[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PRESIDENT BIDEN'S FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET REQUEST: AGENCY POLICIES AND
PERSPECTIVES (PARTS 1 AND 2)
=======================================================================
(117-21)
REMOTE HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 2021 (Part 1)
WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 2021 (Part 2)
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
49-385 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, SAM GRAVES, Missouri
District of Columbia DON YOUNG, Alaska
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
RICK LARSEN, Washington Arkansas
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California BOB GIBBS, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
JOHN GARAMENDI, California SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
Georgia JOHN KATKO, New York
ANDRE CARSON, Indiana BRIAN BABIN, Texas
DINA TITUS, Nevada GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
JARED HUFFMAN, California MIKE BOST, Illinois
JULIA BROWNLEY, California RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas
FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida DOUG LaMALFA, California
DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
MARK DeSAULNIER, California MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland Puerto Rico
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
GREG STANTON, Arizona PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas, Vice Chair DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire TROY E. NEHLS, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania NANCY MACE, South Carolina
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii MICHELLE STEEL, California
MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Chair
JARED HUFFMAN, California DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JOHN GARAMENDI, California JOHN KATKO, New York
ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California BRIAN BABIN, Texas
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York MIKE BOST, Illinois
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas
CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia, DOUG LaMALFA, California
Vice Chair BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,
GREG STANTON, Arizona Puerto Rico
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, NANCY MACE, South Carolina
District of Columbia SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio)
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, June 24, 2021, Part 1.................. 1
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ 2
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Chair, Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment, opening statement............................. 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Hon. David Rouzer, a Representative in Congress from the State of
North Carolina, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment, opening statement................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, opening statement.............................. 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement............................. 101
WITNESSES
Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Department of the Army, oral statement............ 21
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Lieutenant General Scott A. Spellmon, Chief of Engineers and
Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, oral
statement...................................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Jeffrey J. Lyash, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Tennessee Valley Authority, oral statement..................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Daniel Avila, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Sector of the
International Boundary and Water Commission, oral statement.... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 39
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Article entitled, ``Atmospheric Progression of Microcystin-LR
from Cyanobacterial Aerosol,'' Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Brian J. Mast.................................................. 56
Local Resolutions from Huntington Beach, Seal Beach, and Newport
Beach, California; Support Letters; and Photos from the July
2020 Newport Beach Flood, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Michelle Steel................................................. 75
APPENDIX
Questions to both Lieutenant General Scott A. Spellmon, Chief of
Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works, Department of the Army, from:
Hon. David Rouzer............................................ 103
Hon. Greg Stanton............................................ 110
Hon. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon................................ 110
Hon. Michael Guest........................................... 112
Hon. Garret Graves........................................... 113
Questions to Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army, from:
Hon. John Garamendi.......................................... 116
Hon. Michelle Steel.......................................... 117
Hon. Michael Guest........................................... 118
Questions to Lieutenant General Scott A. Spellmon, Chief of
Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
from:
Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, on behalf of Hon. Conor Lamb....... 118
Hon. John Garamendi.......................................... 119
Hon. Michael Guest........................................... 119
Questions to Jeffrey J. Lyash, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Tennessee Valley Authority, from:
Hon. David Rouzer............................................ 120
Hon. Michael Guest........................................... 121
Questions to Daniel Avila, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Sector of
the International Boundary and Water Commission, from:
Hon. Grace F. Napolitano..................................... 122
Hon. David Rouzer............................................ 123
----------
Hearing held on Wednesday, July 14, 2021, Part 2................. 125
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ 126
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Chair, Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment, opening statement............................. 136
Prepared statement........................................... 137
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement............................. 138
Hon. David Rouzer, a Representative in Congress from the State of
North Carolina, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment, opening statement................... 139
Prepared statement........................................... 141
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement............................. 199
WITNESSES
Hon. Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, oral statement................ 147
Prepared statement........................................... 148
Nicole R. LeBoeuf, Acting Assistant Administrator, National Ocean
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, oral
statement...................................................... 150
Prepared statement........................................... 152
Terry J. Cosby, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, oral statement................. 160
Prepared statement........................................... 162
Patrick N. Breysse, Ph.D., CIH, Director, National Center for
Environmental Health and Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, oral statement... 165
Prepared statement........................................... 167
Craig H. Middlebrook, Deputy Administrator, Great Lakes St.
Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, U.S. Department of
Transportation, oral statement................................. 171
Prepared statement........................................... 173
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Letter of June 25, 2021, to Hon. Michael Regan, Administrator,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Jaime Pinkham, Acting
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Department of
the Army, Submitted for the Record by Hon. David Rouzer........ 142
APPENDIX
Questions to Hon. Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator, Office of
Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, from:
Hon. David Rouzer............................................ 201
Hon. Salud O. Carbajal....................................... 208
Hon. Greg Stanton............................................ 208
Questions to Terry J. Cosby, Chief, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, from:
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................ 209
Hon. Greg Stanton............................................ 209
PRESIDENT BIDEN'S FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET REQUEST: AGENCY POLICIES AND
PERSPECTIVES (PART 1)
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:06 a.m. in
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon.
Grace F. Napolitano (Chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present in person: Mr. Huffman, Mr. Garamendi, Mr.
Carbajal, Mr. Rouzer, Mr. Webster, Dr. Babin, Mr. Graves of
Louisiana, Mr. Bost, Mr. Weber, Mr. Westerman, Mr. Mast, and
Mr. Nehls.
Members present remotely: Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. DeFazio, Ms.
Johnson of Texas, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. Malinowski, Mr. Delgado,
Ms. Bourdeaux, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Norton,
Mr. Cohen, Mr. Brown, Mr. Katko, Mr. LaMalfa, Miss Gonzalez-
Colon, and Mrs. Steel.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
June 21, 2021
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: Members, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
FROM: Staff, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
RE: Subcommittee Hearing on ``President Biden's Fiscal Year
2022 Budget Request: Agency Policies and Perspectives (Parts I and
II)''
_______________________________________________________________________
PURPOSE
On Thursday, June 24, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. EDT, the Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment will hold a hearing in the Rayburn
House Office Building, Room 2167, and via Zoom, to receive testimony
related to ``President Biden's Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Request: Agency
Policies and Perspectives (Part I)''. The Subcommittee will hold a
second hearing on July 14, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. EDT, in the Rayburn
House Office Building, Room 2167, and via Zoom, to continue to receive
testimony from the remaining federal agencies under the jurisdiction of
the Subcommittee related to the President's fiscal year (FY) 2022
budget request.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``President Biden's Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Request: Agency
Policies and Perspectives (Part II)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of these hearings is to provide members with an
opportunity to review the FY 2022 budget request and the
administration's program priorities for the authorities under the
jurisdiction of the Subcommittee.
At the first hearing, the Subcommittee will hear testimony from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA), and the U.S. Sector of the International Boundary and Water
Commission (IBWC) within the Department of State. At the second
hearing, the Subcommittee will hear testimony from the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation (GLS), the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) at the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
The administration's FY 2022 budget request for the EPA
totals $11.241 billion, including $5.130 billion for State and
Tribal Assistance Grants, $3.427 billion for Environmental
Programs and Management, and $1.533 billion for the Hazardous
Substance Superfund program. The FY 2022 budget request is
$1.968 billion more than the FY 2021 enacted budget for the
EPA.
Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \2\
(in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diff. of FY 2022
FY 2022 Pres. Budget and FY
Program FY 2021 FY 2022 Authorized President's 2021 Enacted
Enacted Budget --------------------
$ %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science and Technology................. $729.3 No Authorization......... $830.0 $100.6 13.8%
Environmental Programs and Management.. 2,761.6 No Authorization......... 3,427.5 665.9 24.1%
State and Tribal Assistance Grants..... 4,313.9 No Authorization......... 5,130.0 816.1 18.9%631
2
Clean Water SRF \1\.................. 1,638.8 No Authorization......... 1,870.7 231.9 14.1%
Drinking Water SRF \1\............... 1,126.1 No Authorization......... 1,357.9 231.8 20.6%660
4
Water Infrastructure Finance and 65.0 No Authorization......... 80.1 15.1 23.3%
Innovation Program (WIFIA) Account.
Hazardous Substance Superfund.......... 1,205.8 No Authorization......... 1,533.8 328.0 27.2%
EPA Office of Inspector General........ 43.5 No Authorization......... 54.3 10.8 24.9%
Other \2\.............................. 154.1 No Authorization......... 185.5 31.5 20.4%
------------ ---------------------------------
Total................................ $9,273.1 $11,241.3 $1,968.2 21.2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) program includes several grant programs other than the SRFs.
\2\ This number is the sum of the following EPA line items:
Building and Facilities (B&F)--$33.8 million (FY21 enacted) to $62.8 million (FY22 request);
Inland Oil Spill Program--$20.1 million (FY21 enacted) to $22.4 million (FY22 request);
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST)--$92.2 million (FY21 enacted) to $92.4 million (FY22
request); and
E-Manifest--$8.0 million (FY21 enacted) & (FY22 request).
CLEAN\\ WATER
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-05/
documents/fy-2022-epa-bib.pdf; see also https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2021-05/documents/fy-2022-congressional-justification-
all-tabs.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has
jurisdiction over programs aimed at protecting the nation's
water quality. The EPA, through its own programs and in
partnership with states and tribes, seeks to improve water
quality in rivers, lakes, and coastal waters through investment
in wastewater infrastructure, water quality standards,
permitting programs, water quality monitoring, wetlands
protection, and research, among other activities. The EPA's
Office of Water operates the EPA's water quality protection
programs.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund: The FY 2022 budget
request proposes $1.870 billion in federal capitalization
grants for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Clean Water
SRF), which is $231.9 million more than the FY 2021 enacted
level. The Clean Water SRF is the primary federal program for
funding wastewater infrastructure projects and activities
throughout the nation. Clean Water SRF funds are used for
capitalization grants for state clean water infrastructure
programs, which, in turn, fund locally developed wastewater
infrastructure projects and activities.
In previous Congresses and the current Congress, the
subcommittee held numerous hearings on financing water
infrastructure projects. These hearings examined the growing
funding gap that now exists between wastewater infrastructure
needs and current levels of spending, the challenges facing
low-income and rural communities in affording wastewater
infrastructure investment, and the resiliency needs of our
nation's water infrastructure. In June 2021, the Committee
ordered H.R. 1915, the Water Quality Protection and Job
Creation Act of 2021, as amended, favorably reported to the
House of Representatives by a bipartisan vote of 42-25; this
legislation would reauthorize the Clean Water SRF and other
wastewater infrastructure grant programs for an additional five
years.
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program
(WIFIA): Authorized by the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA, P.L. 113-121), the WIFIA
program provides low-interest federal loans or loan guarantees
to eligible entities for a wide range of nationally and
regionally significant water and wastewater projects. The most
recent authorization level (FY 2021) for the WIFIA program was
$50 million; however, the WIFIA program is not authorized for
FY 2022. The President's budget request for FY 2022 is $80.1
million for the WIFIA program, while the FY 2021 appropriated
level was $65 million.
Environmental Programs and Management (EPM): This account
provides funds for internal programmatic activities. The
President's budget request would increase funding for the EPM
account by $665.9 million (24.1 percent) from the FY 2021
appropriated level of $2.761 billion to $3.4 billion.
Geographic (Regional) Programs: The EPA's regional programs
provide an opportunity to target regionally specific
environmental problems and to work closely with state and local
partners. The FY 2022 budget request increases funding for the
EPA's Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) to $340 million
(+$10 million), the Chesapeake Bay Program to $90.5 million
(+$3 million), Gulf of Mexico to $22.4 million (+$2.4 million),
Lake Champlain to $20 million ($+5 million), San Francisco Bay
to $12 million (+$3 million), Long Island Sound to $40 million
($9.6 million), Puget Sound to $35 million- (+$1.25 million),
and Lake Pontchartrain programs to $1.73 million (+$295,000).
Additionally, the administration proposes a $141,000
funding increase for the National Estuaries Program from the FY
2021 enacted level of $31.82 million (section 320 of the Clean
Water Act) to $31.9 million.
[NOTE: On June 15, 2021, the House of Representatives
passed under suspension three Clean Water regional program
bills from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
including legislation to authorize federal appropriations for
the Puget Sound (H.R. 1144), the San Francisco Bay (H.R. 610),
and the Lake Pontchartrain Basin (H.R. 1921) programs. The EPA
regional programs are funded from the EPA's EPM account.]
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG): This account
provides categorical grants to states and tribes as part of the
cooperative partnership between federal government, states, and
tribes. The President's budget request would increase funding
for the State and Tribal Assistance Grants account from the FY
2021 appropriated level of $4.313 billion by $816.1 million
(18.9 percent) to $5.1 billion. [NOTE: On June 15, 2021, the
House of Representatives passed under suspension H.R. 2008 to
reauthorize federal appropriations for EPA's non-point source
pollution grant program (section 319), which is funded from the
STAG account.]
The President's FY 2022 budget request would provide $234.6
million in grants to states to establish and maintain state
water pollution control programs under section 106 of the Clean
Water Act. This is a $4.6 million increase from the FY 2021
appropriated level of $230 million. Section 106 funding is used
by individual states to carry out state clean water programs,
including Clean Water Act permitting, monitoring, and
enforcement.
SUPERFUND AND BROWNFIELDS
Superfund Program: The Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, P.L. 96-510)
established the Superfund program in 1980. The EPA's Office of
Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) runs the Superfund
program. Superfund is the federal program established to clean
up the nation's uncontrolled and/or abandoned hazardous waste
sites. The law makes designated responsible parties pay for the
hazardous waste cleanups wherever possible and provides for a
hazardous substances trust fund, commonly referred to as the
Superfund, to pay for remedial cleanups in cases where
responsible parties cannot be found or otherwise be held
accountable. Superfund is also available for responding to
emergency situations involving the release of hazardous
substances. The EPA addresses the highest priority sites by
listing them on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL).
The administration's FY 2022 budget request provides $1,533.8
billion for the Superfund program, a $328 million increase from
the FY 2021 appropriated level of $1.205 billion.
Brownfields: Brownfields consist of properties for which
the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be complicated by
the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance,
pollutant, or contaminant. These sites can consist, for
example, of former industrial properties, gas stations, or dry
cleaners. The EPA established the Brownfields Initiative in
1995 to better enable the federal government, states, and
communities to work together to address, cleanup, and reuse
brownfields sites. The Small Business Liability Relief and
Brownfields Revitalization Act (P. L. 107-118) authorized
funding for the EPA to award brownfields assessment, cleanup,
and revolving loan fund grants, as well as provided limited
Superfund liability protections for certain innocent landowners
and bona fide prospective purchasers. The EPA's OLEM manages
the Brownfields program.
The President's FY 2022 budget request would provide
$201.374 million for the EPA's brownfields program, including
$130.982 million in site assessment and cleanup grants (STAG
account); $46.195 million for authorized state brownfields
programs (STAG account); and $24.197 million for the EPA's
management of the Brownfields program (EPM account). Of all the
brownfields-related activity included in the President's
budget, the account that funds actual, on-the-ground,
brownfields site assessment and remediation activities proposes
funding at $130.9 million, which would be a $40.0 million
increase from the FY 2021 level. In the 115th Congress, the
Brownfields Utilization, Investment, and Local Development Act
(P. L. 115-141) included an authorization of $200 million for
FY 2022 for this specific purpose.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (CORPS)
The Corps studies, constructs, operates, and maintains
water resources development projects for the nation, usually
through cost-shared partnerships with non-federal sponsors.
Authorized mission activities include navigation, flood
control, shoreline protection, hydropower, dam safety, water
supply, recreation, environmental restoration and protection,
and disaster response and recovery.
Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \3\
(in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diff. of FY 2022
FY 2022 Pres. Budget and FY
Program FY 2021 FY 2022 Authorized President's 2021 Enacted
Enacted Budget --------------------
$ %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigations......................... $153.0 No Authorization......... $105.8 -$47.2 -30.8%
Construction........................... 2,692.6 No Authorization......... 1,792.4 -900.3 -33.4%
Operation and Maintenance.............. 3,849.7 No Authorization......... 2,502.9 -1,346.8 -35.0%
[Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund] \1\.... n/a No Authorization......... $1,625.9 - -
Regulatory............................. 210.0 No Authorization......... 204.4 -5.6 -2.6%
Expenses............................... 206.0 No Authorization......... 199.3 -6.7 -3.3%
Office of the Assistant Secretary of 5.0 No Authorization......... 5.0 0.0 0.0%
the Army.
Mississippi River and Tributaries (MRT) 380.0 No Authorization......... $269.7 -110.3 -29.0%
Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF)..... 113.0 No Authorization......... 52.15 -60.85 -53.8%
FUSRAP................................. 250.0 No Authorization......... [250.0] \2\ - -
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies 35.0 No Authorization......... 35.0 0.0 0.0%
(FCCE).
------------ ---------------------------------
Total................................ $7,894.3 $6,792.5 \3 -1,101.8 -13.9%
\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The President's budget distinguishes between Operation and Maintenance expenditures for non-navigation
projects and O&M expenditures utilizing Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund expenditures. When compared with the FY
2021 appropriated levels for O&M activities ($3.849 billion), the FY 2022 President's budget allocates a total
of $4.295 billion for O&M activities, for an increase of $446 million (or 11.58 percent).
\2\ Funds for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) program are included in the FY22
budget request under the Department of Energy's Office of Legacy Management, but would still be performed by
the Corps). If such funds were included in the FY22 budget request for the Corps, the total request would be
$7.042 billion, which would be a decrease of $875 million (-10.8%) from the FY21 enacted level.
The\\ water resources development projects and programs of
the Corps support vital economic and environmental needs of
this nation. These projects provide for continued economic
growth, job creation, and economic stability while protecting
human lives and property, ensuring reliable waterborne
transportation of goods, and restoring valuable natural
resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Fiscal Year 2022, Civil Works Budget of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, accessed at https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/
collection/p16021coll6/id/42
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The administration's FY 2022 request for the Corps of
$6.793 billion would be a reduction of $1.101 billion from the
FY 2021 enacted level for the agency.
