of the Merced Streams Group that was authorized in 1944. One major project element of the Merced Streams Group that is yet 

to be completed is a flood control system on the Black Rascal Watershed. 

It is my understanding that the project has remained stalled due scarce Federal 

resources, delays, and errors on the part of Corps district staff. 

In 2013, the Corps advised Merced County that it could use local dollars to move 

forward with a cost share agreement. In 2015, however, the Corps reversed its position and said only Federal funds could be used. 

Secretary Darcy, can you explain the current situation with Merced County and 

what needs to be changed to allow them to use local dollars to advance the project? 

Answer. Pursuant to the Corps’ contributed funds authority (33 U.S.C. 701h), the 

Corps may accept such funds only if Federal funds have been appropriated for the 

study. That has not occurred because studies elsewhere in the Nation were considered a higher priority for the available Federal funds. In addition, the proposed 

work was considered in formulation of the original Merced County project authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944 (Public Law 78–534). It was not part of the 

recommended plan due to concerns involving impacts to federally listed species. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

Question. Assistant Secretary Darcy, on February 11, 2016, I sent you a letter 

signed by 13 of my colleagues asking the Army Corps to finalize and publish implementation guidance for Section 2106 of the Water Resources and Development Act 

(WRRDA). WRRDA was signed into law in June 2014. This Subcommittee secured 

$25 million in funding for Section 2106 in the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus Appropria-
59 

tions bill. And yet, the Army Corps has still not completed implementation guidance. It is critical that this is done as soon as possible so that eligible ports have 

access to the appropriated funding and can maximize the effectiveness of Section 

2106. When do you expect to issue guidance for Section 2106? Has the Army Corps 

met with eligible ports to understand how Section 2106 funds could be maximized 

on a port by port basis? 

Answer. The Corps expects to finalize implementation guidance for Section 2106 

in the coming months. Individual Corps districts coordinated with eligible ports to 

determine how they would utilize the Section 2106 funds. In addition, the Corps 

Headquarters has been working to develop criteria to allocate those funds, in consultation with the American Association of Port Authorities. Corps Headquarters 

has also been consulting with U. S. Customs and Border Protection on how payments will be made to shippers and importers in those cases where ports elect to 

provide those payments. 

Question. Congress created Section 2106 so that donor ports and energy transfer 

ports can better address competitiveness by maintaining infrastructure through expanded uses and environmental remediation and by establishing a rebate program 

for importers and shippers to reduce cargo diversion to non-U.S. gateways. It is critical that the Army Corps provide ports the necessary flexibility to target the rebate 

program to cargo that is most at risk of diversion to non-U.S. ports. How will the 

Army Corps work with eligible ports to address cargo diversion? With respect to infrastructure improvements through expanded uses and environmental remediation 

projects, how will the Army Corps ensure eligible ports can define project parameters and contract the work themselves to ensure timely and cost effective project 

delivery? 

Answer. Section 2106 specifies that payments may be provided to importers entering cargo or shippers transporting cargo through that port. The Corps has no authority to provide ports the flexibility to target the rebate program to cargo that is 

most at risk of diversion to non-U.S. ports. The Corps will issue implementation 

guidance and work with the ports to define the process and infrastructure improvements under expanded uses and environmental remediation projects, whether the 

ports decide to perform the work themselves or have the Corps perform the work 

for them. 

Question. Washington State is the leading shellfish producing State in the Nation, 

employing over 2,700 people around the State, including in rural areas. The Army 

Corps, through the Seattle District, regulates the shellfish industry under Clean 

Water Act and Endangered Species Act authorities. In 2007, the Army Corps adopted Nationwide Permit 48 (NWP 48) to permit existing shellfish farms, and an updated NWP 48 was adopted in 2012 to cover shellfish farms through March 2017. 

Since 2007 and the initial NWP 48, Washington growers have submitted approximately 1,000 requests for NWP 48 verification. I am very concerned by reports that 

none of these requests have been approved. 

The commercial shellfish industry contributes over $184 million annually to the 

Washington State economy, and shellfish are important economically and culturally 

to tribal and non- tribal harvesters. In all industries, including shellfish growing, 

certainty for participants is important for success. I understand that the Army 

Corps is working with Federal partners, including the National Marine Fisheries 

Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to complete action on Endangered Species Act permitting requirements through a Programmatic Biological Assessment. 

Can you provide me with an update on when this process will be completed? How 

does the Army Corps plan to communicate with the regulated community as the 

Programmatic Biological Assessment is being finalized and once the regulations 

have been implemented on how they can obtain verifications? 

Answer. At this time, a Section 7 ESA consultation is underway between the 

Corps and the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(the Services) for aquaculture activities. This consultation is the result of several 

years of coordination among the Corps and the Services. Once this consultation is 

completed, many activities with pending requests for verification under NWP 48 

may be verified. Any automatic verification of the pending projects before completion of this consultation would not be compliant with the Endangered Species Act 

or the ‘‘endangered species’’ general condition for the NWPs. Both the Services have 

indicated they will complete their consultations this spring. 

Question. I also understand the Army Corps is reviewing options to update regulations of shellfish growers under the Clean Water Act. As this effort continues and 

potential pathways are explored, can you share your plan for communication and 

engagement with interested stakeholders, including the State of Washington, Federal agencies, shellfish growers, and tribes? Increased transparency and communication with interested parties, including explanations of regulatory authority under 
60 

the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act, are of great interest to me and 

I ask that you submit an update and expected timelines on these efforts to me in 

writing. 

Answer. Following receipt of the final Biological Opinions, the Corps’ Seattle District intends to host an open house to explain to shellfish growers and all other interested parties the conditions of the Biological Opinions and the next steps for the 

pending applications. 

Question. The Amy Corps, through the Northwest Division, plays an important 

day-to-day role in implementing the Columbia River Treaty as a member of the U.S. 