Sources of Appropriations for FY 2022:
General Fund.............................. $5.067 billion
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund............. $1.625 billion
Special Recreation User Fees.............. $47 million
Inland Waterways Trust Fund............... $52.15 million
Investigations: The President's budget request would
provide a total of $113 million for the Investigations program,
consisting of $105.8 million from the Investigations account
and $7.1 million from the Mississippi River and Tributaries
account. This program funds studies to determine the need,
feasibility, and economic and environmental benefits of
potential water resources projects. The investigations account
is used to fund the study of potential projects related to
river and harbor navigation, flood control, shore protection,
environmental restoration, and related purposes. This account
also funds the restudy of authorized projects, miscellaneous
investigations, and plans and specifications of projects prior
to construction.
The budget focuses on ongoing work and on promoting efforts
to provide local communities with technical and planning
assistance to enable them to reduce their flood risk, with
emphasis on non-structural approaches. The budget would include
$29 million for technical and planning assistance programs that
will help local communities identify and address their risks
associated with climate change, $17 million for research and
development, $4 million to complete dredged material management
plans necessary to enable the disposal of dredged material from
seven Great Lakes projects and two Mississippi River projects
over the next 20-25 years, and $1 million to incorporate
climate resilience into planning and policy guidance for how
the Corps formulates future projects.
The budget requests funding to initiate seven new studies:
Central and Southern Florida Flood Resiliency Study, FL (flood
and storm damage reduction); Boise River, Garden City, Ada
County, ID (flood and storm damage reduction); Great Lakes
Coastal Resiliency Study, IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, PA, NY, & WI
(flood and storm damage reduction); Spring Creek South, Jamaica
Bay (Howard Beach), Queens, NY (aquatic ecosystem restoration);
Little Narragansett Bay, RI (navigation); Waccamaw River, Horry
County, SC (flood and storm damage reduction); and Little Goose
Creek, Sheridan, WY (aquatic ecosystem restoration).\4\ The
budget also requests funding to complete 15 ongoing studies.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See id.
\5\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction: The Construction account would provide $1.889
billion for the construction of Corps projects, consisting of
$1.792 from the Construction Account, $63.7 million from the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF), and $32.6 million from
the Mississippi River and Tributaries account. The budget
includes requests for four construction new starts, including:
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, Three Rivers,
AR (navigation); West Sacramento, CA (flood and storm damage
reduction); Anacostia Watershed Restoration, Prince George's
County, MD (aquatic ecosystem restoration); and Norfolk Harbor
and Channels, VA (Deepening) (navigation).\6\ The budget also
proposes sufficient funding to complete construction of four
ongoing projects.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See id.
\7\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2022 budget would include $350 million for the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration (SFER) (Everglades) program, a
$100 million increase, or forty percent, from the 2021 enacted
level. SFER funding was also included in the administration's
infrastructure proposal, the American Jobs Plan.\8\ Taken
together, a robust amount of funding is proposed for SFER,
enabling significant progress on ecosystem restoration. In an
effort to improve the resilience of the nation's ports and
waterways, the plan would also include $2 billion over five
years to cover the federal share of coastal navigation
construction projects and $780 million to cover 65 percent of
the cost to complete construction of on-going capital
improvement projects and major rehabilitation of existing
inland navigation construction projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/
2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The budget proposes modifying the performance criteria for
projects funded on the basis of their economic return to the
nation, by lowering the threshold benefit-to-cost ratio (BCR)
(previously at 2.5 to 1) to 2.0 to 1 or greater at a seven
percent discount rate.
Operation and Maintenance (O&M): The President's budget
would provide a total of $4.295 billion for the O&M program,
consisting of $2.503 billion from the O&M account, $1,557
billion from the HMTF, and $235.3 million from the Mississippi
River and Tributaries Account.
The budget would provide $75 million to advance near-term
climate resilience efforts by specifically targeting operation
and maintenance activities that are focused on improving
climate resilience and/or sustainability at existing Corps-
owned projects, $60 million for work needed to mitigate for
adverse impacts from existing Corps-owned projects, $20 million
to improve cybersecurity at existing Corps-owned projects, and
$13 million to complete major rehabilitation studies at six
inland waterway locks and dams projects. These funds will be
used in addition to the $2 billion over five years proposed in
the American Jobs Plan for the maintenance and repair of
existing navigation channels and navigation locks and dams on
the nation's inland waterways that support commercial
navigation.
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF): The President's
budget proposes to spend $1.626 billion from the HMTF for
eligible projects and activities with an emphasis on operation
and maintenance, including dredging, of completed projects, the
highest amount ever proposed in a President's budget since
enactment of the HMTF in 1986. The budget requests $787 million
to address the top 50 U.S. coastal ports across the nation,
which handle around 90 percent of the waterborne cargo that is
shipped to or from the United States. The budget also requests
$252 million for operation and maintenance of Great Lakes-
projects, $58 million for projects that support access by
Native American tribes to their legally recognized historic
fishing areas, and $63 million for five construction projects
that will accommodate disposal of material dredged from coastal
navigation projects. The budget also highlights funding in the
American Jobs Plan that proposes an additional investment of
$2.8 billion over five years for activities in coastal ports
that are HMTF eligible.
Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T): The President's
budget request includes a total of $275 million, consisting of
$269.688 million from the Mississippi River and Tributaries
account and $5.312 million from the HMTF, for ongoing work in
the lower Mississippi River and its tributaries, with emphasis
on the 1,600 miles of levees and related features on the main
stem of the lower Mississippi River and in the Atchafalaya
Basin.
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE): The
President's budget request includes $35 million for
preparedness and training for floods, hurricanes, and other
natural disasters.
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP):
The President's budget request proposes to transfer financial
responsibility for FUSRAP sites back to the Department of
Energy. NOTE: The Department of Energy budget request includes
$250 million for management of the FUSRAP program.
Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF): The President's budget
request proposes to spend $52.150 million from the IWTF to
begin construction on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River
navigation system, Three Rivers, AR project, which will reduce
the risk of a breach between Arkansas and White Rivers during
high water that would likely result in a loss of navigation on
the Mississippi River. The budget also includes $420 million in
funding proposed in the American Jobs Plan over the next five
years to cover 35 percent of the cost to complete construction
of on-going capital improvement projects and major
rehabilitation of existing inland navigation construction
projects.
Veteran's Curation Program and Collections Management: The
President's budget proposal includes $6.5 million for the
Veteran's Curation Program, which provides rehabilitation and
training for veterans using the archaeological collections of
the Corps.
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS)
Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \9\
(in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diff. of FY 2022
FY 2021 FY 2022 Pres. Budget and FY
Program Enacted FY 2022 President's 2021 Enacted
Authorized Budget --------------------
$ %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations......... $175.0 Such Sums as May $175.0 0.0 0.0
be Necessary.
Watershed Rehabilitation Program.................. 10.0 No Authorization. 10.0 0.0 0.0
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program. 50.0 $50.0 $50.0 0.0 0.0
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... $235.0 $50 $235.0 0.0 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The\\ NRCS is authorized to give technical and financial
help to local organizations planning and carrying out watershed
projects for flood protection, agricultural water management,
recreation, municipal and industrial water supply, and wildlife
enhancement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-budget-
summary.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President's budget proposes $50 million in mandatory
funding for the Watershed Protection and Flood Program, which
was created in the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L.
115-334) through amendments to the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act (P.L. 83-566).
In addition, the budget proposes level funding of $175
million for Watershed and Flood Prevention activities
authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534) and
the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (P.L.
83-566). This program directs NRCS to work with localities to
plan and install flood prevention improvements and share the
cost for improvements in flood prevention, agricultural water
management, recreation, and fish and wildlife development.
Further, the FY 2022 budget proposes an increase of $10 million
in funding under this program for small watershed operations
authorized under P.L. 83-566. This program provides federal
resources to small watersheds of 250,000 acres or less for both
for technical and financial assistance of flood prevention and
watershed projects on private land for the conservation,
development, utilization, and disposal of water, and for the
reduction of sediment and erosion damages.
The President's budget highlights a proposal to increase
funding for the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
program by $100 million per year (totaling $1 billion over ten
years).
Lastly, the President's budget proposes level funding for
the Watershed Rehabilitation Program at $10 million for FY
2022. This program provides financial and technical assistance
to communities for planning and financing the rehabilitation of
federally constructed flood prevention dams that have reached
the end of their design lives. The program is authorized under
Section 14 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act
(16 U.S.C. 1012), as amended.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)
Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \10\
(in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diff. of FY 2022
FY 2022 Pres. Budget and FY
Appropriations Account FY 2021 President's 2021 Enacted
Enacted Budget --------------------
$ %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Ocean Service (NOS)...................................... $628.2 $862.4 $234.2 37.2%
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OOAR)................. 614.1 815.7 201.6 32.8%
---------------------------------------------
Total \1,2\..................................................... $1,242.3 $1,678.1 $435.8 35.1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table totals the discretionary funding for NOS and OOAR, and does not highlight accounts outside the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
\2\ Total includes funding for both operations, research, and facilities, and procurement, acquisitions, and
construction accounts.
The\\ Subcommittee has jurisdiction over various NOAA
programs and activities, including responsibilities under the
Clean Water Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act
Reauthorization Amendments (P.L. 101-508), the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (P.L. 100-688),
Superfund (P.L. 99-499), the Oil Pollution Act (P.L. 101-380),
the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act
(P.L. 104-332), the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research
and Control Act (P.L. 105-383), and the Estuary Habitat
Restoration and Partnership Act of 2000 (P.L. 105-457). The
Subcommittee's jurisdictional interest in the NOS includes
coastal water pollution and natural resource damages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/
NOAA%20FY22%20CJ.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President's FY 2022 budget requests $815.67 million for
discretionary funding for the OOAR, $201.58 million more than
the FY 2021 enacted level of $614.09 million.
The President's FY 2022 budget requests $862.4 million for
discretionary funding for the NOS, $234.2 million more than the
FY 2021 enacted level of $628.2 million. The National Coastal
Zone Management (CZM) Program is part of the NOS.
The FY 2022 request includes level the following:
LCoastal Zone Management Grants ($108.5 million)
within the CZM Program. These grants support actions of states
and other grantees authorized under the Coastal Zone Management
Act (CZMA). Some of this work supports section 6217 of the
Coastal Zone Reauthorization Amendments Act for controlling
coastal non-point pollution. The CZM Program is a voluntary
partnership between the federal government and coastal states,
Great Lakes states, and territories to address coastal issues.
This is a $30 million increase over the FY 2021 enacted level.
LNational Centers for Coastal Ocean Science
(NCCOS) Competitive Research Funding Support for Ecological
Threats ($22 million). The NCCOS competitive research program
provides grants to academic institutions to conduct ecological
research that advances NOAA's missions--including for algal
blooms.
LNational Sea Grant Program ($130 M). This program
funds a network of 34 Sea Grant programs located in coastal
states and territories, as well as more than 3,000 scientists,
researchers, students, and outreach experts from more than 300
institutions. This funding number includes the total of funds
from the National Sea Grant College Program and Marine
Aquaculture program.
The President's FY 2022 budget proposes to increase funding
for Coral Reef Restoration and Threat Abatement Initiatives by
$10 million to $43 million. This program funds efforts to
protect and restore coral reefs, diagnose and treat coral
reefs, and partners with USGS in support of research and
epidemiology of coral disease.
GREAT LAKES ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (GLS)
Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \11\
(in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diff. of FY 2022
FY 2022 Pres. Budget and FY
Program FY 2021 FY 2022 Authorized President's 2021 Enacted
Enacted Budget --------------------
$ %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................. $38.0 No Authorization......... $37.7 -$0.3 -0.8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The\\ St. Lawrence Seaway is a 328 nautical-mile deep-draft
waterway between the Port of Montreal and Lake Erie. It
connects the Great Lakes with the Atlantic Ocean via the lower
St. Lawrence River. The Seaway includes a network of 15 locks
and connecting channels located in Canada and the United
States. Thirteen of the locks belong to Canada and the
remaining two locks, located in Massena, New York, belong to
the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2021-05/
GLS-FY-2022-President-Budget-Request.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. portion of the Seaway was authorized in 1954, and
is operated by the GLS, an agency within the DOT. The Canadian
portion of the Seaway is operated by the Great Lakes St.
Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, a private corporation
established in the 1990s and owned by the nine largest Canadian
users of the Seaway.
The President's budget request for the GLS from the HMTF is
$37.7 million. This would fund the daily operations and
maintenance of the U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway
($23.2 million) and Seaway infrastructure investment (14.5
million).
Operational, maintenance, and capital asset renewal needs
for the U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway are derived
from appropriations from the HMTF and revenues from other
sources.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA)
SUMMARY OF FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See https://www.tva.com/docs/default-source/1-float/
_tva_annual_performance_
report__final_05.21.21853293c8-12c6-43e3-96e6-
5058b2d21607.pdf?sfvrsn=fb9f903_3; see also https://www.whitehouse.gov/
wp-content/uploads/2021/05/oia_fy22.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TVA is the nation's largest government-owned wholesale
power producer established by the Tennessee Valley Authority
Act (16 U.S.C. 831) in 1933. TVA supplies power to nearly ten
million people over an 80,000 square mile service area covering
Tennessee, and parts of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North
Carolina, Virginia, and Kentucky. In addition, TVA's non-power
program responsibilities include the multi-purpose management
of land and water resources throughout the Tennessee Valley.
Initially, federal appropriations funded all TVA
operations. Direct federal funding for the TVA power program
ended in 1959, and appropriations for TVA's environmental
stewardship and economic development activities were phased out
by 1999. TVA currently receives no federal appropriations but
operates and maintains its assets through commercial and
residential rates, and the authority to issue federally secured
bonds.
UNITED STATES SECTOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION
(IBWC)
Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \13\
(in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diff. of FY 2022
FY 2022 Pres. Budget and FY
Appropriations Account FY 2021 President's 2021
Enacted Budget --------------------
$ %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Expenses............................................. $49.8 $52.0 2.2 4.4%
Construction...................................................... $49.0 $46.8 -2.2 -4.4%
---------------------------------------------
Total........................................................... $98.8 $98.8 0.0 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First\\ established in 1889, the IBWC has responsibility
for implementing the boundary and water treaties between the
United States and Mexico and settling issues that may arise
along the 1,952-mile common border. The IBWC is an
international body, composed of a United States sector and
Mexico sector, each headed by an Engineer-Commissioner
appointed by the respective President. The United States sector
of the IBWC receives its policy guidance from the U.S.
Department of State and the Mexico sector of the IBWC receives
its policy guidance from Mexico's Secretariat of Foreign
Relations. The U.S. IBWC is headquartered in El Paso, Texas,
and the Mexico IBWC has its headquarters in Ciudad Juarez,
Chihuahua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/FY-2022-
State_USAID-Congressional-Budget-Justification.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President's budget request for U.S. IBWC Salaries and
Expenses is $51.97 million, which is an increase of $2.2
million over the FY 2021 enacted amount. The budget request for
U.S. IBWC construction activities is $46.8 million, which is a
decrease of $2.2 million from FY 2021 levels.
AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY (ATSDR)
Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \14\
(in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diff. of FY 2022
FY 2022 Pres. Budget and FY
Appropriations Account FY 2021 President's 2021
Enacted Budget --------------------
$ %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................................. $78.0 $81.8 $3.6 4.8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The\\ ATSDR is the nation's public health agency for
chemical safety. The agency's mission is to use the best
science, take responsive action, and provide trustworthy health
information to prevent and mitigate harmful exposures and
related disease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ https://www.cdc.gov/budget/documents/fy2022/FY-2022-CDC-
congressional-justification.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATSDR was created by the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980
(P.L. 96-510), more commonly known as the Superfund law, and
was formally organized in 1985.
Under its CERCLA mandate, the agency's work falls into four
functional areas: (1) protecting the public from hazardous
exposures; (2) increasing knowledge about toxic substances; (3)
educating health care providers and the public about toxic
chemicals; and (4) maintaining health registries. In recent
years, ATSDR has focused on pathways of potential exposure to
toxic chemicals, including food, water, air, and consumer
goods.
The administration's FY 2022 budget request for ATSDR is
$81.75 million, which is $3.75 million more than the FY 2021
appropriations for the agency.
WITNESSES (Part I)
LLieutenant General Scott A. Spellmon, Chief of
Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
LJaime A. Pinkham, Acting Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army
LJeff Lyash, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
LDaniel Avila, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Sector of
the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC)
Mrs. Napolitano. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I call
this hearing to order.
Today's hearing will focus on President Biden's fiscal year
2022 budget request and his administration's priorities for the
upcoming year. This hearing will serve as part 1 of two
hearings on these topics, in order to hear from multiple
agencies in the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
Let me begin by asking unanimous consent that the Chair be
authorized to declare a recess at any time during today's
hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I ask for unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing, and be permitted to ask questions.
Without objection, so ordered.
It is the responsibility of each Member seeking recognition
to unmute their microphone prior to speaking, and to mute
themselves upon the end of their 5 minutes. To avoid any
inadvertent background noise, I request that every Member keep
their microphone muted when not seeking recognition to speak.
Should I hear any inadvertent noise, background noise, I will
request that the Member please mute their microphone.
And finally, to insert a document into the record, please
have your staff email it to [email protected].
Now, for my opening statement, I will tell you that today
we will discuss the President's fiscal year 2022 budget request
and other policy goals and objectives of the Biden
administration.
Let me begin by commending the Biden administration for
restoring critical funding and respect to the agencies under
the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, and recognizing the
essential role that they play in addressing the critical water
resources and human health needs of our communities.
As we all remember, the previous administration tried to
singlehandedly gut the expertise and authorities of Federal
agencies, both by systematically trying to roll back
environmental protections, as well as by slashing agencies'
funding to prevent hard-working Federal employees from doing
the job that we directed them to do, and that provides critical
economic, environmental, and public health benefits to the
American people.
This year, it is refreshing to see that the President's
budget request restores the funding levels that are necessary
to accomplish the important work of all the agencies under the
subcommittee's jurisdiction, not just Band-Aid solutions.
This budget request would provide funding for critical Army
Corps of Engineers projects across the country, which would
provide communities with flood protection, water supply, and
environmental restoration. I am pleased to see that this budget
request includes sufficient funds to complete a dam safety
project at Whittier Narrows Dam in California.
For the Corps, the fiscal year 2022 budget request
represents the largest single budget request for the Corps in
its entire history.
The budget also calls for the largest transfer of critical
navigation maintenance funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund. These dollars will fund operation and maintenance
projects at our coastal ports, which strongly support all our
economy, and keep us globally competitive. Such projects will
be essential as we come out of COVID-19 pandemic, which had
devastating effects on our export economy.
The budget also maintains funding for agencies with large
regional impacts like the International Boundary and Water
Commission. These agencies have an important role to play--we
don't hear much about them--in managing water supplies in the
Southwest; and for keeping our border waters clean, safe, and
reliable; and for implementing aspects of drought contingency
plans with Mexico and the Western States on the Colorado River.
At the same time, the administration is now reviewing the
nearly 100 environmental rules that were weakened or revoked
altogether by the previous administration. Today, I hope to
hear your plans to correct these wrongdoings and return to the
protection of our environment and resources, rather than the
protection of polluters and their bottom lines.
The reality is Americans know that protecting our waters
creates economic growth with healthy communities and clean
water for agriculture, for residential, and business use.
As the administration looks at the many environmental
protections that have been attacked over the last 4 years,
there are certainly some priority areas for the subcommittee.
Overall, we need to ensure the protection of our waterways and
the availability of clean water for every community.
For example, I was heartened to hear that the Biden
administration proposes to replace the ``dirty water rule,''
which was the single largest rollback in clean water
protections in the history of the Clean Water Act. However, I
do remain concerned that every day the ``dirty water rule''
remains in place, additional waters--including seasonal rivers,
streams in the West, and wetlands across the country--are being
polluted, degraded, or destroyed.
We will also need to address rules which fail to protect
children from toxic chemicals, such as the coal ash storage
rule and the steam electric effluent guidelines rules. These
weakened rules will have a devastating impact on families near
facilities that produce such toxic pollution in communities of
color, even beyond them.
We also need to address rules which failed to give
communities a voice or choice in highly impactful projects.
Whether the project is pipelines that may cut through the
entire communities, or open-pit mines that threaten their
natural resources or way of life, we cannot leave minority,
rural, or Tribal voices out of the conversation.
Today, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on your
budget priorities and learning how you are planning to restore
your offices to their sworn duties and missions that were so
neglected over the last 4 years.
[Mrs. Napolitano's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, and Chair, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment
Today, we will discuss the president's fiscal year 2022 budget
request and other policy goals and objectives of the Biden
administration.
Let me start by commending the Biden administration for restoring
critical funding and respect to the agencies under the jurisdiction of
this Subcommittee and recognizing the essential role that these
agencies play in addressing the critical water resources and human
health needs of our communities.
As we all remember, the previous administration tried to
singlehandedly gut the expertise and authorities of Federal agencies,
both by systematically trying to roll-back environmental protections,
as well as by slashing agency funding to prevent hard working federal
employees from doing the job that we directed them to do, and that
provides critical economic, environmental, and public health benefits
to the American people.
This year, it is refreshing to see that President Biden's budget
request restores the funding levels that are necessary to accomplish
the important work of all the agencies under this subcommittee's
jurisdiction.
This request would provide funding for critical Army Corps of
Engineers projects across the country, which will provide communities
with flood protection, water supply, and environmental restoration. I
am pleased to see this request includes sufficient funds to complete a
dam safety project at Whittier Narrows.
For the Corps, the fiscal year 2022 budget request represents the
largest single budget request for the Corps in its history.
The budget also calls for the largest transfer of critical
navigation maintenance funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
These dollars will fund operation and maintenance projects at our
coastal ports which strongly support our economy and keep us globally
competitive. Such projects will be essential as we come out of the
COVID-19 pandemic which had devastating impacts on our export economy.
The budget request also maintains funding for agencies with large
regional impacts, like the International Boundary and Water Commission.
These agencies have an important role to play in managing water
supplies in the Southwest, for keeping our border waters clean, safe,
and reliable, and for implementing aspects of drought contingency plans
with Mexico and Western states on the Colorado River.
At the same time, the administration is now reviewing the nearly
100 environmental rules that were weakened or revoked altogether by the
previous administration. Today, I hope to hear your plans to correct
these wrongdoings and return to the protection of our environment and
resources, rather than the protection of polluters and their bottom
lines.
The reality is Americans know that protecting our waters creates
economic growth with healthy communities and clean water for
residential and business use.
As the Administration looks at the many environmental protections
that have been attacked over the last four years, there are certainly
some priority areas for this subcommittee. Overall, we need to ensure
the protection of our waterways and the availability of clean water for
every community.
For example, I was heartened to hear that the Biden administration
proposes to replace the Dirty Water Rule--which was the single largest
rollback in clean water protections in the history of the Clean Water
Act. However, I remain concerned that every day the Dirty Water Rule
remains in place, additional waters (including seasonal rivers and
streams in the West and wetlands across the country) are being
polluted, degraded, or destroyed.
We will also need to address rules which failed to protect children
from toxic chemicals, such as the Coal Ash Storage Rule and the Steam
Electric effluent guidelines rule. These weakened rules will have
devastating impacts on families near facilities that produce such toxic
pollution, and communities even beyond them.
We also need to address rules which failed to give communities a
voice or choice in highly impactful projects. Whether the project is
pipelines that may cut through entire communities, or open-pit mines
that threaten their natural resources or way of life, we cannot leave
minority, rural, or tribal voices out of the conversation.
Today, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on your budget
priorities and learning how you are planning to restore your offices to
their sworn duties and mission areas that were so neglected over the
past four years.
Mrs. Napolitano. At this time I am pleased to yield to my
colleague, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Rouzer,
for any thoughts he may have.
Mr. Rouzer. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you
holding this hearing, and I would like to, of course, thank our
witnesses for being with us today, too.
And I might add that I hope we can get back to a day when
we are all here in the committee, including our panelists. In
fact, I think it is past time to get back to that. That was my
editorial comment.
A little different viewpoint on things, as compared to the
chairman's remarks, today's hearing will focus on the
President's fiscal year 2022 budget proposal for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the
U.S. Sector of the International Boundary and Water Commission
within the Department of State.
First, I am going to start with Army Corps, and I
appreciate that we have representation from both the Corps and
its political leadership at the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
You both know how important the Corps projects are around
the country, and, certainly, my district is no different. The
beaches in my district rely on Army Corps maintenance to
protect life, property, and our critical tourism economy in the
event of a natural disaster. Our beaches in New Hanover County
specifically have benefitted from regular Army Corps
maintenance. These projects require continued and consistent
funding.
However, I am concerned with the administration's proposed
budget, in part because of its lack of dedication to
undertaking and completing projects like this. Overall, the
President's budget proposes cutting Corps funding by more than
10 percent, a reduction of almost $800 million. Now, I think we
are all certainly of the mind that--or at least most of us--
that the Federal Government needs to undergo a little fiscal
belt-tightening. But the Corps' Civil Works budget is not what
needs to be cut.
Evidently, this current administration doesn't feel the
need for fiscal restraint elsewhere, in fact, particularly in
light of some of its other enormous spending proposals.
President Biden's $6 trillion budget plan, proposing a level of
relative spending not seen since World War II, is not exactly
the picture of fiscal restraint. So the fact that this
administration has proposed increasing spending in nearly every
aspect of the Federal Government, but then would cut the Corps
budget by 10 percent defies logic, common sense, and everything
else, especially when considering the tremendous backlog of
projects.
An administration proposes a budget to show Congress and
the American people what its priorities are. What is it Speaker
Pelosi always says? Show me your budget, and I will show you
your priorities. Well, look here. Based on this budget, it
would appear that President Biden is talking out of both sides
of his mouth: on the one hand, talking about spending lavishly,
supposedly for infrastructure, but on the other hand, putting
the extremely important infrastructure projects that the Corps
is responsible for as a very low priority. How else do you read
it?
While on the subject of the Army Corps, I need to take a
moment to discuss the announcement from 2 weeks ago that the
administration is yet again going to reconsider the definition
of ``waters of the U.S.,'' or WOTUS, as we call it, for
purposes of the Clean Water Act. While not a surprise to hear
that this administration is proposing to take this action, it
is no less a disappointment.
I understand that no new regulation has been issued yet,
not even an official proposal. However, the system we have in
place now, it works. It is fair to our Nation's farmers,
ranchers, businesses, city planners, and everyone else.
A return to anything close to the 2015 WOTUS rule would be
a failure, and the regulatory burden placed on average
Americans and the effect on the economy would be highly
detrimental. As I said a couple of weeks ago, no bureaucrat in
Washington should be able to dictate what our farm families,
small businesses, local governments, and citizens do on their
property after a significant rainfall.
Now, aside from the representatives of the Corps, we also
have folks here from two other important entities: the
Tennessee Valley Authority and the International Boundary and
Water Commission. TVA has not taken any Federal funds since
1999, which is certainly a rarity among entities created by
Congress. However, that does not mean that TVA doesn't face
challenges in performing its mission. In fact, I look forward
to hearing about what TVA needs to be able to most effectively
and cost-efficiently achieve its missions, including that of
delivering crucial electricity to its customers.
And finally, I look forward to hearing from the
International Boundary and Water Commission and the challenges
it faces as it implements the boundary and water treaties
between the United States and Mexico and resolves differences
they may have.
Again, Madam Chair, thank you for holding this hearing, and
I want to thank our witnesses. I yield back.
[Mr. Rouzer's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. David Rouzer, a Representative in Congress
from the State of North Carolina, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment
Thank you, Chair Napolitano. I appreciate you holding this hearing,
and I would also like to thank our witnesses for being here today. I
might add that I hope we can get back to a day when we are all here in
the Committee, including our panelists. In fact, I think it's past time
to get back to that.
As noted, today's hearing will focus on the President's Fiscal Year
2022 budget proposal for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and the U.S. Sector of the
International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) within the
Department of State.
Let's start with the Army Corps of Engineers.
I am appreciative that we have representation from both the Corps
itself and its political leadership at the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. You both know how important the
Corps' projects are around the country, and my district is no
different.
The beaches in my district rely on Army Corps maintenance to
protect life, property, and our critical tourism economy in the event
of a natural disaster. Our beaches in New Hanover County specifically
have benefitted from regular Army Corps maintenance. These projects
require continued and consistent funding.
However, I'm concerned with the Administration's proposed budget in
part because of its lack of dedication to undertaking and completing
projects like this. Overall, President Biden's budget proposes cutting
Corps funding by more than 10 percent--a reduction of almost $800
million.
Now, I am certainly of the mind that the federal government needs
to undergo some fiscal belt-tightening. But the Corps' Civil Works
budget is not what needs to be cut.
Evidently, this current administration doesn't feel the need for
fiscal restraint elsewhere in fact. Particularly in light of some of
its other enormous spending proposals. President Biden's $6 trillion
budget plan, proposing a level of relative spending not seen since
World War II, is not exactly a picture of fiscal restraint. So, the
fact that this administration has proposed increasing spending in
nearly every aspect of the federal government, but then would cut the
Corps budget by 10% defies logic, common sense, and everything else.
Especially when considering the tremendous backlog of projects.
An administration proposes a budget to show Congress and the
American people what its priorities are. Based on this budget, it would
appear that President Biden is talking out of both sides of his mouth--
on the one hand talking about spending lavishly supposedly for
``infrastructure,'' but on the other hand putting the extremely
important infrastructure projects that the Corps is responsible for as
a very low priority.
While on the subject of the Army Corps, I need to take a moment to
discuss the announcement from two weeks ago that the Administration is,
yet again, going to reconsider the definition of ``Waters of the United
States'' (or ``WOTUS'') for purposes of the Clean Water Act.
While not a surprise to hear that this administration is proposing
to take this action, it is no less a disappointment. I understand that
no new regulation has been issued yet--not even an official proposal.
However, the system we have in place now works--it is fair to our
nation's farmers, ranchers, businesses, city planners, and anyone else.
A return to anything close to the 2015 WOTUS rule would be a
failure, and the regulatory burden placed on average Americans and the
effect on the economy would be highly detrimental. As I said two weeks
ago, no bureaucrat in Washington should be able to dictate what our
farm families, small businesses, local governments, and citizens do on
their property after a significant rainfall.
Now, aside from representatives of the Corps, we also have folks
here from two other important entities: the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA) and the International Boundary and Waters Commission (IBWC).
TVA has not taken any federal funds since 1999, which is certainly
a rarity among entities created by Congress. However, that does not
mean that TVA doesn't face challenges in performing its mission. In
fact, I look forward to hearing about what TVA needs to be able to most
effectively and cost-efficiently achieve its missions, including that
of delivering crucial electricity to its customers.
Finally, I look forward to hearing from the IBWC and the challenges
it faces as it implements the boundary and water treaties between the
United States and Mexico and resolves differences that may arise.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Rouzer. At this time I am
pleased to yield to the chairman of the full committee, Mr.
DeFazio, for any thoughts he may have.
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Madam Chair. I am pleased to have the
Corps and the other entities before us today to talk about
protecting the environment, investing in science, and putting
real money toward our crumbling infrastructure.
I would just slightly correct the ranking member's
statement. It is the highest submission ever. It is $2 billion
over what Trump asked for. It is the highest submission ever by
a President. All Presidents have played this game forever. They
know Congress is going to add in more money, but this is the
highest starting point we have ever had. So I am certain we
will top the numbers of last year, particularly after 25 years
of effort that have unlocked the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
And we will see the results of that.
In fact, I was talking to an Appropriations Committee
subcommittee chair yesterday about $400 million unallocated
from the unlocked Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund that won't
count against our allocations, and I am hoping to see all of
that money spent to begin to deal with our backlog.
I wanted to spend the money more quickly. I had to
negotiate with the Republican-run Senate, two committees. The
first committee, we worked it out. We were going to spend the
money in 5 years. Then Senator Shelby got involved. Because the
Senate is so dysfunctional, they couldn't pass or even bring up
a bill that passed the House unanimously. And Senator Shelby
said, ``No, no, no, we are not going to spend that money in 5
years. Ten years.'' So, you know, that is how we got to this
point.
But it is the highest ever submission by a President. So
let's see the record corrected on that.
It does restore significant funding levels to programs with
community-level impacts, such as flood protection, resiliency
to climate change, sea level rise, severe weather events, and
other issues. I didn't see much commitment to that throughout
the reign of the former President and his administration, and I
am pleased to see a new emphasis on that.
They brought, as I said, a $2 billion lower proposal for
the Corps to us last year. Congress fixed that, ultimately, but
it was not by the initiative of the Trump administration. And,
simultaneously, they were dismantling critical laws. The
gentleman mentioned the ``waters of the U.S.'' I have been
engaged in the debate over this issue for a quarter of a
century. The rule adopted by the Trump administration removes
protections from somewhere between 70 and 80 percent--they
couldn't even tell us in the hearing--of the wetlands and
waterways in the United States.
Now, some on the committee may not be old enough to
remember when rivers burned. I do. Some may not remember,
because you haven't been out our way, when the Willamette River
was an open sewer in Oregon. It is now fishable, swimmable,
drinkable. The Cuyahoga doesn't burn anymore. And we have
preserved critical wetlands for migratory birds and other
species, and they ultimately lead into our rivers and streams,
and the health of our rivers and streams.
We have lost a lot because of the Trump ``dirty water
rule.'' In fact, I couldn't disagree more with the ranking
member. That rule should be immediately repealed. I hate to say
it, but the Bush rule to which we would revert is better, way
better than what Trump did. And then the Corps needs to
undertake to write a rule that makes sense and works for
everybody, including farmers.
The first rule proposed by the EPA was turgid under Obama.
And so all sorts of myths were created. It was going to
regulate birdbaths, and puddles on farms, and this and that.
Under much pressure, they finally rewrote it. And what they
finally wrote, actually, was good. We were holding a joint
hearing over in the Capitol with the Senate. There was this
slide that you guys like to show of a farm field and say,
``This guy had to go through a full environmental analysis,
just to farm his field.''
And I asked Gina McCarthy, the then-head of the EPA, what
would happen to that farmer under the new rule you are
proposing? And she said, ``Oh, it would be categorically
exempt.'' So actually, we did have a workable rule, and it
would have benefited everybody, but also protected critical
wetlands and waters. So I am disappointed they haven't
immediately repealed the Trump rule. We are losing wetlands,
and polluting streams on a daily basis.
There are also rollbacks of pollution discharge
requirements from coal-fired powerplants, and I am thrilled we
have got someone here from TVA today to talk about this. These
discharges include arsenic, lithium, mercury, selenium--not
great things to have in our waterways, drinking water, or
fishable water. So that is not too good. But I have read that
the TVA is somehow taking advantage of this rule, and continues
discharging unsafe levels. And I hope that I am wrong, and I
hope that the record will be straightened out today. And if
not, then we are going to want to see that that does happen in
the near future.
I remember the massive disaster of 2008, with the coal ash,
where we have lost a lot of contractors who were sent in there
to try and clean up that unbelievable mess without proper
protective equipment. More than a decade later, that toll
continues. So this is nothing to be trifled with at all.
One other issue missing from the last administration was
significant community engagement that included all communities,
including Native American communities, in terms of moving
forward projects which would have major impacts on the
environment of these communities. And I am pleased that the
Acting Assistant Secretary overturned one of the last-minute
out-the-door policies of the Trump administration to exclude
consultation with Tribal communities in Clean Water Act
jurisdictional decisions. Who thinks that is a good idea?
Really? So that is a good step.
And I also want to see--because in the WRDA 2020 bill, I
got a provision in there to improve consultation, and I am
going to want to hear what the Corps has done to improve
consultation. The Corps also has to swiftly implement the
policies which will increase resiliency in projects; utilize
nature-based infrastructure options, which was again mandated
in that bill; provide access to lower income communities; and
truly maximize sustainable development.
So I am looking forward to this hearing, clearing up some
of these issues and questions, and laying aside some myths. So
thank you, Madam Chair.
[Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding today's hearing.
Today's hearing is refreshing in that, for the first time in five
years, I don't feel like we are operating in two parallel universes.
Finally, we have a budget in front of us that demonstrates this
administration's commitment to protecting our nation's environment,
investing in science, and putting real dollars towards our crumbling
infrastructure. It is a budget that recognizes the critical role that
the federal government plays in sustaining our economy, our
environment, and our quality of life.
First and foremost, I am glad to see the highest numbers ever
requested in a President's budget for the Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps). This is also the highest amount ever requested to be
transferred from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund--over $1.6 billion.
I have been working for over two decades--since the days of
Chairman Bud Shuster--to unlock the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. At
last, after successful enactment of my proposal in WRDA 2020, those
dollars will finally be spent on the activities they were collected
for, instead of sitting idle in the U.S. Treasury. I look forward to
continued partnership with our Appropriations Committee colleagues to
finally fully utilize the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund proceeds.