Entity. The U.S. Entity engaged in a multi-year process with tribal nations and domestic stakeholders throughout the Pacific Northwest to reach a regional consensus 

to modernize the Columbia River Treaty. The ‘‘Regional Recommendation for the 

Future of the Columbia River Treaty after 2024’’ was presented to the Administration in December 2013, and the Administration has since developed a high-level consensus position for negotiations with Canada based upon these recommendations. 

Twice the entire Northwest Congressional Delegation wrote the Administration 

asking to begin formal negotiations with Canada. Unfortunately, we keep being told 

negotiations could begin soon and little progress has been made. 

Assistant Secretary Darcy, my constituents are greatly concerned about the impacts a change in Administration may have on these negotiations. I urge you to encourage the Administration to begin formal negotiation with Canada as soon as possible. 

Answer. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northwestern Division Commander, 

as a member of the U.S. Entity for the Columbia River Treaty, has informed the 

Department of State that the U.S. Entity is ready to support and assist in the negotiations with Canada on the future of the Columbia River Treaty. 

Question. Assistant Secretary Darcy, as we have previously discussed, the Mud 

Mountain Dam project is of great importance to me, my constituents, and Washington State. I appreciate the time and energy you have put into finding a path forward with NOAA to ensure the Army Corps meets its Endangered Species Act and 

tribal trust responsibilities by replacing the diversion dam and building a new fish 

trap facility. 

While I am pleased that the fiscal year 2017 budget request provides $22.35 million and a construction new start for Mud Mountain Dam, I firmly believe this 

project is not a new start. Similar projects have not been subject to this hurdle, for 

example the Columbia River Fish Mitigation and Missouri River Recovery Program 

projects. Replacing the old barrier structure and fish trap facility is a continuation 

of the Army Corps’ Endangered Species Act and tribal trust responsibilities and are 

simply requirements to mitigate the original construction and ongoing operation of 

Mud Mountain Dam for flood control. 

Assistant Secretary Darcy, how is the Mud Mountain Dam project different than 

the Columbia River Fish Mitigation or Missouri River Recovery Program? Can you 

explain why a Biological Opinion which will bring an existing Army Corps project 

into compliance is a new start? Further, I ask that you work with me to ensure 

there are no funding gaps for this critical project if Congress passes a Continuing 

Resolution before a full-year fiscal year 2017 appropriations measure. 

Answer. Multiple construction actions have been occurring over numerous years 

on the Columbia and Missouri in an effort to mitigate the impacts of ongoing operation of Federal projects to threatened and endangered species and their habitat, 

while at Mud Mountain Dam the plan is to initiate new construction to replace a 

100-year old facility. The Mud Mountain Dam was determined to be a new start due 

to the scope and cost of this new investment. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN

Question. After many years of strong support from the Army Corps, there was no 

funding for continuation of construction of the McCook Reservoir of the Chicagoland 

Underflow Plan in the Administration’s fiscal year 2017 Budget. The project was authorized in 1988, and the Army Corps’ own documentation since then shows that 

it has always been considered one flood protection project, and it has consistently 

received funding. The reservoir provides $100 million in annual benefits to 3.1 million people in 37 counties, including the City of the Chicago. It is 65 percent complete, and enjoys a three to one benefit cost ratio. Stopping construction of this 

project does not make sense. 

Why was funding discontinued in the President’s budget? Will you commit to 

seeking its inclusion in the Army Corps’ fiscal year 2017 work plan? 
61 

Answer. The 2016 Corps work plan added $5 million above the Budget level in 

order to provide the full amount that the Corps estimated it would need to complete 

‘‘Stage I’’ of the McCook Reservoir project. The December 2011 consent decree with 

EPA and the Department of Justice requires the Metropolitan Water Reclamation 

District of Greater Chicago (MWRD) to ensure that the first of two McCook Reservoirs is in operation by December 31, 2017. The focus of the Corps funding to date 

has been to help MWRD meet its December 31, 2017 deadline by constructing part 

of the infrastructure called for in the consent decree. The Corps has now funded all 

of the authorized Federal share of that work, which will enable MWRD to collect 

and hold combined sewer overflow in this reservoir during a storm. 

The 2017 Budget does not include funding for ‘‘Stage II’’ of the McCook Reservoir 

project. Should the Congress provide additional funding for which this project would 

qualify, this project would be considered for funding in the 2017 Corps work plan 

along with other programs, projects, and activities across the Nation in competition 

for the available Federal resources. 

Question. Investment in flood prevention in the Metro East region, including protecting our levees, is vital to protecting Metro East communities. 

Will the Assistant Secretary commit continued open dialogue with the local Flood 

Prevention District? Will the Assistant Secretary commit to providing regular updates to me or my staff as they happen? 

Answer. The Metro East levee system consists of 75.8 miles of levees located in 

Madison, St. Clair, and Monroe Counties in Illinois. The Corps is working on this 

project with the Southwestern Illinois Flood Protection District Council (FPD) and 

the local levee districts to reduce the risk of under-seepage at these levees. The 

Corps welcomes the views of all interested parties, including the FPD, the local 

levee districts, and the public. Should the FPD or the local levee districts have any 

questions or concerns, they may contact the Corps at the district office, division, or 

headquarters levels, or my staff. The Corps provides periodic updates to my office 

on this project. I would be happy to work with you and your staff as well, in order 

to help keep you informed of the project status. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO LIEUTENANT GENERAL THOMAS P. BOSTICK

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JAMES LANKFORD

Question. Section 1024 of WRRDA provides that the Corps can accept materials 

and services from a non-Federal entity in an emergency situation if the Secretary 

deems it to be in the public interest. Considering maintenance needs of Corps assets 

system-wide, this would seem to be a good opportunity to leverage stakeholder resources. It is my understanding that this section has not yet been implemented. 

Does the Corps have draft implementation guidelines yet? Could we have a copy? 

Answer. The Corps is currently preparing implementation guidance for Section 

1024 of WRRDA 2014. 

Question. Has this information been shared with stakeholders that depend on waterway systems to ensure it is workable from the private partner perspective? 

Answer. The Corps has discussed this provision with interested stakeholders. 

Their input is being taken into consideration during the preparation of the implementation guidance. 

Question. How does the Corps interpret ‘‘emergency’’? With substantial maintenance needs across the system, it is very possible that failures could occur outside 

of a situation in which there is an emergency declaration. Would these types of failures be eligible for private repair funding? 

Answer. Section 1024 authorizes the acceptance of materials and services to repair, restore, or replace a water resources development project that has been damaged or destroyed as a result of an emergency. Section 1024 is not limited to situations where there has been an emergency declaration by the President. 

The Corps does not view Section 1024 as allowing the Corps to accept services 

or materials to address general repair and maintenance needs. However, the Corps 

is authorized under 33 U.S.C. 701h to accept contributed funds from non-Federal 

public entities and from nonprofit entities, with the consent of the affected local 

Government, for that purpose. 

Question. Has the Corps settled how to handle issues regarding who liable for 

damage or injuries caused during emergency repairs using private funds? Do you 

have all the authority you need to settle questions over liability and licensing? 

Answer. Yes, we have all the authority needed to resolve questions over liability 

and licensing. Based on discussions with stakeholders, we expect to be able to address this concern. 
62 

Question. What is the timeline for having guidelines in place and allowing private 

partners to assist with emergency repairs? 

Answer. This guidance is being developed and we anticipate issuing it later this 

year. 

Question. Stakeholders in Oklahoma have expressed an interest in allowing assets 

to be used by the Corps at no cost, but have been told that regulations prohibit 

them from accepting use of resources. For instance, private entities may have a 

dredge that they would like to offer to the Corps to use upon request. What is the 

rationale for not accepting this assistance? 

Answer. In general, the Corps needs specific authority to use equipment being 

provided at no cost, rather than obtaining such equipment using Federal procurement authorities and regulations. We anticipate the Corps would in many cases be 

able to accept and use a dredge provided for the purpose of repairing or restoring 

a project damaged or destroyed as a result of an emergency under Section 1024, but 

cannot answer more specifically until the implementation guidance is issued. 

Question. In the 2014 reauthorization of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA), Congress included a provision requiring the Corps to conduct 

an assessment of all of their properties to determine which are ‘‘not needed for the 

mission of the Corps of Engineers’’ (Section 6002). The intent of this language was 

to assess how Congress could help unburden the Corps from the considerable backlog in maintenance needs. 

In the hearing, it was stated that the Corps has not yet started this assessment. 

When will this task be undertaken? When can we expect to see the draft report? 

When can we expect to have the final report? 

Answer. Implementation guidance for Section 6002 of WRRDA 14 was issued on 

August 7, 2015. The Corps periodically reviews the need for the Federal properties 

at its projects and uses existing property disposal methods for those properties if 

they are no longer needed to accomplish the agency mission. These efforts are ongoing. 

Question. The Corps has previously shared that the disposal process for unneeded 

properties is so cumbersome and costly that it is often easier and less expensive in 

the short run to simply maintain unneeded assets. Would granting the Corps disposal authority independent of GSA assist in making the disposal process more 

manageable? What does the Corps need from Congress to be able to divest of 

unneeded assets in a cost-effective manner? 

Answer. Generally, GSA is responsible for the disposal of real property that is no 

longer mission-critical to Federal agencies. This authority works well for land and 

general use improvements. In some cases, the Corps will seek to dispose of lands 

associated with a project as part of an effort to deauthorize the project. In those 

cases, the Corps generally would perform a study and seek deauthorization of the 

project prior to submitting the disposal package to GSA. These studies evaluate environmental concerns, safety concerns and the concerns of non-Federal interests. 

New processes are now in place to reduce the time required to fund, study and make 

recommendations as appropriate addressing the proposed end state of the project. 

To further reduce the timeline, future studies will include a recommended disposal 

plan, where feasible, for Congressional consideration.The 2016 Corps work plan and 

the 2017 Budget included funding for studies on the disposition of assets that no 

longer have a strong Federal interest; the Corps has completed the first of these 

studies and is preparing to start five more in 2016. 

Question. The Corps was directed to produce a list of at least $18b in projects that 

are eligible for deauthorization because a significant amount of time has lapsed 

without getting funded. This list was produced in October of last year and found 

a sizable—$14b—amount of old, unfunded projects. An earlier report from GAO 

found that the Corps does not have written guidance for their districts requiring 

them to track studies and projects that have been authorized but not funded, leading to incomplete information regarding projects that may be eligible for deauthorization. 

Has the Corps provided a written policy for districts to follow regarding cataloging 

all authorized projects and studies? If it has not, when will an internal policy setting how to track this information be set? Will the Corps then reassess the deauthorization list? 

Answer. Yes, the Corps provided written implementation guidance to its divisions 

and districts for Sections 6001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act 

of 2014 and Section 1001 (b )(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, 

as amended. The Corps is developing an authoritative database for authorized 

projects and will use it to provide the Backlog Report and annual Minimum Funding Lists in accordance with Section 6001. As projects are identified for deauthoriza-
63 

1The relevant text from the House Report states: ‘‘The Committee is concerned that the Bureau of Reclamation is not adhering to its guidelines, described in the ‘‘Corrosion Prevention Criteria and Requirements’’, with respect to the use of ductile iron pipe and steel pipe. With respect 

to both products, the Bureau of Reclamation should be attempting to establish good engineering 

practices which address the long-term value and cost effectiveness of facilities constructed over 

time. The Committee recognizes that additional work is needed to develop a more definitive corrosion standard on which to decide the best product for a particular application. Accordingly, 

the Committee directs the Commissioner of Reclamation to conduct a study on the current corrosion criteria and to report to the Committee on Appropriations by March 1, 2004, on its recommendations for a more definitive standard. Until a more appropriate standard is in place, 

which reflects the basic principle of long-term cost effectiveness, the current criteria should continue to be used.’’ 

tion eligibility they will be included in future annual deauthorization processes consistent with amendments to Section 1001 (b)(2). 