Other agencies within the subcommittee's jurisdiction are also
well-supported in this budget. In many cases, this budget restores
significant funding levels to programs with community-level impacts,
such as flood protection and resiliency to the threats of climate
change. Properly funding these programs will restore and protect our
ecosystems, will allow our local and national economies to thrive, and
will help us to meet the complex challenges of the 21st century.
We, as members of Congress, are tasked with ensuring the strength
and health of our nation, our economies, and our overall quality of
life for future generations. Many of the agencies under this
subcommittee have similar mission areas. Yet, we saw a lack of federal
commitment to these goals throughout the entirety of the previous
administration. Instead of protecting children and families from
exposure to toxic chemicals, we saw corporate and polluter giveaways
under the false notion of economic benefits.
The previous administration continuously brought us laughable
budget proposals that ignored federal responsibility, or reality.
Simultaneously, the last administration worked to dismantle and weaken
existing law that protects our nation's waters, public health, and the
economy.
Separate from the numbers alone, I am glad to have these agency
representatives before the subcommittee today to hear about their
priorities and policy objectives for the new administration. There is
certainly a lot of work to do to correct the missteps of the last
administration and the war the former president waged on our
environment and our most vulnerable communities. I hope to work with
you all on some of the most egregious examples.
One of the most important, at least for this committee, will be the
rewrite of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, known here as the
Dirty Water Rule. This rule would have removed protections from up to
71 percent of streams, and more than 50 percent of wetlands. That is
simply unconscionable.
I was pleased to hear the announcement that the Biden
administration will overturn the Dirty Water Rule; however, I believe
this rule must be immediately repealed and then replaced. Every day
that the Dirty Water Rule remains in place, countless waters and
wetlands are polluted, degraded, or destroyed, and American families
will pay the cost of this destruction through more polluted waters,
less protected drinking water sources, greater flood risk, and a
degraded environment.
This is too high a cost to pay for inaction and I will continue to
push this administration for the immediate repeal of the Dirty Water
Rule.
I am also deeply concerned with another environmental reversal of
the last administration, the rollback of pollution discharge
requirements from coal-fired power plants. We know these discharges
include arsenic, lithium, mercury, and selenium. We know each one is
detrimental to the health of our waterways. I expect this corporate
giveaway to also be reversed soon. In the meantime, I have read press
reports that the Tennessee Valley Authority is trying to take advantage
of this misguided rule and to continue discharging what I consider to
be unsafe levels of toxic chemicals while this rule is under potential
revision.
The Tennessee valley knows all too well the impacts of coal ash and
coal pollution. I hope Mr. Lyash can shed some light on the TVA's
decisions and provide this committee with an update on issues
associated with the health of contractors involved in the cleanup of
the Kingston coal ash spill in 2008, which sadly, more than a decade
later, continues to cost workers' lives. Their families deserve
answers.
Madam Chair, one other issue that was uniquely missing from the
last administration was ensuring agency actions were developed with
significant community engagement. This means meaningful involvement and
consultation with tribes, rural communities, economically-disadvantaged
communities, and minority communities.
Addressing environmental justice considerations and community
engagement needs to become the norm again as we address how our
environmental laws are developed and applied, and how our federal
agencies communicate and discuss potential impacts of federal actions
on local communities.
For example, I am pleased by the action of the Acting Assistant
Secretary to overturn a last-minute policy of the last administration
to exclude consultation with tribal communities in Clean Water Act
jurisdictional decisions. However, that is just the start, and the
Corps needs to continuously engage with Tribal, rural, and
economically-disadvantaged communities, in both regulatory decisions
and as it develops future water resources development projects.
I look forward to hearing where the Corps is on updating these
consultation policies, as required by the WRDA 2020 bill.
Other aspects of WRDA 2020 should be a major priority as well. We
truly passed a strong, bipartisan, and forward-looking bill last year.
The Corps must swiftly implement the policies which will increase
resiliency in projects; better utilize nature-based infrastructure
options; provide access to lower-income communities; and truly maximize
sustainable development.
As we look forward to real federal investment and implementation of
the policy goals of the Biden administration, I hope to see continued
support for the protection of our communities and our environment. We
must be determined in restoring and renewing our federal commitments to
clean water and modern, resilient infrastructure.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all. Thank you, gentlemen, and we will now
proceed to hear from our witnesses who will testify today.
Thank you all for being here. You are very welcome.
On today's panel we have Lieutenant General Scott A.
Spellmon, Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the Army
Corps of Engineers; Mr. Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army;
Jeff Lyash, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Tennessee Valley Authority; and Daniel Avila, Acting
Commissioner of the U.S. Sector of the International Boundary
and Water Commission.
Without objection, your prepared statements will be entered
into the record, and all witnesses are asked to limit their
remarks to 5 minutes. Your testimony will be on file.
Lieutenant Spellmon, welcome. You may proceed.
General Spellmon. Madam Chairwoman, with your permission, I
would like to defer to Mr. Pinkham to give his statement first.
Mrs. Napolitano. Certainly.
Mr. Pinkham, you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF JAIME A. PINKHAM, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; LIEUTENANT
GENERAL SCOTT A. SPELLMON, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS AND COMMANDING
GENERAL, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; JEFFREY J. LYASH,
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY; AND DANIEL AVILA, ACTING COMMISSIONER, U.S. SECTOR
OF THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION
Mr. Pinkham. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking
Member Rouzer, and Chairman DeFazio, and also to members of
this committee. I appreciate the opportunity to join General
Spellmon to discuss the President's budget request for the
Civil Works program for the Army Corps of Engineers.
And as noted, the fiscal year 2022 budget is the highest
annual budget ever proposed, at roughly $6.8 billion.
And we want to emphasize investments that heighten economic
and environmental returns; increase the resiliency to climate
change; facilitate safe, reliable, and sustainable commercial
navigation; and advance the delivery of the water resources
projects.
In my short time in this position, I witnessed that our
work, and thus this budget, relies on a foundation of strong
relationships between the Corps and our public and private
partners to help deliver on the three main missions of the
Civil Works program: commercial navigation, flood and storm
damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration.
And the budget supports a diverse set of tools and
approaches to working with our partners, whether it is cost
sharing, providing planning and technical assistance, or
collaborative conversations on how best to respond to our water
resources challenges.
In addition, we want to advance two key objectives of this
administration, including increasing infrastructure and
ecosystem resilience to climate change and decreasing climate
risk for the communities, as well as promoting environmental
justice in disadvantaged communities in line with the Justice40
Initiative.
And just let me give you, quickly, the top numbers in the
budget. The investigations account is funded at $106 million;
construction at $1.8 billion; operation and maintenance, $2.5
billion; Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund at $1.6 billion; the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund at $52 million; and the Mississippi
River and tributaries account at $270 million. Other important
accounts include flood control and coastal emergencies at $35
million; our regulatory program at $204 million. The Corps'
expense account is at $199 million, and the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Civil Works is $5 million.
And if we convert this to how it will be used on the
ground, it will be used in projects such as this: $3.4 billion
of it will support projects and activities that facilitate
commercial navigation; $1.7 billion to help reduce the risk of
damages from floods and storms; $501 million to restore aquatic
ecosystems to more natural conditions; and also over $75
million that will help increase the resilience of Corps'
infrastructure to climate change, including energy and water
conservation measures, updates to water control manuals, a
charging infrastructure to support a Federal fleet of zero-
emission vehicles, and an evaluation of ways to increase the
resiliency of the Corps' infrastructure over the long term.
But in this is also $29 million for technical and planning
support and assistance to States and Tribes and local
communities, as they take steps to reduce flood risk, including
those risks that are associated with climate change.
And the American Jobs Plan also includes an additional $8
billion over 5 years for the Corps to improve ports and
waterways.
There are some important place-based initiatives within the
budget, including $350 million for the south Florida Everglades
restoration, a $100 million-increase over the 2021 enacted
level.
We are going to initiate seven new studies: central and
southern Florida flood resiliency, Great Lakes coastal
resiliency, and studies in States that are Idaho, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, Wyoming, and Queens, New York.
And there will be a construction of four new projects: the
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System; West
Sacramento, California; Norfolk Harbor and Channels; and a
project that will start and complete construction on the
Anacostia watershed restoration in Maryland.
And we also look forward to completing two projects, the
Calumet Harbor and River in Illinois and Indiana, and the
project at the mouth of the Columbia River between Oregon and
Washington.
And within the $1.6 billion derived from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, $787 million will be used to support
commercial navigation at the top 50 U.S. coastal ports across
the Nation, which handle an estimated 90 percent of the
waterborne cargo that is shipped to or from the United States
in foreign commerce.
There is $252 million for operation and maintenance of
Great Lakes projects, and $63 million for five projects that
will accommodate the disposal of material dredged for coastal
navigation.
Our budget proposal also includes returning the
responsibility and management of the Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program, FUSRAP, back to the Department of
Energy.
The budget also advances the process of addressing the
climate crisis as outlined in President Biden's Executive
order. The Army will evaluate the Civil Works program to
identify the appropriate actions the agency can take to support
this policy objective in the 2023 budget.
The Army is also committed to securing environmental
justice, and spurring economic opportunity for disadvantaged
communities that have been historically marginalized and
overburdened by pollution, and experience underinvestment in
our essential services.
And lastly, I want to point to the Water Resources
Development Act of 2020, which was enacted last December. We
have moved forward with implementation. A public comment period
was conducted, including five listening sessions. So we plan to
have the implementation guidance for many of the provisions
ready in August. But other provisions may require more time to
go through the rulemaking process.
Madam Chair, it has been an honor to serve in this position
and help implement the President's priorities and the Army's
Civil Works programs. I have been on board for slightly over 2
months, and I continue to deepen my understanding, which I hope
will assist in our common efforts to address the challenges we
face with the resources that are entrusted to us.
And thank you for inviting me today, and I look forward to
your questions.
[Mr. Pinkham's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army
Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer and distinguished
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here
today to discuss the President's Budget request for the Civil Works
program of the Army Corps of Engineers.
The Fiscal Year 2022 Budget request provides roughly $6.8 billion
for the Army Civil Works program, which is the highest annual budget
ever proposed, with a focus on investments that will yield high
economic and environmental returns, increasing resiliency to climate
change; facilitating safe, reliable and sustainable commercial
navigation; and accelerating and improving the delivery of water
resources projects. This Budget relies on a foundation of strong
relationships between the Corps and local communities, which allow us
to work together to help develop, manage, restore, and protect the
Nation's water resources.
The Budget focuses on the highest performing work within the three
main missions of the Army Civil Works program:
Commercial navigation,
Flood and storm damage reduction, and
Aquatic ecosystem restoration.
In developing the Budget, consideration was given to advancing two
key objectives including: 1) increasing infrastructure and ecosystem
resilience to climate change and decreasing climate risk for
communities based on the best available science; and 2) promoting
environmental justice in disadvantaged communities in line with the
Justice40 Initiative and creating good paying jobs that provide the
free and fair chance to join a union and collectively bargain.
The Budget supports a Corps program that has a diverse set of tools
and approaches to working with local communities, whether this means
funding projects with our cost-sharing partners, providing planning
assistance and technical expertise to help communities make better
risk-informed decisions, or participating in national and international
conversations on how to best address our water resources challenges.
The Budget also focuses on maintaining the vast water resources
infrastructure that the Corps owns and manages, and on finding
innovative ways to rehabilitate it or transfer ownership to willing
recipients. For example, the Budget includes $13 million to complete
six new major rehabilitation studies for inland waterways locks and
dams and $2 million to investigate the disposition of completed
projects.
The FY 2022 Investigations account is funded at $106 million, the
Construction account at $1.8 billion, the Operation and Maintenance
account at $2.5 billion, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund at $1.6
billion, the Inland Waterways Trust Fund at $52 million, and the
Mississippi River and Tributaries account at $270 million. Other
accounts include the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account at
$35 million, the Regulatory Program account at $204.4 million, the
Expenses account at $199.3 million, and the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works account at $5 million.
The Army Corps will use $3.4 billion of these funds to invest in
projects and activities that will facilitate commercial navigation,
$1.7 billion to help reduce the risk of damages from floods and storms,
and $501 million to restore aquatic ecosystems to a more natural
condition. These amounts include:
$75 million to increase the resilience of Corps
infrastructure to climate change, consisting of $38 million for energy
and water conservation measures at Corps projects, $23 million for
updates to water control manuals at Corps projects that will account
for the changing climate, $8 million for the charging infrastructure
needed to support a Federal fleet of Zero Emission Vehicles, and $6
million to evaluate ways to increase the resilience of Corps
infrastructure over thelonger term; and
$29 million for Corps technical and planning assistance
programs, through which the Corps is able to assist states and local
communities with taking steps to reduce their flood risks, including
risks associated with climate change. For example, the Budget supports
Corps participation in joint Federal-State interagency teams known as
the Silver Jackets, which work at the state level to help local
communities to understand their flood risks and identify options to
help them manage those risks, with an emphasis on non-structural
approaches.
The American Jobs Plan also includes an additional $8 billion over
five years for the Corps to improve ports and waterways.
The Budget includes $350 million for the South Florida Everglades
Restoration or SFER program. The SFER request of $350 million is a $100
million increase, or 40 percent, to the 2021 enacted level. SFER
funding is also included in the American Jobs Plan. Taken together, a
robust amount of funding is proposed for SFER, enabling significant
progress on this ecosystem restoration program.
The FY 2022 Budget includes funding to initiate seven new studies:
Central & Southern Florida Flood Resiliency (Section
216), FL;
Boise River, Garden City, Ada County, ID;
Great Lakes Coastal Resiliency Study, IL, IN, MI, MN, OH,
PA, NY & WI;
Spring Creek South, Jamaica Bay (Howard Beach), Queens,
NY;
Little Narragansett Bay, RI;
Waccamaw River, Horry County, SC; and
Little Goose Creek, Sheridan, WY.
The FY 2022 Budget also includes funding to initiate construction
at four new projects--McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System,
Three Rivers, AR; West Sacramento, CA; Anacostia Watershed Restoration,
Prince George's County, MD; and Norfolk Harbor and Channels, VA
(Deepening) as well as to complete three construction projects--Calumet
Harbor and River, IL & IN; Columbia River at the Mouth, OR/WA; and
Anacostia Watershed Restoration, Prince George's County, MD.
Within the $1.6 billion proposed in the FY 2022 Budget to be
derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, $787 million will be
used to support commercial navigation at the top 50 U.S. coastal ports
across the Nation, which handle an estimated 90 percent of the
waterborne cargo that is shipped to or from the Unities States in
foreign commerce; $252 million for operation and maintenance of Great
Lakes projects; $58 million for projects that support access by Native
American tribes to their legally recognized historic fishing areas; and
$63 million for five construction projects that will accommodate
disposal of material dredged from coastal navigation projects.
The FY 2022 Budget proposes $10 million for a new Innovative
Funding Partnership program, which supports Corps efforts to accelerate
and improve the delivery of water through greater non-Federal
participation, and by removing barriers that prevent State, local, and
private parties from moving forward with investments that they deem
priorities.
In addition, the Budget also proposes to return responsibility for
management of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
(FUSRAP), back to the Department of Energy (DOE). Consolidation of
FUSRAP with the other DOE cleanup programs under a single agency will
allow the DOE to consider a broader range of federal cleanup
responsibilities in prioritizing work each fiscal year and will result
in efficiencies for taxpayers. The Army Corps will continue to perform
cleanup of FUSRAP sites on a reimbursable basis with the DOE.
The FY 2022 Budget begins the process of addressing the climate
crisis. As outlined in Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate
Crisis at Home and Abroad, the Army will evaluate the Civil Works
program to identify the appropriate actions the agency can take to
support this policy objective in the FY 2023 Budget. The Army is also
committed to securing environmental justice and spurring economic
opportunity for disadvantaged communities that have been historically
marginalized and overburdened by pollution and experience
underinvestment in essential services. The Army will actively work
towards ensuring 40 percent of the benefits of climate and clean energy
investments are directed to disadvantaged communities. These actions
will include an examination of the activities of key programs to
determine whether those programs' benefits have accrued to
disadvantaged communities. The Army will also begin to track program
expenditures that impact disadvantaged communities and consider metrics
that will help track how applicable covered program benefits accrue at
specific disadvantaged communities.
I would also like to highlight one of the initiatives proposed in
the Budget--an important technical change to the account structure of
the Corps, which will improve our ability to oversee the spending
financed through our two navigation trust funds. This proposal involves
changes to the appropriations language for the Construction, Operation
and Maintenance, and Mississippi River and Tributaries accounts, as
well as the adoption of appropriations language for the Harbor
Maintenance and Inland Waterways Trust Funds. It is needed and would
enable greater transparency and accountability in how these funds are
budgeted and spent.
Lastly, when the Water Resources Development Act 2020 was enacted
in December 2020, we immediately moved to begin implementation. As
required by the Water Resources, Reform Development Act of 2014, a
public comment period was conducted from March 8 to May 7, 2021. During
the public comment period, the Army Corps held five listening sessions
to hear directly from stakeholders. A total of 517 stakeholders
participated and submitted 148 written comments. We are now drafting
guidance for many of the WRDA 2020 provisions to provide clarification
on their implementation. Other provisions may warrant a rulemaking.
I am very honored to have been selected for this position, to help
implement the President's priorities for the Army Civil Works program.
I have been on-board for just over two months, and I've had the
opportunity to make a few short trips to Tacoma Harbor in Washington
State and multiple project sites throughout West Virginia, northern
Ohio, Maryland and Delaware. I have been very impressed with the
professionalism and dedication of the Army Corps of Engineers
employees, who build and maintain water resources facilities for our
primary Civil Works missions. There is much work to be done; I'm
excited to be a part of this great team--serving our Nation.
Thank you all for inviting me here today. I look forward to your
questions.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mr. Pinkham, we
appreciate your testimony.
And now I will ask the general--your testimony is welcome.
General Spellmon. Thank you, and good morning. Chairwoman
Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer, and full committee Chairman
DeFazio, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify today.
I have been in command of the Corps a little bit over 9
months now, and I would just like to provide a few brief
highlights of the great work our team is accomplishing, as we
are already making progress on three of my initial focus areas.
And those are transforming our organization to accommodate an
increased workload; expanding research and development with a
focus on delivering projects faster and cheaper and getting
after some of our current challenges across the Nation; and of
course, strengthening our already-talented workforce. And these
are just a few of the key initiatives that we are going to use
to optimally leverage the annual appropriations that we
receive, meet the priorities of both Congress and the
administration, and, of course, to ultimately deliver on our
vision, that is, to engineer solutions for our Nation's
toughest challenges.
Over the past several years, the Corps has successfully
delivered an annual Civil Works program in the range of $7 to
$8 billion, and I want to expand this competency into one that
could deliver double that benefit, by stretching our dollars
further through better partnering practices, revolutionizing
our processes, and seeking efficiencies with functional pilot
programs.
Our Nation is again seeking to renew its infrastructure,
and we in the Corps are poised to support this pivotal
modernization. Some examples of our initiatives include the
Corps' continued efforts to build upon public-private
partnerships and other innovative financing solutions. We are
also working to streamline our regulatory program by providing
straightforward, commonsense rules. But we continue to face
challenges with a funding-static stream during an ever-
increasing demand on these resources.
We will continue to seek efficiencies in project delivery
by reducing cost, optimizing schedules, and eliminating
unnecessary redundancies. We have successfully validated a
number of these concepts through implementation of the regional
dredge demonstration program down on the gulf coast, and we
look forward to applying those concepts in other regions, as
well as furthering potential efficiencies in our navigation
program by advancing the beneficial use of dredge material.
I feel strongly that, in order to achieve this vision, we
also need to elevate our research and development program, and
we are working to expand our R&D initiatives and strengthen our
partnerships with academic institutions to leverage the
enormous capacity of our Nation's scientists so we can meet the
challenges of the 21st century head on.
Investment in research and development will help us find
solutions for today's challenges, like those posed by harmful
algal blooms in Florida and the Great Lakes, drought and
wildfires across the West, and reservoir sedimentation across
the country. And of course, we want to engineer more with
nature everywhere we work.
And finally, successful investment in our future cannot be
accomplished without the talented and passionate professionals
of our workforce. People remain our greatest resource.
Investing in our people, our leaders, and diversity in all its
forms, as well as maintaining our commitment to safety in all
that we do, are keys to developing our future team.
For the past 245 years, the Corps of Engineers has served
as our Nation's engineers, and we have risen to meet the
challenge of the day, and today is no exception. We are going
to engineer the future, but we do not do it alone. We need the
help of our non-Federal partners, all our project stakeholders,
and, of course, Congress to enable us to succeed. And I look
forward to continuing our great collaboration with this
committee, as we strive to finish quality projects on time,
within budget, and do it safely.
So thank you again, Madam Chairwoman and members of the
subcommittee.
I look forward to answering any questions that you may
have.
[Lieutenant General Spellmon's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Scott A. Spellmon, Chief of
Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
I am honored to testify before your committee today, along with Mr.
Jamie Pinkham, the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works, in regard to the President's Fiscal Year 2022 (FY 2022) Budget
for the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Civil Works
Program.
Through its Civil Works Program, the Corps works with other Federal
agencies, and with State, Tribal, and local agencies and others, to
develop, manage, restore, and protect water resources, primarily
through the construction, operation and maintenance, and study of
water-related infrastructure projects. The Corps focuses on work that
provides the highest economic, environmental, and public safety returns
to the Nation. The Corps also regulates development in waters of the
United States and works with other Federal agencies to help communities
respond to, and recover from, floods and other natural disasters. The
FY 2022 Budget invests in improving the Nation's water infrastructure,
including U.S. coastal ports, while incorporating climate resilience
efforts into the Corps' commercial navigation, flood and storm damage
reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration work.
The Corps' Military program also continues our work across the
globe with presence in more than 110 countries supporting national
security and our Combatant Commanders.
Overview
The Civil Works Program is performance-based. It uses a targeted
approach to invest in our water resources and promote climate
resiliency, which will benefit the Nation's economy, environment, and
public safety--now and in the future. With the requested funds, the
Corps will emphasize: Investments in High Return Projects; Increasing
Resiliency to Climate Change; Facilitating Safe, Reliable and
Sustainable Commercial Navigation; and Accelerating and Improving
Delivery of Water Resource Projects.
The Corps focuses on high-performing projects and programs within
its three main water resources missions: commercial navigation, flood
and storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The
Budget includes $6.8 billion for these Civil Works activities
throughout the Nation. The American Jobs Plan includes an additional $8
billion over five years for the Corps to improve ports and waterways.
Investigations Program
The Investigations program of the Corps is funded both in the
Investigations account and in the Mississippi River and Tributaries
account. The Corps uses these funds to evaluate water resources
problems and opportunities, design projects within the Corps three main
mission areas, and support related work. The Investigations program
includes the Corps planning assistance and technical assistance
programs, where the Corps shares its expertise with local communities
to help them identify and understand their water resources problems,
and helps them to develop options including ways that they can increase
their resilience to, and preparedness for, flood risks. In addition to
ongoing efforts, the FY 2022 Budget supports starting seven new studies
of problems and opportunities associated with the commercial
navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem
restoration missions of the Corps.
Construction Program
The Construction program of the Corps is funded both in the
Construction account and in the Mississippi River and Tributaries
account.
The goal of the construction program is to produce as much value as
possible for the Nation from the available funds. The Corps also gives
priority to investments, selected on a risk informed basis, in dam
safety assurance, seepage control, and static instability correction
work at dams that the Corps owns and operates.
The Budget provides $350 million for the South Florida Everglades
Restoration (SFER) program, which includes the everglades. This is $100
million above the enacted level for FY 2021, an increase of 40 percent.
Additional SFER funding is included in the American Jobs Plan. Taken
together, these funds would enable the Corps to make significant
progress on this restoration program.
The Budget also invests in four previously unfunded construction
projects: West Sacramento, California, a flood and storm damage
reduction project; McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System,
Three Rivers, Arkansas, and Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia
(Deepening), which are commercial navigation projects; and Anacostia
Watershed Restoration, Prince George's County, Maryland, an aquatic
ecosystem restoration project.
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Program
The O&M program of the Corps is funded both in the O&M account and
in the Mississippi River and Tributaries account, with the Budget
providing over $4 billion.
All structures age and can deteriorate over time, causing a
potential decline in reliability. As stewards of a large portfolio of
water resources projects, the Corps is working to sustain the benefits
that the key features of this infrastructure provide.
The Corps continues to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
its operation and maintenance program. The Corps does so by targeting
its investments in infrastructure maintenance, repair, and
rehabilitation on a risk informed basis. It invests in the highest
priority needs with emphasis on the key features of the infrastructure
that the Corps owns and operates, and in work that will reduce long-
term O&M costs in real terms.
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 and
maintenance of locks and dams along the inland waterways; maintenance
dredging of inland and coastal Federal channels; operation and
maintenance of multi-purpose dams and reservoirs for flood risk
reduction and related purposes such as hydropower; monitoring of
completed navigation and flood damage reduction projects; and
management of Corps facilities and associated lands including serving
as a responsible steward of the natural resources on Corps lands.
Regulatory Program
Through its Regulatory Program, the Corps protects the Nation's
waters including wetlands, and regulates development that could impede
navigation, while allowing reasonable development to proceed.
Emergency Management
The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE) account funds the
planning, training, exercises, and other preparedness measures that
help the Corps respond to floods, hurricanes, and other natural
disasters, and to support emergency operations in response to such
natural disasters, including advance measures, flood fighting,
providing potable water, and the repair of certain damaged flood and
storm damage reduction projects. The FCCE funding proposed in the
Budget is for preparedness work. The Corps also prepares for
emergencies through funding provided under the National Emergency
Preparedness program, an O&M account remaining item.
Reimbursable Program
Through the Interagency and International Services (IIS)
Reimbursable Program, the Corps assists other Federal agencies, state,
local, tribal governments, and those of other countries with timely,
cost-effective solutions. These agencies can turn to the Corps, which
already has these capabilities, rather than develop their own internal
workforce and expertise to act as their design and construction agent.
The work is principally technical oversight and management of
engineering, environmental, and construction projects. The work itself
is typically performed by private sector firms and is financed by the
agencies we service. 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.
Conclusion
The FY 2022 Budget for the Corps represents a continuing, fiscally
prudent investment in the Nation's water resources infrastructure and
the restoration of 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, Madam Chairwoman and Members of Subcommittee. This
concludes my statement. I look forward to answering any questions you
or other Members of the Subcommittee may have.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, General, for your speech, and
it is truly welcome.
Mr. Lyash, you may proceed with your testimony, sir.
Mr. Lyash. Well, Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member
Rouzer, and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to represent one of the Nation's largest and most
innovative utilities, and a corporate agency of the Federal
Government, the Tennessee Valley Authority.
I want to thank, in particular, Representative Cohen, a
member of our Tennessee delegation, for his service to the
Memphis area. I have the opportunity to discuss issues quite
frequently with Representative Cohen, and I always appreciate
his perspective and his counsel on a broad range of issues.
My career in the energy industry spans more than 40 years.
I was president and CEO of Ontario Power. I served as executive
vice president of Duke Energy and Progress Energy, and CEO of
Progress Energy Florida. From my perspective in the energy
industry and in the nuclear industry, I firmly believe that
reliable, affordable electricity is foundational to our
national security and our economy, more so today than ever.
TVA was established almost 90 years ago to serve the
Tennessee Valley and the Nation by developing innovative
solutions to complex problems in energy, the environment, and
economic development. Through this public power model, TVA
works with 153 local power companies like Memphis Light, Gas,
and Water, to supply low-cost, reliable energy to 10 million
people in 7 Southeastern States. We carry out TVA's mission
with no Federal appropriation of tax dollars. The last
appropriations for the power system were in 1959, and, as was
said earlier, for the purposes of river operations our last
appropriations were in the mid-1990s.
TVA has strengthened its financial and operational
performance in recent years with disciplined business planning.
We have reduced operating and maintenance costs by $800 million
a year, reduced fuel and purchase power costs by over $1
billion a year, reduced our long-term debt to its lowest level
in 30 years, and we have invested $15 billion so that our
generating portfolio provides a cleaner, lower cost energy mix
that will last for decades to come, all while keeping TVA's
effective rates lower than they were a decade ago, and staying
on course to keep rates low and stable through the end of this
decade.
In February, in fact, the Lazard management firm provided
an independent review of TVA to our board of directors that
recognized TVA's performance and the ongoing value of this
public power model to the region and the Nation. Today, TVA is
working to decarbonize our energy system and support a net-zero
carbon future for the Nation.
A core strength of TVA lies in our diverse and clean
generating portfolio, one of the Nation's most diverse, with
hydroelectric power, rapidly growing contributions from
renewable energy, natural gas, a lessening contribution from
coal, and the Nation's third largest nuclear fleet. Our mass
carbon emissions today are 63 percent less than they were in
2005, and we are executing a plan to achieve a 70-percent
reduction by 2030, and we have a path to an 80-percent
reduction by 2035, using existing technologies, and without
adversely impacting reliability or cost.
Our aspiration is to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by
2050, but we recognize that closing that last 20 percent gap in
CO2 emissions to reach that net zero depends on the development
of a set of emerging technologies at a commercial scale, and at
a cost that will enable their broad deployment in the 2030s.
Across Government and industry, we must work together to
develop these new technologies.
TVA is investing in research and development of
technologies that include long-duration energy storage and
carbon capture to enable their potential deployment in the 2030
to 2040 timeframe and beyond. We are also partnering with the
State of Tennessee to support another key technology, the
electrification of transportation, which is the leading source
of greenhouse gas emissions.
And as an industry leader in nuclear technology, we are
engaged today in developing new nuclear technology for
tomorrow, and we stand ready to help lead the Nation in
development and demonstration of advanced nuclear technology,
specifically small modular reactors, SMRs, as they are known.
We see SMRs as a key to decarbonizing our system and our
economy. Provided the funding becomes available, TVA's plan is
to have a reliable, affordable, flexible, and clean advanced
reactor option available by 2032.
But it is not a path we can take alone. Industry
partnerships and Federal financial support, these are essential
to breaking through the risks of developing first-of-a-kind
technology so that it can be demonstrated, commercially
replicated, and eventually exported around the world. TVA would
be honored to be part of this effort, if it is a priority for
the Nation, and if it brings value to the people and
communities we serve.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I look forward to answering
your questions.
[Mr. Lyash's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey J. Lyash, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Tennessee Valley Authority
Introduction
Chairman Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer, and members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to represent
one of the nation's largest utilities and a corporate agency of the
federal government, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
I marked my second anniversary as president and chief executive
officer (CEO) of TVA in April. I am privileged and honored to lead the
10,000 women and men of TVA as we serve the communities and people of
the Tennessee Valley region and the nation.
My career in the energy industry spans more than 40 years. Before
joining TVA, I was president & CEO of Ontario Power Generation, one of
Canada's largest electric utilities with a diverse generating
portfolio.
Before that, I was president of CB&I Power, with responsibilities
that included providing operating plant services for nuclear and other
forms of generation. Formerly, I served in executive vice president
capacities at Duke Energy and Progress Energy, and as president and CEO
of Progress Energy Florida. I spent a significant portion of my career
building, maintaining and operating nuclear facilities.
I have held a Senior Reactor Operator's License issued by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and worked in a wide range of
leadership roles at nuclear facilities including as operations manager,
engineering manager, plant manager, and director of site operations.
Earlier in my career I served at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
in both technical and leadership positions.
From my perspective as a leader in the energy industry and in
nuclear energy specifically, I firmly believe that reliable and
affordable electricity is foundational to our national security and our
economy. I also believe that low carbon electricity is critical to
decarbonizing the broader economy.
To accomplish and sustain this, a diverse portfolio of generating
assets will be needed, and nuclear energy must continue to play a vital
role in our nation's energy supply. I appreciate the Committee's
interest in our energy resources and the infrastructure needs of the
nation.
TVA's mission is to serve the people of the Tennessee Valley region
and the nation to make life better, and our national charter is
engraved in stone at many of our facilities: ``Built for the People of
the United States.''
TVA was created in a time of great challenges for our nation--a
time when new ideas and fresh approaches were essential to economic
recovery during the Great Depression. TVA and its broad mission of
service represented a break with the past, a determination to bring new
thinking to the problems at hand, and an investment in building the
infrastructure necessary to an improved quality of life and economic
opportunity.
That investment, which has since been repaid with interest, helped
lift the region out of the Great Depression and supplied energy for
crucial defense industries to help win World War II.
Today, TVA is applying the same spirit of service, innovation, and
forward-thinking that revolutionized life in the Valley to the emerging
challenges of our time. In my testimony, I will discuss how we are
continuing TVA's mission as we adapt to new challenges, technologies,
and opportunities.
TVA Mission
In 1933, personal income in the TVA region averaged $3,500 a year
in today's dollars--and just 45% of the national average at that time.
Nearly two-thirds of Valley residents were farmers, and only 3% of them
had electricity. Even fewer had running water. Valley lands were
ravaged by erosion, overuse and wildfires. In some parts of North
Alabama, three people in five had malaria. The Tennessee River was
unmanaged, subjecting the region to devastating floods year after year
while at the same time impeding transportation in areas of shallow
water and treacherous shoals.
TVA was tasked with addressing a wide range of challenges. It
focused on the innovative concept of managing the vast resources of the
Tennessee Valley as an integrated system, across jurisdictional
boundaries, to benefit the region as a whole. TVA engineers built a
network of hydroelectric dams to achieve multiple purposes--providing
the infrastructure not only for low-cost power but also flood control,
transportation, water quality, and more.
TVA scientists and educators developed groundbreaking fertilizer
technology that helped revive the Valley's exhausted farmland and
became the basis for 75% of the fertilizers used around the world. TVA
engineers developed the nation's first 512-kV transmission systems to
reliably link TVA to a regional family of local power companies across
80,000 square-miles. And TVA economic development specialists pursued
collaborative approaches to recruiting and retaining investments that
would create and sustain quality jobs.
TVA's commitment to developing and delivering new ideas transformed
the seven-state Tennessee Valley region, leveraging the value of low-
cost public power and going far beyond it, helping to lift the people
of the Valley out of poverty and bringing the benefits of low-cost
power to every community in the Valley.
In 2018, the region's per capita income had risen to 82% of the
national level. The Valley's dependence on agriculture has shifted to
an emphasis on industry, with only 0.5% of workers still employed in
agriculture. TVA's early efforts to reforest the region with 570
million seedlings restored large tracts of land to beneficial use.
TVA's integrated network of multi-purpose dams has averted more than
$9.5 billion in potential flood damage since 1936. The TVA's managed
system also provides extensive recreation opportunities for hunting,
fishing, and other valued outdoor leisure.
TVA's Operations
Today, TVA is the nation's largest public power supplier, providing
energy that 10 million people across seven southeastern states rely on
every day. We are also the nation's third-largest electricity
generator. Our transmission system is the nation's second-largest, with
16,300 miles of high-voltage lines; and we have delivered low-cost
energy to our customers with 99.999% reliability--every year since
2000.
TVA has one of the nation's largest, most diverse, and cleanest
generating portfolios, including hydroelectric, natural gas, coal,
wind, and solar generation, as well as significant energy storage
resources. In addition, and a focus of our discussion today, our
portfolio includes the nation's third-largest nuclear fleet. In Fiscal
Year 2020, our nuclear fleet generated 42% of the electricity delivered
to our customers, energy that is carbon-free.
TVA's nuclear fleet has a generating capacity of approximately
8,000 megawatts and is the backbone of our clean generation portfolio.
TVA is an industry leader in expanding nuclear generation. In 2016, TVA
brought online the first new nuclear generation of the 21st Century,
achieving commercial operation of the second unit at the Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant, adding about 1,164 megawatts of carbon-free energy for
our system.
We have upgraded our existing Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant units to
generate additional low-cost, reliable and carbon-free energy; and we
are investing in maintaining and upgrading our plants to extend their
operations by decades.
In our fossil-fueled generation, TVA's coal-burning units are among
the nation's oldest. They have served our power system well for
decades. In FY 2005, coal supplied about 60% of our total power supply,
compared with less than 15% in FY 2020. TVA has retired or announced
retirements for 8,600 megawatts of coal generation. We will continue to
evaluate the impact of retiring the balance of the coal fleet by 2035;
our evaluation includes environmental review, public input and Board
approval. As plants are retired, we work closely with each plant
community and its public officials, business leaders, the public, and
plant employees to support the transition.