The Corps is currently developing written guidance for deauthorizing studies in 

accordance with Section 710 of WRDA 1986, and is developing an authoritative 

database of studies to support this effort. 

Question. Does the list published in the Federal Register in October 2015 reflect 

information gathered from all of the districts? 

Answer. Yes, the list published in the Federal Register in October 2015 reflects 

information gathered from all of the Corps districts. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO ESTEVAN R. LO ́ PEZ

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

Question. Please explain why the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) did not require any new data in 2004, when it changed the Technical Memorandum and currently does not require data regarding the performance of steel water pipe or ductile 

iron pipe with bonded dielectric coatings in highly corrosive soils but requires significant data regarding other corrosion protection methods for ductile iron pipe. 

Answer. Reclamation prepared the Technical Memorandum (TM) in response to 

Congressional direction received in 2003 (H.R. REP. NO. 108–212, at 106) (2003),1

and it was first published in 2004. The data as well as the recommendations in the 

TM encompass all types of buried metallic pipe. Reclamation’s technical staff reviewed and evaluated industry standards, national consensus standards, independent engineering studies, and performance data from Reclamation projects as 

well as other Federal and non-Federal pipeline owners and water utilities. Reclamation also met with representatives from the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association 

(DIPRA) in May of 2003 and January of 2004 to discuss technical issues and literature regarding corrosion mitigation of ductile iron pipe prior to publication of the 

TM. Reclamation also indicated that any other information DIPRA wished to provide would be welcomed. 

Reclamation evaluated the technical content of the available literature, the thoroughness of the analyses, the reasonableness of the conclusions, and finally, the 

likely objectivity of the author(s). Reclamation then used its best technical judgment 

to perform what we believe is a balanced assessment of the available information 

and to develop a reasonable set of recommendations designed to meet Reclamation’s 

50-year minimum project service life. 

During this evaluation, Reclamation found a number of respected studies which 

raised significant technical concerns regarding corrosion under unbonded dielectric 

coatings, including polyethylene encasement (PE). Reclamation also found that the 

effectiveness of PE had been the subject of debate within the pipeline and corrosion 

industries for years and that the results of engineering studies on the subject differ 

widely. In addition, Reclamation found that many professionals in these industries 

question the effectiveness of a cathodic protection system to counter the effects of 

corrosion under intact PE. 

As a result of that review, Reclamation concluded that many corrosion engineers 

believe that buried pipes, which need a high level of corrosion protection, should 

have a bonded dielectric coating and cathodic protection. This conclusion is supported by the National Association of Corrosion Engineers’ (NACE) International 

Standard Practice SP0169 ‘‘Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems’’. 

During its evaluation of these analyses and data, Reclamation balanced these 

technical concerns against the relatively good performance record of ductile iron 

pipe with PE and recommended the use of PE on all sizes of ductile iron pipe in 

all but the most severely corrosive environments (i.e. soil resistivity ≤ 2000 ohm-cm). 
64 

In those severely corrosive environments, bonded dielectric coating and cathodic protection (CP) was recommended for all metallic pipe types (including ductile iron 

pipe). 

Based on this work, Reclamation prepared a draft of the current TM and sought 

review from a variety of sources. Reclamation employed a Consultant Review Board 

(CRB) to conduct an independent technical peer review of Reclamation’s draft TM. 

To staff the CRB, Reclamation contracted with two private sector corrosion engineers from CH2M Hill and Schiff and Associates, as well as a materials scientist 

with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). In addition, a contract was issued for two additional materials scientists with NIST to serve as independent ‘‘referees’’ to evaluate the three reviewers’ conclusions. After incorporating 

the CRB’s input, the updated draft TM was sent out for Reclamation-wide review 

in May, 2004. 

In July, 2004, Reclamation met with representatives of DIPRA to discuss the Design Decision Model (DDM) for selection of a corrosion control system on ductile iron 

pipe which DIPRA had developed in concert with CORRPRO (a large corrosion control company). Reclamation’s process to evaluate the information in DIPRA’s presentation was the same process used to evaluate all other technical reports we reviewed 

in preparation of the TM (i.e., Reclamation evaluated the technical content of 

DIPRA’s presentation, the thoroughness of the analyses presented, the reasonableness of the conclusions, and finally, the likely objectivity of the author(s)). The comments from the Reclamation-wide review and DIPRA’s input were incorporated, and 

the TM was finalized later in July, 2004. 

Reclamation has remained actively engaged in this issue since the 2004 TM was 

issued. We continue to monitor technical literature on this subject and actively seek 

additional viewpoints from other organizations. Through these efforts, we have discovered many other organizations have concerns with the use of PE on ductile iron 

pipe. These organizations include non-Federal water resource agencies and other 

Federal agencies such as the Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of 

Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Reclamation continuously seeks information on this issue by having its technical staff serve on national technical society committees such as the American 

Water Works Association (AWWA) Standards Committee A21 ‘‘Ductile Iron Pipe’’ 

and the NACE International Task Group 014 ‘‘Corrosion and Corrosion Control for 

Cast-and Ductile-Iron Pipe.’’ 

In the judgment and expertise of Reclamation, the technical positions outlined in 

the TM are fundamentally sound and represent a reasonable position in light of the 

available data, industry standards and practice, and scientific understanding of the 

issues. The 2008–2009 National Academy of Science’s (NAS) review of the TM concluded that ductile iron pipe with PE and CP is not likely to provide a reliable 50- 

year service life in severely corrosive soils (≤ 2,000 ohm-cm) and bonded dielectric 

coating with CP would be more effective. In reaching this conclusion, the committee 

evaluated data from all sources, including the DOT data provided by Reclamation 

and the data and analysis provided and presented by DIPRA. 

The NAS report confirms Reclamation’s concern with the durability of ductile iron 

pipe with polyethylene encasement and cathodic protection installed in severely corrosive soils. Also, while the NAS committee could not assure that Reclamation’s recommended corrosion protection system (bonded dielectric coating with cathodic protection) would provide a reliable 50-year service life for ductile iron pipe installed 

in these soils, the report does state that this system substantially improves the 

chances of achieving this level of reliability. 

Reclamation agrees the collection of additional performance data recommended by 

the NAS committee will be beneficial as the agency seeks to refine its technical position in an updated TM. Reclamation has awarded a Grant Agreement to collect and 

compile water pipeline field performance data to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and 

State University (Virginia Tech). This agreement has a completion date of December 

31, 2017. 

During a July 2015 meeting between Reclamation, and representatives from the 

ductile iron pipe industry, DIPRA proposed that Reclamation change its corrosion 

prevention criteria for ductile iron pipe in soils having resistivity values equal to 

or less than 2,000 ohm-cm from bonded dielectric coating and cathodic protection, 

to a zinc metallizing with enhanced polyethylene encasement (V–BIO) and cathodic 

protection. Following the meeting, DIPRA provided several documents to support 

their position that their proposal would perform well in severely corrosive soils. 

Reclamation’s review of the submitted data focused on ascertaining the data covering field performance of zinc coated ductile iron pipe in severely corrosive soils. 

However, the majority of the supplied data was in reference to the use of conventional polyethylene encasement to protect ductile iron pipe in corrosive soils. Of the 
65 

few documents submitted in support of zinc coated pipe, the majority of them were 

very old references published in the 1970s and 1980s that provided limited performance data. Also, none of the documents addressed the long-term performance of enhanced PE (V–BIO), and none addressed the performance of the proposed combination of zinc metallizing, V- BIO, and cathodic protection. Based on this review, Reclamation concluded that while zinc or zinc with PE may provide some improvement 

over bare pipe or pipe with PE wrap alone in some soils, there is no evidence that 

this system will provide the same level of long term protection as a bonded dielectric 

coating with cathodic protection in severely corrosive soils. 

The fiscal year 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act (PL 114–113) directed Reclamation to contract with one of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) national laboratories with expertise in materials and corrosion disciplines to develop performance 

data for zinc-coated ductile iron pipe applications in highly- or severely-corrosive 

soils. The laboratory will also independently evaluate and recommend, based on the 

performance data and any other relevant data or information the laboratory may 

obtain, whether the material meets the corrosion protection requirements in the 

TM. On May 11, 2016, Reclamation awarded an Interagency Agreement to DOE’s 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory to perform this study. 

Question. Is it Reclamation’s position that data is not required for a method of 

corrosion protection if there is a national or international standard for that method 

of corrosion protection? 

Answer. Yes, Reclamation uses national consensus standards to guide its technical 

decisions where the use of those standards is practicable. Where those standards do 

not exist, do not address Reclamation’s technical needs, or conflict, Reclamation develops its own internal technical documents to guide the development of designs for 

Reclamation designed and/or funded projects. It is Reclamation’s position that methods and practices contained in a national standard have more weight than methods 

that are provided for information only and specifically identified as not being a part 

of the national standard. 

—For example: The NACE International Standard Practice SP0169, ‘‘Control of 

External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems,’’ 

presents acknowledged practices for the control of external corrosion on buried 

or submerged steel, cast iron, ductile iron, copper, and aluminum piping systems. Section 5.1.2.3 states: ‘‘Pipeline external coating systems shall be properly 

selected and applied to ensure that adequate bonding is obtained. Unbonded 

coatings can create electrical shielding of the pipeline that could jeopardize the 

effectiveness of the CP system.’’ (PE is an unbonded coating.)The AWWA Standard C105 ‘‘Polyethylene Encasement for Ductile- Iron Pipe Systems’’ is a material and installation standard. Appendix A of that document provides a method 

to determine if PE should be used for corrosion protection of ductile iron pipe 

systems, butis specifically identified as not a part of the ANSI/AWWA C105/ 

A21.5 standard. 

Question. Based upon significant concerns, Congress has included directives to 

Reclamation for 5 years regarding its Technical Memorandum. Among the concerns 

are that Reclamation is holding different materials to different standards and increasing project costs. In addition, Congress noted in the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act Explanatory Statement for Energy and Water that ‘‘[y]et 

another claim that Reclamation has always been in compliance and no changes are 

necessary is not a satisfactory response.’’ Please provide the changes that Reclamation has made in the implementation of the Technical Memorandum and in the 

treatment of different materials to address these concerns. 

Answer. The TM’s corrosion control recommendations for both steel and ductile 

iron pipe in severely corrosive soils are the same—bonded dielectric coating with 

CP. 

Reclamation uses the Technical Memorandum as a starting point for its decisions 

relative to the corrosion protection of buried metallic pipe, but it considers other factors and resources for its technical decisions related to corrosion protection. Reclamation relies on site-specific design data such as soil chemistry, national standards (e.g. NACE SP0169 and ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.5), and engineering judgment 

to guide decisions on the design of corrosion mitigation measures for Reclamation’s 

buried metallic pipelines. The appropriate usage of the TM was reinforced by a February 24, 2010 memorandum from Reclamation’s Deputy Commissioner—Operations 

to Reclamation’s Leadership Team. 

To allow additional flexibility in the application of the TM, Reclamation policy 

provides a process by which a deviation from design criteria and engineering and 

technical standards can be vetted and approved by the local Reclamation executive. 