As we reduce coal generation, we are modernizing our gas generation
fleet as a bridging technology. This, and our continued and increased
reliance on nuclear generation, will to help reduce emissions and
support high levels of reliability, given the intermittency of
renewables. And in partnership with multiple other utilities in the
Southeast, we are working to establish the Southeast Energy Exchange
Market. This market could potentially help all participants in the
Southeast realize a higher penetration of renewables by creating a
bilateral market to exchange energy efficiently.
Energy and the Economy
The impact of a reliable, low-cost energy supply can be seen in the
region's economic development successes. Over the past five years, TVA
has helped attract or retain about 341,000 jobs and more than $45
billion in capital investment for the region. In FY 2020, despite
pandemic conditions, we helped the region attract or retain 67,000 jobs
and more than $8.6 billion in capital investment.
For a growing number of businesses and industries, having a supply
of carbon-free energy has joined cost and reliability as a key factor
in determining where they locate or expand their operations. TVA's
ability to provide low-cost, increasingly clean, highly reliable energy
is essential for powering the ambitious strategies and climate goals of
these businesses. This ability creates a competitive advantage for our
region in attracting innovative industries, jobs and investments and
continuing to power the Valley's economic development.
The priorities on which TVA has focused during the past several
years include investing and modernizing the power system to drive down
costs, maintaining financial and organizational discipline, and
significantly strengthening our partnerships with customers, labor
unions, and stakeholders. Our success in executing this strategy has
positioned us well for the future.
Over the past decade, TVA has kept its effective rate flat while at
the same time investing over $15 billion to balance and modernize our
generation portfolio, and we continue to make investments to further
modernize and diversify our generation system.
TVA is investing more than $2 billion in transmission system
improvements over five years to ensure that we continue to provide
increasingly clean, low-cost, reliable energy. We are working to find
ways to ensure reliability as local power companies bring their own
solar and other renewable resources onto the system.
The heart of the energy system of the future will be TVA's new
System Operations Center and Energy Management System, a $300 million
investment employing smart technologies to manage power grid operations
more reliably, efficiently and securely. The center's Energy Management
System will increase system flexibility by integrating and monitoring
distributed energy resources and demand response, helping to keep costs
low and reliability high as energy sources and customers' energy use
continue to evolve.
TVA's responsibilities for energy, environmental stewardship, and
economic development also make us an important contributor to ongoing
efforts to improve air quality in the region and the nation. Our system
is one of the nation's cleanest with almost 60% of our energy supply
coming from carbon-free sources.
Our efforts to build a resilient, diverse power generation mix have
led to a 63% reduction in mass carbon emissions since 2005 in the total
energy we supply to the region. In addition to our expanding use of
nuclear energy, from 1970 to 2020, TVA invested $6.8 billion in
environmental controls to reduce emissions from fossil-fueled plants.
These environmental control investments have reduced our sulfur dioxide
emissions 99% below 1977 levels. Nitrogen oxide emissions have been
reduced 97% below 1995 levels. We have reduced carbon dioxide emissions
by about 60% compared with the 2005 benchmark, one of the largest
decreases in the power industry.
To continue diversifying our power system, we are adding
significant renewable energy. As of the second quarter FY 2021, TVA has
commitments of over 2,300 megawatts of solar capacity expected to come
online by the end of 2023. Including these projects, we expect to add
10,000 megawatts of solar by 2035, which is primarily based on customer
demand in the near term and represents a 24-fold increase from today.
In renewable energy, our utility-scale solar program, Green Invest,
is setting a standard for the industry. The program is based on a
unique public/private partnership structure and competitive bid process
that enable the growth of affordable solar without shifting costs to
non-participants. Additionally, Green Invest leverages the demand for
utility-scale solar from business and industry for economic development
in our communities.
Since 2018, Green Invest has attracted nearly $2.7 billion in solar
investment and procured more than 2,000 megawatts of solar on behalf of
its customers--maintaining TVA's green energy leadership as the energy
provider with the greatest amount of renewable generation in the
Southeast.
TVA's environmental responsibilities include managing the 652-mile
Tennessee River system, an important part of the nation's commercially
navigable inland waterway system. Nearly 50 million tons of commercial
goods move through the TVA system of locks and dams each year. Other
benefits of the river system include flood control that prevented $1
billion in flood damage in FY2020 as the region experienced 150% of
normal rainfall.
The river system's hydro-electric dams are TVA original energy
source; and the system's 40,000 miles of rivers, streams and
tributaries also support water supply and water quality, as well as
other needs. The river system also supports a thriving recreation
industry that produces almost $12 billion a year in economic activity,
supporting more than 130,000 jobs and generating almost $917 million in
tax revenues to the region's state and local governments.
The Public Power Model
TVA carries out all aspects of its mission of service with no
federal appropriations of tax dollars. While TVA is a corporation of
the federal government, TVA funds its power system and virtually all
other operations entirely with revenues from energy sales and proceeds
from debt issuances.
TVA's unique business model is structured so that TVA serves the
people of the Valley with public power, in partnership with local power
companies. In supplying public power, TVA is statutorily obligated to
supply energy at the lowest feasible rate, with an obligation to serve
the people and their communities, not shareholders. And we serve people
throughout the region, from the largest cities to the most remote
farms.
Because TVA is self-financing and must fulfill its broad mission,
revenues from energy sales cover TVA services that investor-owned
utilities generally do not offer, such as river management, extensive
economic development programs, innovative demonstration projects, and a
wide range of environmental stewardship programs.
Even so, TVA maintains some of the nation's lowest energy prices.
About 70% of the people served by large utilities across the nation pay
higher rates than do TVA customers, and TVA's industrial rates are
among the lowest in the nation--lower than 90% of the nation's top 100
utilities. TVA's effective rates have remained flat and low for the
past seven years even as we have reduced debt to its lowest level in
more than 30 years and invested in the power system. Our long-term
financial plan projects flat, effective wholesale rates for the next
decade, and we continue to have solid confidence in those plans.
TVA's commitment to putting the people and communities we serve
first was evident this winter as extreme weather overwhelmed other
power providers outside the TVA region. Unfortunately, the people
living in those areas were hit hard by the blackouts and price surges.
While only a portion of our service territory experienced similar
extreme weather, TVA's commitment to service, our ongoing investments
in the power system, and the dedication of our employees kept our
plants operating, supplying energy at stable prices, and with high
reliability. This event has demonstrated the resiliency of our system.
Built into TVA's business model is our relationship with the 153
local power companies across the region. We supply wholesale energy to
the local power companies, which then distribute the energy to the
homes and businesses they serve.
In the past two years, we have strengthened the partnership between
TVA and local power companies, by introducing the long-term partnership
agreement. As a result, we now have new and stronger partnerships in
place with 142 of the 153 local power companies that we serve,
representing 93% of the region's local power companies. We are aligned
around 20-year commitments to plan and work together to keep rates low
and stable, across the seven-state region.
Long-term partners benefit from a 3.1% credit on their monthly
wholesale bills, and 71 of our partners also are taking advantage of
TVA's Generation Flexibility program to help meet local generation
needs for their customers, including the deployment of distributed
solar resources. In addition, TVA directly supplies energy to 57 large
corporations and federal installations in the region, including Oak
Ridge National Laboratory and other Department of Energy facilities at
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Last winter, the TVA Board commissioned the internationally
recognized Lazard firm to assess TVA's business performance through
2020 and determine if this business model is a reasonable approach to
fulfilling TVA's mission in the future. The Lazard report builds on an
earlier strategic review by the firm, one done in 2014, and notes that
TVA's financial performance has been notably strong against both our
own financial plan and the performance of other utilities. The report
concludes that TVA's business structure and the public power model
continue to be a reasonable approach to support TVA's mission for
providing the greatest value to the 10 million people in TVA's seven-
state service area.
Public power means having financial stability without tax dollars;
and it puts service, community, and people over profits. During
pandemic conditions, TVA has been uniquely situated to demonstrate its
commitment to our customers and communities by helping to mitigate the
impact of unprecedented challenges.
For all customers, for FY 2021, we have reduced our already low
energy prices by 2.5% through a Pandemic Relief Credit on monthly bills
during the year. This credit will put a projected $200 million back
into Valley communities in FY 2021 in the form of rate reductions, bill
assistance for those in need, upgraded system infrastructure to
maintain reliability, and more.
For large industrial and commercial customers, we began offering
Back-to-Business incentives to help businesses return to full
operations and to help the economy recover. As of the second quarter FY
2021, we have invested $12 million in credits to help everyone get
``back to business.''
Early in the pandemic, as household bills began to stack up, TVA
provided the local power companies we serve with regulatory flexibility
and $1 billion in credit support to help them and the people they
serve. Also, early on, we established a Community Care Fund to help
charitable organizations meet local needs through matching funds from
local power companies and others. The value of the Community Care Fund
now exceeds $7 million. The Community Care Fund has made more than 460
grants to organizations across the region, addressing local needs
through food banks, boxed-lunch programs for students, United Way, Boys
and Girls Clubs, and other programs.
Together, TVA and local power companies ensure a reliable,
increasingly clean and low-cost energy supply; a local presence and
local voice; and the reinvestment of revenues into the energy, economic
development, and environmental services that benefit the region.
Governance and Finances
TVA is governed by our Board of Directors, which is responsible for
providing strategic oversight. The nine part-time Board members are
appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the U.S.
Senate. Board responsibilities include formulating broad strategies,
goals, long-range plans, and policies for TVA; reviewing and approving
annual budgets; and setting and overseeing electric rates.
For FY 2021, the TVA Board approved a budget of $10.0 billion,
which includes $2.2 billion in continuing capital improvements to our
generating, transmission and infrastructure assets. TVA's financial
position continues to be strong and stable.
In FY 2020, the TVA team delivered exceptionally strong financial
results, providing TVA the flexibility to take a number of special
steps, such as the $200 million Pandemic Relief Credit and the
Community Care Fund I mentioned previously. These initiatives helped
address the ongoing impacts of COVID-19 in our communities.
In FY 2020, TVA's total operating revenues of $10.2 billion were
down about 5% from projections due to a combination of weather factors
and the impacts of the pandemic. That shortfall was offset by improved
operational performance that lowered operating and maintenance costs,
reduced fuel costs and exceeded TVA's debt reduction target by nearly
$400 million, reducing debt to its lowest level in 30 years.
TVA's fuel, purchased power, operating and maintenance, tax
equivalents, and interest expense were all lower in FY 2020 than in FY
2019. TVA's fuel and purchased power expense was 15% lower year-over-
year, primarily driven by lower effective fuel rates and lower energy
sales due to impacts of milder weather and COVID-19, as well as the
increased generation of nuclear power.
TVA paid nearly $552 million in tax equivalent payments in FY 2020
to state and local governments served by its energy generation or in
areas supporting TVA properties. The payments compensate state and
local governments that cannot levy property or sales taxes on TVA as a
federal entity. We return 5% of power sales revenues from the previous
year in the form of tax equivalent payments to the eight states where
we sell electricity or own generating plants, transmission lines,
substations and other assets, and directly to 147 local governments
where TVA owns power property.
TVA's strong financial position helped us absorb the impacts of the
pandemic in 2020, provide extra support for our customers, and reduce
effective power rates for customers for 2021, when our communities need
relief the most. This would not have been possible without the ongoing
financial discipline of our employees.
The Women and Men of TVA
The strength of TVA truly is its people--a diverse and skilled
workforce of 10,000 employees and almost 14,000 contractor partners.
Almost 20% of TVA employees are veterans, and we will continue our
focus on employing those American heroes as we face the future. Our
employees and contractors are represented by 17 unions, and we value
and appreciate all our union partners.
In 2020, we entered into two historic agreements with our union
partners--a 10-year extension of the recognition of the TVA Trades and
Labor Council for Annual Employees as representing TVA craft employees,
and a 10-year extension of TVA's project labor agreements with the
North American Building Trades Union.
The TVA Retirement System administers retirement benefits for
approximately 9,700 employees and 23,000 retirees and beneficiaries.
Pension assets total about $8 billion; liabilities are approximately
$13.6 billion; annual pension benefit payments total about $720
million; with a plan to be fully funded for TVA's pension liability by
2036. TVA implemented a plan in 2016 focused on fully funding the
pension over a 20-year period. The plan includes assumptions around
system demographics, contributions, asset returns, and discount rates.
The funding plan is ahead of schedule, and we consistently update the
details of the funding plan. Separately, 401(k) plan assets total $3.3
billion.
Cybersecurity
As we supply reliable energy, the efficiency and security of our
transmission system are critical. TVA works around the clock to monitor
and protect its critical cyber assets, partnering with other government
agencies, as well as with industry groups and peers such as the Edison
Electric Institute and neighboring utilities.
TVA has a comprehensive cybersecurity program aligned to industry
and federal best practices that operates to identify, detect, protect,
and respond to threats. We focus on being proactive and using risk-
based assessments to protect TVA. In addition to having multi-layered
threat analysis capabilities, we perform continuous monitoring,
penetration testing and vulnerability assessments.
TVA's critical systems are housed within a specialized, isolated
network that is separated from corporate networks and inaccessible from
the internet. This network segmentation provides a significant added
level of security.
TVA trains its employees to recognize and resist cyber threats. TVA
also adheres to an array of industry and government standards,
including National American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)
Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) standards, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) security requirements and the Federal Information
Security Management Act (FISMA).
Carbon Reduction
TVA is a national leader in carbon reduction and is the largest
clean-energy producing utility in the Southeast, including our nuclear
energy and hydro generation, and home to a nationally recognized solar
energy program.
We have nearly 50% more clean generation than our closest regional
peer, and currently have one of the lowest greenhouse gas intensities
per unit of electricity produced in the U.S. But we are not satisfied.
We are committed to continuing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while
maintaining our focus on delivering low-cost, reliable energy that our
customers expect and deserve for the long-term.
In May, we announced TVA's decarbonization plan to increase our
carbon reduction from the current 63% to 70% by 2030 and a path for
reaching approximately 80% by 2035, using existing technology and
without impacting TVA's reliability or costs. While we are encouraged
by more ambitious goals, under the current technology and expected
costs, our aspirational goal is to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by
2050.
We recognize that reaching net-zero by closing the last 20% gap in
carbon emissions, or accelerating our reduction, depends on the
development of emerging technologies at a commercial scale and at a
cost that will enable their deployment. These include advanced nuclear,
carbon capture and sequestration, long-duration energy storage, and
alternative fuels such as hydrogen. Importantly, our challenge is not
only to lower CO2 emissions from the existing generation system, but
also to provide the additional zero-carbon resources needed to satisfy
what may very well be increasing demand as clean electricity is used to
decarbonize other sectors of the economy, such as transportation.
In 1950, electricity was just 2% of end-use energy. Today, it is
22%; and by 2050, there are projections that say it could be over 40%.
We must work together to develop and demonstrate new technologies to
meet this critical demand for electricity to further evolve existing
technologies, such as energy storage systems and carbon capture, and
develop new capabilities, such as advanced nuclear technologies.
TVA stands ready to help lead in these innovation efforts.
The Need for New Nuclear
I believe our goal for the energy industry and the nation should be
to decarbonize the generation of electricity and then use our clean
energy supply to reduce emissions, drive innovation and grow the
economy. I believe that goal can be achieved through the development
and use of carbon-free nuclear energy.
Carbon-free nuclear is one key aspect of our energy supply as we
work to electrify the economy, drive down customer costs, and eliminate
emissions. TVA is engaged today in developing new nuclear technology
because we believe it is essential to TVA's and the nation's
decarbonization efforts. We are applying TVA's experience as a leader
in technology innovation and deployment in the industry to the new
challenge of identifying the best options for the next generation of
advanced nuclear.
TVA believes light water small modular reactors are the specific
advanced nuclear technology that could be most ready for deployment
near-term--with the first commercial operation by 2030s. This would
enable advanced nuclear to make a meaningful contribution to carbon
reduction within the next two decades.
In December 2019, TVA received the nation's first Early Site Permit
for a small modular reactor from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
for two or more small modular reactors at our Clinch River Site in Oak
Ridge, Tennessee. This is the only site in the nation with an NRC-
approved early site permit for small modular reactors.
In the second quarter of 2021, TVA initiated a programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement to address potential environmental
effects associated with the construction, operation, and
decommissioning of an advanced nuclear reactor. We already have a
partnership to explore the economic feasibility of small modular
reactor technology with the University of Tennessee and the Department
of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, among others.
Successful partnerships, such as our recent agreement to
collaborate with Kairos Power on deploying a low-power demonstration
reactor, are particularly important in the development of advanced
nuclear designs. In the Tennessee Valley and elsewhere, nuclear
technology plays a critical role in meeting electricity generation
needs and carbon reduction goals in a manner that maintains reliability
and keeps rates affordable. As one of the nation's largest electricity
providers, TVA is committed to being part of the solution and to
working with others to meet this important challenge.
TVA is working with Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, the largest multi-program science and energy research lab
in the United States, to explore options and opportunities for
fostering innovations in nuclear and other technologies.
The national lab is a customer of TVA and a key part of the
Department of Energy's efforts to reduce its carbon footprint. TVA and
ORNL have a number of exciting opportunities to work together to
develop advanced nuclear technologies. In the Tennessee Valley and
elsewhere, nuclear technology is one way to meet electricity generation
needs and carbon reduction goals. As one of the nation's largest
electricity providers, TVA is committed to being part of the solution
and to working with others to meet this important challenge.
TVA is poised with a site, expertise, nuclear construction know-
how, and mission to lead in this technology to achieve the nation's
carbon-free goals. As TVA strives to explore new technologies, we must
remain cognizant of our unique business model: TVA is a federal entity
with no appropriated funding, with a mandate to set power rates as low
as feasible, and with no eligibility for tax credits or other
incentives available to investor-own utilities.
Conclusion
TVA delivers on its mission of service through work in three key
areas: energy that is low-cost and reliable; economic development that
brings jobs and capital investment to the region; and environmental
stewardship of the region's public lands, water and air. TVA was
created with, and has continued to build on, its clear mission to
benefit the public good.
This was our initial mission during the Great Depression as we
began building the infrastructure to support a better quality of life.
This was our mission while powering the nation to win World War II.
This continued to be our mission during the subsequent decades of
American growth and prosperity, and it is still our mission.
We are investing in the future today as we set our plans and
aspirations for years to come.
The challenges are certainly different today than in 1933, but they
are no less critical to the lives of those we are privileged to serve--
delivering vital services and support across the region for almost 90
years, including during this unprecedented pandemic that has impacted
families, communities, businesses and industries.
TVA's mission has stood the test of time, but TVA has never stood
still. We are always striving to live up to the words prominently
visible at many TVA facilities: Built for the People of the United
States.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Lyash. That was very good
testimony.
And Steve, I didn't know if you wanted to introduce him. I
am sorry if I didn't let you, but do you want to add a word or
two about Mr. Lyash?
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Lyash has done a
great job at TVA in representing the Authority in a manner that
it deserves. He is a breath of fresh air from his predecessor.
But even then, he is outstanding, and I appreciate his kind
remarks.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Avila, you may proceed with your testimony, sir.
Mr. Avila. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member
Graves, Chair Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer, members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify regarding
the U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water
Commission's fiscal year 2022 budget request.
The agency's important border water-related functions
include controlling floods, generating power and international
dams, ensuring adequate water supplies, and undertaking
specific sanitary projects that require cooperation with
Mexico.
I would like to thank Congress for appropriating $300
million to EPA for the construction of sanitation
infrastructure in the San Diego-Tijuana area.
U.S. IBWC is consulting closely with EPA to help decide on
the best projects to pursue. Once EPA selects the projects,
U.S. IBWC will join other stakeholders in assisting EPA with
project implementation, as authorized. We will also work
closely with Mexico to develop any necessary agreements where
their participation is needed.
It is critical to keep in mind that operation and
maintenance expenses for large, new facilities could reach as
high as $40 to $50 million per year.
While EPA developed long-term solutions, the two sections
of the IBWC, along with local stakeholders, established a
binational rapid response team in the San Diego-Tijuana region
to respond to wastewater incidents when the flows could reach
the United States.
With an unprecedented drought in Western United States, the
U.S. IBWC is working to reduce the impact on U.S. water users.
Last October, U.S. IBWC negotiated a successful conclusion to
the 5-year Rio Grande water cycle, which ended with Mexico
delivering the entire volume required under a 1944 treaty.
Currently, we are holding technical and policy discussions to
encourage Mexico to adopt more systematic and transparent water
delivery schedules.
For the Colorado River Basin, U.S. IBWC helped develop and
implement IBWC Minutes 319 and 323, ensuring that if the United
States makes a shortage declaration this August, Mexico will
take proportionate cuts to the Colorado River water deliveries
in 2022. U.S. IBWC is working with Bureau of Reclamation and
Mexico to prepare Mexico for cuts under our Colorado River
international agreements. Mexico has conserved hundreds of
thousands of acre-feet of water, helping to boost Lake Mead
water elevation, and forestall mandatory reductions to users in
both countries.
My written testimony provides details of the fiscal year
2022 budget request for $98.8 million, matching last year's
appropriation.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to answering any questions you might have.
[Mr. Avila's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel Avila, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Sector of
the International Boundary and Water Commission
Thank you for inviting me to testify regarding the Fiscal Year 2022
budget request for the U.S. Section of the International Boundary and
Water Commission. We welcome the opportunity to discuss the current
issues and opportunities to improve infrastructure and the quality of
life in the United States along the U.S. southern border with Mexico.
The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC)'s mission is
to provide binational solutions to issues that arise during the
application of U.S.-Mexico treaties regarding, among other things,
water quality and flood control in the border region, including
constructing, rehabilitating and operating flood control systems,
storage dams, and wastewater treatment plants, as directed by Congress.
The IBWC is an international organization composed of U.S. and Mexican
Sections, each headed by an Engineer Commissioner appointed by the
President of the country. Each Section is administered independently of
the other. The U.S. Section (USIBWC) is an independent federal agency
that operates under the foreign policy guidance of the Department of
State and is funded through the annual Department of State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act.
The IBWC has over a century of experience in bi-national
cooperation and partnership, dating back to the temporary boundary
commissions established by the Treaty of Guadalupe, the Gadsden Treaty,
and an 1882 Convention to map the international boundary between the
United States and Mexico. The U.S. and Mexican governments established
what became the IBWC (then the International Boundary Commission) in
1889, initially to resolve boundary-related differences arising along
the border. The 1944 U.S.-Mexico water treaty established the key
organizational components of IBWC and its two sections. Today, the IBWC
is charged with applying boundary and water treaties concluded between
the United States and Mexico, including water distribution and flood
management of the transboundary rivers, and settling differences that
arise in their application along the nearly 2,000-mile border.
Virtually every aspect of USIBWC's mission protects American lives and
property and supports the economies of U.S. border communities by
facilitating water deliveries for agricultural, industrial and
municipal uses.
The USIBWC's activities include:
demarcation of the land boundary along the States of
California, Arizona and New Mexico, including at international ports of
entry and international bridges;
preservation of the international boundary defined by the
Rio Grande along the State of Texas;
determination and accounting for national ownership of
the waters of the Rio Grande and Colorado River and allocation of water
between Mexico and the United States during severe drought;
operation and maintenance of flood control systems
consisting of over 500 miles of river and floodway levees, 20,000 acres
of floodplains, 700 hydraulic structures, 100 hydrologic gaging
stations, and four diversion dams;
operation and maintenance of two international storage
dams and associated hydroelectric power plants;
operation and maintenance of two wastewater treatment
facilities in the United States;
maintenance of two international bridges in the El Paso/
Ciudad Juarez area;
water quality monitoring for bi-national IBWC-approved
projects and exchange of data; and
review of all plans for new international bridges, border
crossings, and pipe and power lines that cross the international
boundary to ensure compliance with boundary treaty requirements.
This year, the Department of State, in tandem with the U.S. Section
of the IBWC, submitted four reports to Congress on: Mexico's Rio Grande
water deliveries to the United States; the release of effluent from
Mexico into the United States; the interagency plan to address the
impact of toxic transboundary flows on U.S. communities; and USIBWC
support for the state of Texas's efforts to control Carrizo cane along
the border.
Priority Issues
Water Delivery
As the Western United States faces unprecedented severe drought
conditions, the USIBWC's ability to negotiate international agreements,
known as Minutes, with Mexico under the 1944 Water Treaty allows our
respective countries to develop solutions to current issues, and our
water accounting function helps ensure the equitable distribution of
the waters of the Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers is in accordance with
the treaties and Minutes. For the Colorado River basin, USIBWC helped
develop and implement Minutes 319 and 323, ensuring that if the United
States makes a shortage declaration, Mexico will take cuts to Colorado
River water deliveries along with the Lower Colorado River Basin in the
United States. The Bureau of Reclamation expects to make a shortage
declaration in August 2021, forcing automatic water delivery cuts in
2022. USIBWC's budget provides for work to implement drought planning
and water conservation in the Colorado River Basin, including working
with Reclamation and Mexico to prepare to implement cuts in Mexico.
This year marks the first year of water savings by Mexico under the
Binational Water Scarcity Contingency Plan agreed to in Minute 323, a
plan that complements savings undertaken in the United States under the
domestic Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan approved by Congress in
2019. Prior to this year, under the terms of Minute 323 and related
Minutes, Mexico has conserved hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of
water, adding to volumes conserved in the United States, to help boost
Lake Mead elevation and forestall mandatory reductions to users in both
countries.
On the Rio Grande in Texas, under the 1944 Water Treaty, Mexico is
required to deliver water from the Rio Grande to the United States in
five-year cycles. For the water delivery cycle that ended in October
2020, USIBWC was instrumental in ensuring Mexico finished without a
water debt. IBWC conducts regular technical and policy meetings to
ensure Mexico meets its Rio Grande delivery requirements and the United
States and Mexico fulfill their obligations on the Colorado River.
Sanitation--San Diego, California
Another of the Commission's top priorities is addressing sanitation
conditions along the U.S. Mexico border. To that end, USIBWC operates
and maintains two bi-national wastewater treatment facilities at San
Diego, California (South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant)
and Nogales, Arizona, and participates with Mexico in its operation of
a facility in Mexico that discharges into the Rio Grande River near
Laredo, Texas. In the early 1990s when NAFTA was being drafted and
implemented, Mexico made major investments in sanitation infrastructure
with substantial U.S. cost-shares through entities like the Border
Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC) and EPA. The San Diego
wastewater treatment facility was also constructed during this time.
However, rapid economic and demographic growth along Mexico's northern
border with the United States did not bring proportionate Mexican
investments in infrastructure or maintenance of the existing
infrastructure, particularly in water and sanitation. As a result, much
of that infrastructure is coming to the end of its useful life. This
results in increased operations and maintenance costs at USIBWC's
facilities and recurring sewage spills across the border into the
United States.
For decades, nearby communities have had to cope with the
transboundary wastewater flows between Tijuana and San Diego. Despite
massive U.S. investment in the City of Tijuana's collection system,
that system has aged, and the city's population has grown since the
mid-1990s. During rainstorms or wet weather in Tijuana and when
pipelines or pumps break, water flows to the Tijuana River and canyons
and mixes with unknown amounts of urban runoff, treated effluent from
the Tijuana River, and wastewater in Mexico before flowing into the
United States. During dry weather, the runoff is largely groundwater
and some untreated flows from illegal connections in Mexico (dry-
weather flows); during storms, this runoff mixes with large amounts of
rainfall (wet-weather flows). Thus, transboundary flows that cross the
U.S.-Mexico international border can transport pollutants generated in
Mexico that impact downstream surface waters in the United States.
Among the factors leading to transboundary flow incidents are aging
and unmaintained Tijuana sewer lines and pumps, power outages, and wet
weather flows from storms that overwhelm the capacity of pumps in
Mexico that are diverting sewage flows away from the United States.
USIBWC uses its relationships with Mexican officials to leverage larger
solutions than one small agency can achieve on its own. We consult
closely with U.S. stakeholders and encourage Mexican officials to
access federal, state, local and private sources to fund repairs.
In the mid-1990s the IBWC constructed the South Bay plant to treat
a limited amount of Mexican wastewater sent to the plant primarily from
the City of Tijuana's collection system, before discharging the treated
effluent offshore in the Pacific Ocean. The collection system in Mexico
includes a small-capacity pump in the Tijuana River in Mexico to divert
to the South Bay plant the dry-weather flows that occur in the river on
a regular basis. However, there are two scenarios when the flows from
Mexico overwhelm South Bay's capacity. First, when it rains, wastewater
mixes with stormwater in the Tijuana River and canyons, exceeding
Mexico's capacity to capture the river flows and exceeding the South
Bay plant's treatment capacity. The River simply cannot be stopped from
flowing into the United States and no single wastewater treatment plant
could treat the entire river, which is part of the drainage of a
watershed that is over 1,700 square miles in size.
Second, Mexico's wastewater system sometimes sends flows to the
South Bay plant that exceed its limited capacity. Over the last four
years, pump station failures and leaks in Tijuana's sewage pipelines
have become particularly acute, leading to increased wastewater flow to
the United States. For example, the plant began receiving much higher
flows from Mexico's collection system in August 2020. The USIBWC was
informed after many inquiries that Mexico was experiencing electrical
power difficulties with pump stations PB1A and PB1B, and that multiple
sections of the conveyance lines to a Mexican-side treatment plant had
collapsed and were undergoing repairs. Due to this confluence of
multiple system components breaking down all at once, Mexico was unable
to decrease the flow coming to the South Bay plant. From approximately
August 2020 through January 2021, flows in excess of 25 million gallons
per day were sent to the plant. While transboundary flows through the
River channel were greatly reduced during this period, the plant began
to experience effluent exceedances in November 2020.
American communities are understandably frustrated. The State of
California, (through the San Diego Regional Water Quality Board), two
municipalities, the Port of San Diego, and an environmental group have
filed three related lawsuits against USIBWC for alleged Clean Water Act
violations related to transboundary flows from Mexico. The plaintiffs
are demanding construction of defensive infrastructure in the United
States aimed at preventing the flows from Mexico that exceed the South
Bay plant's capacity. Although the activities that form the basis for
the plaintiffs' claims do not constitute any violations of law,
settlement could resolve the litigation in a manner that fosters long-
term cooperation. Given the engineering and regulatory complexities in
addressing this issue, all stakeholders must work together in proposing
and implementing technically feasible solutions while accounting for
long-term operation and maintenance costs and regulatory issues.
This subcommittee has expressed particular interest in
infrastructure in the Tijuana River Valley and, while it is not typical
for USIBWC to report on another agency's efforts, it will do so here
given Congress's interest in this geographic region and the overlap of
EPAUSIBWC efforts. In January 2020, Congress appropriated $300 million
for border area infrastructure, as part of the United States-Mexico-
Canada Agreement (USMCA) implementing legislation. The funds were
appropriated to EPA to design and construct new infrastructure in
coordination with eligible public entities. EPA is assessing which of
nine technically feasible proposed projects to build. USIBWC has been
identified as one from a list of 11 eligible entities including state
and local agencies who may be suitable candidates to implement one or
more of the nine projects. The leading projects under consideration
include an expansion of the USIBWC's South Bay plant, which treats
wastewater to the secondary level, or construction of a new treatment
plant adjacent to the existing one, for treatment of much larger
volumes of wastewater at the advanced primary level.
As part of EPA's process, USIBWC is taking part in a series of
meetings with California stakeholders to review the project options. It
will take several years to conduct feasibility studies, obtain
environmental approvals, and design and build new structures. If USIBWC
participates in any of the projects, that project will need bi-national
participation and therefore may also involve a new IBWC Minute. If the
Administration determines that IBWC is the entity most appropriate to
own and operate additional wastewater management infrastructure in the
Tijuana Valley, IBWC's authority to receive additional funds, construct
new facilities, and own and operate such facilities would need to be
clarified.
Technical feasibility studies need to cover the affordability not
only of construction, but also of operation and maintenance for the
life of the project. The long-term operation and maintenance costs of
some of the proposed projects are significant and this operational
aspect, as well as technical feasibility, need to be carefully
understood by any entity participating in the implementation of the
projects. Some of the projects, if built, would require as much as $40-
50 million annually to operate and maintain. The studies also need to
determine whether the new structures meet regulatory requirements.
The two Sections of IBWC have joined forces with local stakeholders
in the United States to establish a binational Rapid Response Team in
the San Diego-Tijuana region. In January 2020, the team responded to a
clogged pipe behind a highway in Tijuana which created a large pool of
water that threatened to collapse the highway and bring contaminated
water into the United States. The team provided subject matter experts
and lent City of San Diego bypass pumps to Tijuana to control the flow.
USIBWC was able to drain the pool, capturing all the contaminated water
and treating it at the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
Mexico's federal government allocated the equivalent of over ten
million dollars in 2020 to upgrade Tijuana sanitation infrastructure.
In July 2020, the Mexican Section of IBWC took over the operation of
the largest pump station, PB-CILA, ensuring round-the-clock operation
and improved maintenance. By May 2021, the Mexican Section completed
the station's rehabilitation, refurbishing pumps and acquiring new
ones. The Mexican Section's analysis of Tijuana's needed sanitation
infrastructure upgrades between 2021 and 2024 has a projected cost of
4.7 billion pesos, or roughly 240 million dollars. If funds are
obtained, the plan's execution would include the use of treated
wastewater, the upgrade of wastewater treatment plants, the repair and
replacement of wastewater pipelines, and the repair of pump stations.
Sanitation--Nogales, Arizona
Southeastern Arizona has been impacted by deteriorating
international wastewater pipelines in Santa Cruz County known as the
Nogales Main Collector Line (Trunkline) and the International Outfall
Interceptor (IOI). Wastewater from Nogales, Sonora, Mexico as well as
Nogales and Rio Rico, Arizona, travels through the wastewater pipelines
to the Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant (NIWTP), which
is operated and maintained by the USIBWC. The multi-year rehabilitation
of the Nogales IOI is needed to avoid adverse environmental impacts and
to ensure reliable operation of the wastewater collection and treatment
system.
The amount of Mexican sewage treated at the NIWTP has often
exceeded agreed limits. In addition, since 2011 the Mexican government
has failed to pay the full amount owed for treatment of this sewage,
leading to a debt of over 4 million dollars. The City of Nogales,
Arizona, has also failed to pay for treatment of its domestic
wastewater. The transboundary flows sometimes include heavy metals
primarily from industries in Mexico and the treatment plant cannot
remove these contaminants. This led the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to sue the USIBWC in 2012, asserting
violations of the Clean Water Act, and to issue a violation for
USIBWC's discharge in 2019.
USIBWC has worked within the Administration's budget request
process to obtain federal funds to repair the Trunkline and IOI.
Through multiple-year appropriations, USIBWC has received nearly $44
million in funding to rehabilitate the pipelines by installing a new
liner inside the pipeline. The ADEQ obtained state and non-governmental
funds for a cost share with the federal government. USIBWC solicited
proposals for the construction of the initial phases of the Trunkline
and IOI relining, and we hope to award a contract by July 2021. The
multi-year rehabilitation of the Nogales IOI is needed to avoid adverse
environmental impacts and to ensure reliable operation of the
wastewater collection and treatment system.
The project represents a narrow settlement of litigation between
ADEQ and the USIBWC over the pipeline. A broader settlement that also
delineates federal and local responsibilities for maintaining the
pipeline has not yet been possible. Although the City of Nogales,
Arizona disputes past charges for wastewater treatment, by USIBWC's
account the City owes us over $5 million (or over $6 million if we
include interest and penalties) for the treatment of city wastewater.
USIBWC agrees with the City that charges should be based on actual
usage and is prepared to negotiate how usage is calculated. The City
and USIBWC have agreed to mediate this and other legal issues in Autumn
2021.
The City of Nogales, Sonora has also accumulated large unpaid
balances for the treatment of its wastewater at NIWTP. In coordination
with the U.S. Department of State, USIBWC has repeatedly pressed
Mexico's federal government to pay the ballooning debt on behalf of the
local utility, which currently amounts to over $4 million.