This process, as it relates specifically to requests to deviate from the corrosion mitigation design criteria in the TM, was clarified by a March 13, 2015 memorandum 
66 

from Reclamation’s Deputy Commissioner—Operations to Reclamation’s Leadership 

Team. 

Question. Please list any and all standards of evaluation (viability, betterment, 

etc.) that Reclamation has used to evaluate the various materials and methods of 

corrosion control in the Technical Memorandum from 2003 until today. Please provide the year, standard and type of material/corrosion protection. 

Answer. Reclamation does not use a ‘‘betterment’’ standard for corrosion control 

of buried metallic pipe. Reclamation has identified a target performance level of zero 

external corrosion induced leaks/ruptures/failures which would require the pipeline 

to be taken out of service during the minimum service life (i.e. 50 years) for the 

pipelines Reclamation designs and/or funds. Reclamation believes that the target 

performance level is reasonable in light of the types of pipelines that it typically 

constructs, but one which may not always be achieved due to a variety of factors 

including unseen imperfections and the number of variables involved with pipe installation in the field. The materials used and the type of corrosion protection needed varies depending on design parameters and soil conditions in the installation 

area. Question. Please provide any and all performance standards that Reclamation has 

used to evaluate the various materials and methods of corrosion control in the Technical Memorandum from 2003 until today. Please provide the year, standard and 

type of material/corrosion protection. 

Answer. Reclamation has identified a target performance level of zero external 

corrosion induced leaks/ruptures/failures which would require the pipeline to be 

taken out of service during the minimum service life (i.e. 50 years) for the pipelines 

Reclamation designs and/or funds. Reclamation believes that the target performance 

level is reasonable in light of the types of pipelines that it typically constructs, but 

one which may not always be achieved due to a variety of factors including unseen 

imperfections and the number of variables involved with pipe installation in the 

field. The materials used and the type of corrosion protection needed varies depending on design parameters and soil conditions in the installation area. 

Question. Reclamation has acknowledged that some adjustment is necessary for 

the performance figures for ‘‘significant incidents’’ for oil and gas pipelines in soils 

of unknown corrosivity in the 2008 National Academies of Science report to provide 

a more accurate comparison with ductile iron water pipe with polyethylene encasement in highly corrosive soils. Please provide those adjustments and the basis for 

those adjustments. 

Answer. The noted text is taken from Section 4 of the 2009 NAS Report which 

concluded that ductile iron pipe with PE and CP is not likely to provide a reliable 

50-year service life in severely corrosive soils (≤ 2,000 ohm-cm) and a bonded dielectric coating with CP would be more effective. At the start of the NAS Committee’s 

deliberations, they asked Reclamation to provide a quantitative benchmark against 

which they could measure the performance of ductile iron pipe installed in severely 

corrosive soils with PE and CP, in lieu of Reclamation’s stated target performance 

level of zero external corrosion induced leaks/ruptures/failures which would require 

the pipeline to be taken out of service during the minimum service life (i.e., 50 

years). 

Specifically they asked if Reclamation would accept a similar failure rate for ductile iron pipe installed in severely corrosive soils with PE and CP, as they would 

get from steel pipe installed in severely corrosive soils with a bonded dielectric coating and CP. Reclamation responded that this would be a reasonable benchmark 

which led to the NAS Committee requesting information on Reclamation’s experience related to the performance (i.e., failure rates) of steel pipe installed in severely 

corrosive soils, with a bonded dielectric coating, and cathodic protection. In response 

to this question, Reclamation conducted a review of available data on Reclamation’s 

and other organizations’ pipelines. 

During this review, Reclamation reached out to the U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of 

Pipeline Safety, to see if they had the quantitative performance data requested by 

the Committee. Reclamation acknowledges that this data was related to steel pipelines carrying materials other than water, but believes the causes and rates of external corrosion and protection against such corrosion are the same regardless of the 

product being carried. Reclamation therefore concluded that the DOT database was 

the best source of quantitative data on this issue at that time. 

Reclamation focused their review of the significant incidents tracked in the database to those pipelines that most closely matched the Committee’s interest (i.e., 

coated steel pipe installed with cathodic protection) and, like most of Reclamation’s 

projects, were transmission lines versus smaller distribution lines. Reclamation also 

limited their review to significant incidents that were caused by external corrosion. 
67 

Focusing on this subset of data within DOT’s database, Reclamation was able to 

compute an average annual failure rate for these pipelines of 0.0000444 failures per 

mile per year (based on about 93,000 miles of installed steel pipe). Using the results 

of this analysis, a 450-mile long steel pipeline installed with coating and cathodic 

protection could be expected to experience one failure due to external corrosion during the first 50 years of service. 

The DOT database does not include information on the soil conditions in which 

the pipelines are installed, so Reclamation was not able to further screen the data 

to include only pipe installed in severely corrosive soils. At that time, Reclamation 

noted that it was not able to quantify the impact this issue would have on the calculated performance data noted above, but some adjustment to the computed failure 

rate may be warranted to compensate for this uncertainty in soil conditions across 

the data set. However, as Reclamation also noted, even with an adjustment to the 

computed failure rate, it believed the analysis supported their original response to 

the Committee’s question of what Reclamation defines as reliably providing a minimum service life of 50 years for our pipelines. 

The data gathering and analyses currently being planned pursuant to the grant 

agreement awarded to Virginia Tech to collect and compile water pipeline field performance data should provide more useful data. 

Question. Please explain why Reclamation used the performance of oil and gas 

pipelines in soils of unknown corrosivity as a proxy for the performance of steel 

water pipe in highly corrosive soils in a life cycle analysis when Reclamation had 

data regarding steel water pipelines in highly corrosive soils at the time it used the 

oil and gas data. 

Answer. The life cycle analysis was conducted in August 2009 using best available 

data at the time. As stated in Commissioner Connor’s letter to DIPRA dated January 29, 2010, ‘‘Our analysis showed the present worth of these additional capital 

costs for CP along with the additional OM&R costs associated with long term operations of the CP system was about 5 percent of the total project cost. Thus, the life 

cycle cost of a cathodically protected ductile iron pipeline with polyethylene encasement was about 5 percent higher than the life cycle cost for a similarly protected 

steel pipeline with a bonded dielectric coating. A summary of these analyses is 

shown in Attachment 3.’’ Referring to Attachment 3, Scenario 3 which removes pipe 

repair costs from the analysis, the life cycle cost of a cathodically protected ductile 

iron pipe with polyethylene encasement was calculated to be 4.7 percent higher than 

the life cycle cost for a similarly protected steel pipe with a bonded dielectric coating. Reclamation’s conclusion from their life cycle analysis is independent of pipe repair costs. 

The data gathering and analyses currently being planned pursuant to the grant 

agreement awarded to Virginia Tech to collect and compile water pipeline field performance data will provide the foundation for assessing life cycle costs on a broader 

basis. 

Question. In the same life cycle analysis, Reclamation used the failure of one ductile iron water pipeline in highly corrosive soils as a proxy for the performance of 

ductile iron pipe in highly corrosive soils when Reclamation had aggregate data regarding ductile iron pipelines in highly corrosive soils. Why did Reclamation use the 

single data point instead of the aggregate data? 

Answer. The life cycle analysis was conducted in August 2009 using best available 

data at the time. As stated in Commissioner Connor’s letter to DIPRA dated January 29, 2010, ‘‘Our analysis showed the present worth of these additional capital 

costs for CP along with the additional OM&R costs associated with long term operations of the CP system was about 5 percent of the total project cost. Thus, the life 

cycle cost of a cathodically protected ductile iron pipeline with polyethylene encasement was about 5 percent higher than the life cycle cost for a similarly protected 

steel pipeline with a bonded dielectric coating. A summary of these analyses is 

shown in Attachment 3.’’ Referring to Attachment 3, Scenario 3 which removes pipe 

repair costs from the analysis, the life cycle cost of a cathodically protected ductile 

iron pipe with polyethylene encasement was calculated to be 4.7 percent higher than 

the life cycle cost for a similarly protected steel pipe with a bonded dielectric coating. Reclamation’s conclusion from their life cycle analysis is independent of pipe repair costs. 

The data gathering and analyses currently being planned pursuant to the grant 

agreement awarded to Virginia Tech to collect and compile water pipeline field performance data will provide the foundation for assessing life cycle costs on a broader 

basis. 
68 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Question. Commissioner Lo ́pez, I am concerned that Reclamation has pumped less 

water in 2016 during this El Nin ̃ o year than it did in 2015, when California was 

in extreme drought. Flows were as high as 50,000 cubic feet per second in the Sacramento River, yet the agencies reduced pumping to the low-end of the biological 

opinions because of one smelt. 

I continue to hear that water pumping decisions are still being based on when 

protected fish might be near the pumps rather than when we know they actually 

are present. For example, Interior may reduce pumping if even one smelt is found 

as far away as 17 miles from the pumps near a monitoring station called Prisoner’s 

Point. 

But outside biologists and scientists believe that Reclamation is reducing pumping 

prematurely. These experts believe that the agencies could continue with higher 

pumping levels even if smelt are found at a monitoring station that is only 12 miles 

from the pumps. 

What are you doing to test whether or not smelt identified past the Prisoner’s 

Point monitoring station can still survive and make their way back out to the central Delta? 

Answer. Addressing this issue is challenging and would require tagging and marking studies similar to those conducted on salmonids. Until very recently, tags small 

enough to use in smelt have not been available/tested. The use of such technology 

to evaluate the movements of wild or other smelt in the Delta is needed, but as far 

as we are aware is in the planning stages only. 

Reclamation is participating in efforts to apply this technology to the study of 

smelt movement and survival in the southern Delta. Projects stemming from the following proposal are ongoing with some of the work soon to be published in a leading 

journal: 

Assessing Tagging-Related Mortality and Tag Retention in Adult Delta smelt to 

Support Field Investigations in Clifton Court Forebay and the Skinner Fish Facility (Grimaldo et al.—SFCWA Research Grant Proposal) 

Due to the threatened and endangered status of the salmonid species in the Delta, 

most tagging/marking studies involving salmonids use hatchery produced specimens 

and not wild fish. The Delta smelt population is currently not augmented via hatchery-produced specimens. In addition, the use of wild smelt for such studies would 

be problematic due to the endangered status of the species and its population levels, 

which are currently at an all-time low. Efforts to identify individual wild fish by 

unique physical markings and characters are ongoing and may have applicability 

to Delta smelt in the future. 

Question. If you aren’t doing this monitoring, can you start doing it with some of the $100 million in drought funding from December’s Omnibus appropriations 

bill? 

Answer. If the monitoring work is conducted during fiscal year 2017, current 

drought funding could be used to fund studies focused on developing and applying 

methods to determine smelt movements and survival in the southern Delta. Efforts 

are being made in this area. 

Question. What is the Bureau of Reclamation doing to address other threats to 

smelt, such as ammonia from sewage discharges and predation by other species? 

Answer. Since 2010, Reclamation funded studies that address ammonia loading 

and its potential effects on Delta smelt and the Delta ecosystem. There is no evidence of acute ammonia toxicity to Delta smelt or any other fish in the Delta. Some 

studies indicate the possibility of chronic effects in larval Delta smelt and their 

copepod prey when exposed to high concentrations under laboratory conditions. 

Some earlier research suggested that ammonium may inhibit diatom production in 

Suisun Bay under certain combinations, but recent does not support this hypothesis. 

Ammonium, may degrade delta smelt habitat by favoring Microcystis, a potentially 

toxic form of phytoplankton. The Sacramento regional wastewater treatment facility, one of the sources of ammonium loading to the Delta, is upgrading its plant to 

advanced tertiary treatment methods and completion is expected by 2020. This action will eliminate almost all of its contribution to Delta ammonium loading. 

Predation is a common natural interaction within ecologic communities and occurs 

at some level for a multitude of fish species. Reclamation continues to support research related to predation, including several specifically focused on predation of 

Delta smelt. 

Question. How is the Bureau of Reclamation working with other Federal agencies, 

like National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries and Fish 

and Wildlife Service, to develop and implement system-wide capabilities to monitor 

and track fish migrations into and out of the Delta? 
69 

Answer. Reclamation has and continues to provide funding to NOAA Fisheries 

and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to monitor and track ESA-listed fish species, both in and out of the Delta. Reclamation continues to work with a consortium 

of multiple agencies (including NOAA Fisheries and FWS) within the framework of 

the Interagency Ecological Program and beyond to monitor and track fish in the 

Delta. Over twenty separate monitoring activities within this program occur yearround, but with increased effort from fall through early summer. 

Beyond their ongoing tracking, Reclamation has provided FWS with $3.8 million 

this year to fund additional studies, including whether the viability measuring point 

can be moved from the current 17 mile marker at ‘‘Prisoner’s Point.’’ This study will 

take several years. To date, however, FWS maintains the measuring point at ‘‘Prisoner’s Point.’’ 

Additionally, Reclamation’s Tracy Fish Collection Facility has one of the most extensive long- term monitoring programs within the Delta, sampling every 2 hours 

on a continual basis. Monitoring and sampling activities include fish (covering the 

full range of life stages), water quality parameters and genetic material. 

Question. How is the Bureau of Reclamation working with other Federal agencies, 

like NOAA Fisheries and Fish and Wildlife Service, to research and evaluate the 

impacts of Delta operations on fish behavior and potential mortality? 

Answer. Reclamation continues to work with a consortium of multiple agencies 

(including NOAA Fisheries and FWS) within the framework of the Interagency Ecological Program (IEP). The IEP provides relevant and timely ecological information 

for management of the Bay-Delta ecosystem and the water that flows through it. 

Priorities within the program include: 

—Improving the understanding of abundance, distribution, life history diversity, 

and life stage requirements of Delta smelt, longfin smelt, salmonids, steelhead 

and green sturgeon to inform management decisions. 

—Improving smelt, salmonid and sturgeon real-time monitoring, indirect mortality, and entrainment prediction tools to reduce take and increase operational 

flexibility of the State and Federal water project pumps. 

—Improving chinook and steelhead viability in the Delta with an initial emphasis 

on south Delta salmon survival through studies and modeling. 

—Understanding the factors impairing water beneficial uses to inform management decisions. 

Reclamation has supported a number of studies on juvenile salmonid survival in 

relation to Delta operations. These studies include: 

—A 6 year fish tracking and monitoring study of San Joaquin steelhead survival 

(called for in NOAA Fisheries biological opinion). 

—Fish tracking and monitoring studies of juvenile Chinook movement in relation 

to Delta Cross Channel operations (with FWS and the U. S. Geological Survey 

(USGS)). 

—Physical and non-physical barrier studies at Head of Old River and Georgiana 

Slough (with the California Department of Water Resources and USGS). 

—Chinook salmon survival studies based on coded wire tag recoveries (with FWS). 

The majority of projects are coordinated with NOAA Fisheries and FWS with multiple project work teams (Chinook salmon, smelt, sturgeon, steelhead, delta rearing, 

Sacramento River monitoring, hatchery, and collaborative adaptive management 

team) and the Delta Operations groups continuously seeking ways to understand 

fish behavior, mortality and to improve survival. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

Question. Commissioner Lo ́pez, farmers in the Odessa Subarea of the Columbia 

Basin Project have faced significant challenges for several years as groundwater 

from the aquifer has been declining. This rapid decline has put agriculture production and commercial, municipal, and industrial water uses at risk. According to a 

study conducted by Washington State University, $840 million and 3,600 jobs are 

at risk if agriculture producers in the Odessa Subarea no longer have access to 

groundwater from the aquifer and no alternative water solution is in place. 

I appreciate your ongoing work with the State of Washington and the three impacted irrigation districts to prevent further depletion of the Odessa Subarea aquifer and deliver much needed surface water to agricultural lands within the Columbia Basin Project. Renewing the Master Water Service Contract with the East Columbia Basin Irrigation District (ECBID) last year was a significant milestone in 

this process. This will ensure ECBID can move forward with the development of the 

first of seven planned pressurized delivery systems to provide surface water to 

87,700 acres of the Odessa Subarea in the Columbia Basin Project. 
70 

I understand that additional amendments to the Water Service Contract are needed for 70,000 acres within the Odessa Subarea. What is the current status of this 

amendment and when do you expect it to be completed? 

Answer. Work on the amendment to the Master Water Service contract is in 

progress. Evaluation of the existing annual water service rate and completion of the 

rate-setting process are underway. Reclamation completed a draft payment capacity 

study in March 2016 and received comments from the irrigation districts in May 

2016. Reclamation is reviewing the districts’ comments and finalizing this study, 

which is needed to complete an ability to pay study. Reclamation has several other 

actions to complete as part of this process, including environmental compliance, reviewing land eligibility, completing a basis of negotiation, preparing the contract 

amendment, and negotiating the contract with ECBID. Additionally, Reclamation is 

required to provide a 60-day public notice prior to contract execution. We expect this 

process to be complete by the end of calendar year 2016. 

Question. Are you aware of any challenges that may delay completion of this 

work? 

Answer. We do not expect any delays. Unanticipated factors, including litigation 

or a significant change request from ECBID could delay completion of the process. 

The requirement for a 60-day public notice prior to contract execution was factored 

in to the completion date noted in the previous question. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you for being here today. 

The subcommittee will stand adjourned. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good work. 

[Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., Wednesday, March 2, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the 

Chair.]