Flood Control and Dam Safety--Texas
Dam safety is another one of USIBWC's top priorities. While the
Agency does not seek additional funds for its Safety of Dams Program
this year, it will use unobligated carryover balances to develop and
implement risk mitigation plans. USIBWC is working with the Mexican
Section to determine the best option to reduce the risk of dam failure,
which will require a cost share with Mexico. The most recent safety
inspections have identified urgent or high priority deficiencies at
five of the six Rio Grande dams operated by the U.S. Section or jointly
with the Mexican Section. American, International, Retamal, and Falcon
Dams received a Dam Safety Action Classification (DSAC) of ``High
Priority, Conditionally Unsafe,'' while Amistad Dam received a DSAC
rating of ``Urgent, Potentially Unsafe.'' A minimum of $20 million in
unobligated carryover funds will be used to implement mitigation
measures at Amistad International Dam. About 98 percent of the water
used in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas and Mexico is released
from Amistad and Falcon Dams, providing potable water for 1.5 million
U.S. and Mexican border residents. Failure of either of these dams
would have catastrophic consequences in terms of potential loss of life
and property, and damage to the economy in the Lower Rio Grande Valley.
Components of Agency's Proposed 2022 Budget
The President's FY 2022 budget request for the USIBWC Salaries and
Expenses (S&E) Account is for $51,970,000, an increase of $2,200,000
above the FY 2021 Appropriation of $49,770,000. The requested funds
will allow the USIBWC to continue critical or urgent maintenance and
repairs of its facilities and infrastructure for storage, diversion,
and flood control of river waters, as well as maintenance of USIBWC
sanitation projects. The request funds 249 positions of the authorized
total of 253 and administrative costs of the U.S. Section, as well as
the funds needed for the continued operation and maintenance of the
U.S. portion of bi-national infrastructure along the border. That
infrastructure is required to ensure compliance with treaties and other
international agreements between the United States and Mexico that are
within the purview of the IBWC.
The USIBWC has eight field offices and four satellite offices that
span the border from San Diego, California to Brownsville, Texas. Staff
in these offices operate and maintain projects, including many operated
jointly with Mexican Section personnel based in companion offices on
the Mexican side of the border. Of the roughly $52 million request,
$34.5 million will support continued operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs of existing infrastructure. This activity includes the
measurement and determination of the national ownership of boundary
waters.
The S&E funding also covers the U.S. share of O&M for two
international wastewater treatment plants, two major international
storage dams with associated hydroelectric power plants, four diversion
dams, river channel and levee projects, and boundary demarcation
activities.
The remaining $17.5 million that is requested for the S&E Account
includes $12.7 million for administration, which covers negotiations
and supervision of joint projects with Mexico to solve international
boundary and water problems; overall management of the USIBWC;
formulation of operating policies and procedures; and financial
management, information technology (IT) infrastructure modernization
and administrative services to carry out international obligations of
the United States consistent with international agreements and other
authorities.
In addition, $4.8 million is requested to cover activities in
USIBWC's Engineering Department, which support our projects and include
technical and environmental planning, engineering design and hydraulic
studies, construction oversight of new projects, and engineering
guidance. Other areas include environmental monitoring and compliance;
surveys and mappings, and investigations to determine the need for and
feasibility of future projects. Engineering funds also cover the design
and management of projects, surveys, studies, and investigations to
address international boundary and water problems with Mexico in
accordance with IBWC treaties and agreements. The IBWC participates in
multiagency water quality programs in the Rio Grande, Colorado River,
New River, and the Pacific Ocean.
The FY 2022 Construction Account request of $46.8 million is $2.2
million below the FY 2021 President's Budget of $49.0 million. Of this
amount, $28.8 million is requested for the Water Conveyance Program:
this includes $20.8 million for rehabilitating and upgrading the Rio
Grande flood control levee systems, which have impacts in southern New
Mexico and Texas, and $8.0 million to rehabilitate the Tijuana River
levee systems protecting the San Diego area. The amount of $15.0
million is requested for the Resource and Asset Management Program,
including $5.7 million for deferred maintenance and repairs and $5.0
million for facilities renovation, among other projects. The request
also includes $3.0 million for the Water Quality Program, for the
rehabilitation of the Nogales International Outfall Interceptor and
Trunkline, as described above.
Planned Rio Grande flood control levee upgrades are part of a
multi-year effort to protect communities along the Rio Grande. The
construction and maintenance of the Rio Grande flood control system are
part of an effort undertaken with Mexico to preserve the Rio Grande as
the international boundary and protect lives and property on both sides
of the river. The U.S. Section is responsible for maintaining levees
and floodways on its side of the border, as is Mexico on its territory.
On the U.S. side, the USIBWC flood control system consists of over 500
miles of levees and interior floodways, segments of which date to the
1930s and 1940s. The system is divided in three parts: the Upper Rio
Grande flood control system protects one million U.S. residents in the
Las Cruces, New Mexico-El Paso, Texas area, with its 225 miles of
levees; the fifteen-mile long Presidio Valley system protects nearly
5,000 people in Presidio, Texas; and the Lower Rio Grande system, with
its 270 miles of river and interior floodway levees, protects one
million U.S. residents in the Brownsville-Harlingen and McAllen-
Edinburg-Mission areas in south Texas.
Deficient segments of the flood control system will be improved in
order of priority by risk, population, and development. Improvements
will include upgraded levees, floodwalls, gated hydraulic structures,
and other structures to sustain the system's conveyance capacity and
contain floodwaters. By building structures that meet criteria
established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the
program can alleviate the need for border residents to purchase costly
flood insurance.
The Tijuana River Levee System Rehabilitation Project will
rehabilitate approximately four miles of deficient levees and related
flood control structures along the Tijuana River in the United States.
Originating in Mexico, the Tijuana River crosses into the United States
near San Ysidro, California, then flows west 5.3 miles to discharge
into the Pacific Ocean at a point 1.5 miles north of the border. The
levee system protects San Ysidro from river floods. The agency has
completed the environmental assessment and the engineering work is
almost complete. Construction of the first phase of the levee system
improvements will address improvements on the river's North levee. A
second construction phase for the river's South levee will be the
subject of a future funding request.
The FY 2022 Request for $5,700,000 will continue the multi-year
Deferred Maintenance and Repairs Project, established in FY 2020, for
the repair and replacement of mission-critical assets in prioritized
order. This includes infrastructure for storage, diversion, and flood
control of transboundary river waters, as well as our sanitation
projects. It also includes field office facilities and heritage assets
such as Falcon International Dam and the fixed monuments demarcating
the U.S.-Mexico boundary. Deferred maintenance and repairs requirements
have accumulated over years of funding constraints. The Request will
allow execution of the second phase of this multi-year project.
Originally funded in FY 1992, the Facilities Renovation project
will continue with a multi-year program to renovate and modernize
deteriorated IBWC facilities along the U.S.-Mexico border to current
industry standards. These facilities, most of which were constructed
between 1930 and 1950, require major rehabilitation work to meet OSHA
standards, comply with current environmental laws, and provide more
efficient, effective, and secure working environments. The project
consists of structural, electrical and mechanical improvements, as well
as renovations necessary to meet regulatory requirements.
The USIBWC has performed condition assessments of its facilities to
determine a priority ranking based on condition, purposes, and code
compliance, and to determine the most cost-effective means of
improvement either through renovation or replacement. Among the more
urgent priorities, the agency will provide for a new administration
building at the Lower Rio Grande Field Office in Mercedes, Texas. The
existing administration building is an old metal building in poor
condition that contains asbestos and does not have fire protection. The
old building will be demolished and replaced with a new building of the
same size, designed to comply with current building codes and conserve
energy.
The USIBWC welcomes your support as we implement these important
projects as part of our mission to address boundary and water issues
along the U.S.-Mexico border. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Avila, for your testimony.
It is nice to know that we have somebody looking out for us
there.
Thank you to all our witnesses, and we will now have
questions for the witnesses.
And again, we will use a timer to allow 5 minutes for
questions from each Member. If there are additional questions,
we may have additional rounds, as necessary.
And now I would like to recognize Mr. DeFazio to begin the
questioning.
Mr. DeFazio, you may proceed.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair. As I mentioned during
my remarks, I freed up a substantial portion of the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, which was sequestered in the Treasury.
And I would like to ask General Spellmon--I just discussed with
the chair of the subcommittee an approach yesterday--the $400
million that was left on the table.
And first, I want to know--there is a critical project for
Coos Bay-North Bend in my district. The jetty is deteriorating.
And as the general knows, the deterioration starts, and when we
get 35-foot seas in the winter, it accelerates at a rapid rate,
and it becomes even more and more and more expensive. And
obviously, the harbor entrance becomes dangerous for commercial
and recreational.
So I would just like to confirm. I have heard from the
region that you do have the capability, if I can get the full
allocation of $32.72 million, that you would have the
capability to act in the next fiscal year.
General Spellmon. Sir, that is absolutely correct.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, excellent. Well, I am working on it, and
hopefully I will get you those funds.
The other issue for our whole region is the Columbia River
Treaty. It has expired. It was the first cross-border
beneficial use of water treaty in the world. LBJ came out here
to actually sign the treaty. It was a big deal. It is expired.
And one of the critical components of it is flood control
on the Canadian end of the whole basin. If there isn't a new
treaty in 2024, we will have to call on Canada to provide the
flood. But we don't have provisions negotiated or--not even, as
I understand, estimates on, potentially, what it might cost,
and how the Corps could pay for that. I understand there are
negotiations going on. They are confidential. But as I
understand it, Members can receive--you know, we can get top-
secret briefings, we can get confidential briefings.
We need to be prepared if the Corps is going to need
allocations in those fiscal year budgets to move forward. So I
would ask that the Corps reach out to Members--we have a
working group from the Northwest--and perhaps provide a
confidential briefing, so we can have an idea of where this
might be headed.
General Spellmon. Yes, sir. And sir, you and I discussed
this before. You know our objective, from the beginning and
remains, is to provide similar levels of flood protection for
the people of the Pacific Northwest. And sir, we would welcome
the opportunity to come and brief you in private with a group,
with our team. We continue to provide technical advice and
modeling and analysis to the Department of State. But, sir, we
would welcome the opportunity to give you a more detailed
update.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you, General. And the Corps does
have all the legal authorities it needs to make these payments,
right?
What we have to do is find the money. You don't need
further legal authority. Is that is correct?
General Spellmon. Sir, if I understand your question, you
know, we paid in advance back in 1964 for the 60 years of flood
protection. We have given our numbers to the Department of
State. They have been put on the table with our partners in
Canada. And sir, I would welcome the opportunity to walk you
through that in our analysis that supports those estimates.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. And then, I guess this is, perhaps, to the
Assistant Secretary, and maybe to you.
I live on a boat in DC, in the channel leading out of what
has now become the trendiest, most congested neighborhood in
DC. They now have kayak rentals, canoe rentals, all sorts of
stuff, an unbelievable amount of recreational traffic, water
taxis, in addition to the sightseeing ferries and all that. And
there is a proposal that makes no sense that's for security
purposes, they would restrict people to the far side of the
channel, which I believe will ultimately lead to fatalities,
because once one swimmer came over the wall.
I would say, if the generals who are getting that wonderful
free housing with a great view of Hains Point are concerned
about security, it would be more appropriate to put up a fence,
or a wall--but that would really impede their view.
And some time at the beginning of the year there was a leak
thing about, oh, al-Qaida is threatening Fort McNair, or the
Quds Force, or somebody. The Quds Force is not going to say,
oh, that is a restricted zone, there is a red buoy, I can't
cruise in there and do anything. It makes no sense.
You know, we passed a bill out of committee. I believe that
this is not the solution to whatever problem they have. And I
do believe it will lead to very dire problems. And so I don't
know what the current status is of that rulemaking.
And I don't know if it is you or the Assistant Secretary
that could tell me on that.
General Spellmon. Sir, I will start. So, sir, that action
has gone from our Baltimore District, in conjunction with their
coordination with the Military District of Washington. It is
now in my headquarters.
Sir, you may be aware the President's Executive order has
taken that decision away from the Corps to be rendered by a
political appointee yet to be confirmed. And if I am asked for
my recommendation, I will give my best military advice to the
Assistant Secretary at that time, after I have had an
opportunity to look at the facts myself.
Mr. DeFazio. Sure. I was talking to the Commandant of the
Coast Guard. He is waterfront down in a much more sensitive
base. And he said he doesn't even have--there's nothing in his
backyard, and no restrictions on traffic. And that base has
much more sensitive operations going on down there. So I am
very puzzled as to this request.
And then finally, Secretary Pinkham, the ``dirty water
rule.'' We have lost--irrevocably--resources, and we are losing
them every day to inappropriate development because of the
total loss of protections under the Trump rule for up to 80
percent of our waterways and wetlands. I am puzzled as to why
you are just contemplating writing a new rule, which usually
takes a couple of years, as opposed to revoking that rule,
returning to what would take us back to the Bush-era rule,
which had problems, but it is way better than what Trump did.
Can you address that?
Mr. Pinkham. Yes, thank you for the question. When the
President issued an Executive order to review the former
environmental rules for consistency with the new agenda,
``waters of the U.S.'' was one of the rules that was evaluated.
And when I came on board, we were in an active effort to reach
out to stakeholders to--you know, and we heard from a variety
of prospective stakeholders, including the ag industry and
local governments. And there was a wide range of concerns about
the rule.
One, there was a concern, as Chairman DeFazio has pointed
out, is this ongoing damage that is occurring now, and is
expected to continue to occur. And people from the Southwest,
where we have these drought-related areas, were highlighting
that. On the other hand, we were hearing concerns from the ag
community, about they felt there was a level of certainty with
this rule.
And so what--we used that--was just to inform ourselves
that, in fact, we needed to change the rule. So we decided to
at least start with an intent to inform the Nation that a new
rule was needed. But what we want to do is take the time and
create a deliberative approach. I mean, we have been
experiencing the rule going left and right, and, you know, this
pendulum, and we want to find a way to find a more durable
rule. So it is going to take time.
We haven't really refined the process to go forward, but I
am working with EPA on defining what that process and the
timelines will be. And Mr. DeFazio, if you would like to have
some additional conversations, one on one, I would be happy to
meet with you to discuss it. But give us time. We will continue
to work on the road ahead.
Mr. DeFazio. Yes, well, I don't consider that acceptable.
The damage is irreversible, and the 2 to 3 years it takes
agencies to write a rule--I have very little patience with
bureaucracy--the amount of destruction could be extraordinary.
And again, we do have a backup. And you could just go back
and look at the rewritten Obama rule, which was put into place,
which actually lessened the burden on most farmers, except of
all the BS that went out about rain puddles, and drainage
ditches, and birdbaths, and all the other crap that was out
there that was totally fictitious.
So, yes, you are going to hear from the Farm Bureau, ``Oh,
this would be horrible, it will be horrible.'' Well, it wasn't.
And, in fact, as I pointed out, it exempted lots of farmers
from more environmental review under the old existing rule.
So, I don't find that an acceptable answer, and I think the
delay is very, very disappointing. And we are going to lose
resources that we can never recover that are already in short
supply.
So, yes, I will look forward to having an individual
conversation with you and whoever is responsible for this at
EPA to drive that point home a little bit more, and then bring
it up myself with the White House. So thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. I think you have
got a point, I think we have got to follow that. And I would
ask the gentleman, Mr. Pinkham, to report to the committee on
what is happening.
Mr. Rouzer, you are recognized.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I assume we will
probably do multiple rounds of questions. I am going to try to
get my first set here within the 5 minutes, just to be fair to
everybody else.
Mr. Secretary and General Spellmon, my initial questions
here are for you two. As you are probably aware--and these deal
with some local projects I have back home--as you are probably
aware, there are two federally authorized coastal storm damage
reduction projects in my district. Wrightsville Beach is one,
Carolina Beach and vicinity is the other. Both of them have
scheduled renourishment--or supposed to be renourished--this
year, for fiscal year 2021.
However, they were not funded, as you know, in the Army
Corps fiscal year 2021 work plan, which, quite frankly, came as
a great surprise to everybody up and down the chain, at least
those that I have spoken to. And I understand that the
Wilmington District and some others had put together a plan to
utilize funds that were left over from a couple of other
projects in North Carolina, and convert those for these two
projects.
I understand it is on your doorstep, if not already seen,
and I want to make sure that you are aware of that, and just
get any input from you here, while I have you.
General Spellmon. Sir, this is General Spellmon. I will
begin.
First I want to say we acknowledge the importance of both
of these beach renourishments to the people in the region.
The good news for Wrightsville Beach is the plans and
specifications are complete. Our intent was to perform the
construction with our flood control and coastal emergency
account. Unfortunately, we had the 2019 floods, which took many
other priority needs to other parts of the Nation. So I am
working two avenues to fund Wrightsville Beach. I will start
there.
First, we are working on an internal reprogramming action,
where we will find funds from other projects within the Corps
that either are no longer needed, or came in under budget. And
the need here for Wrightsville is $14.3 million, so that
research is ongoing.
Similarly, a second prong is we have asked the
administration to consider moving this project, Wrightsville,
from the flood control and coastal emergency account to our
construction account under the Disaster Response Act of 2019.
Mr. Rouzer, both of those options, both of those prongs
that we are working on require administration and congressional
committee review, and we would like to get those decisions here
next month, so we can get to a contract award by September, so
we can get this project in before the environmental windows
take effect.
Sir, similarly on Carolina Beach, we are--again, we are--
this one we are working an internal reprogramming action to
find--the funds they need here is $24 million, and we are
working to find those funds as expeditiously as possible. And
then we will take our recommendation to the Assistant
Secretary, and to the administration.
I hope that answers your question.
Mr. Rouzer. I appreciate that very, very much. And, as you
mentioned, the timing of this, getting this done as quickly as
possible is obviously very important. The longer it waits, the
greater the cost.
One quick question. I assume OMB has to sign off on this,
or is this just strictly internal with you all?
General Spellmon. Sir, I believe Mr. Pinkham in our
Assistant Secretary's team will work these options with OMB and
the administration, yes.
Mr. Rouzer. OK. One other community I want to ask about
real quick. The town of Holden Beach requires funding for their
coastal storm damage reduction feasibility study. They are a
federally authorized beach, obviously. Will you work to ensure
that the funding is included in the fiscal year 2022 work plan?
General Spellmon. Yes, sir, we can't make any commitments
at this time, but we will give our best technical
recommendation to the Assistant Secretary as--if we are offered
a fiscal year 2022 work plan, to prioritize these type
projects.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you very much.
First question--and I am going to go back to the discussion
on ``waters of the U.S.''--which agency is going to be the lead
on this? Is that going to be the Army Corps, is that going to
be you all, or is this going to be the EPA taking the lead?
Mr. Pinkham. OK, it will be primarily EPA, with a
tremendous amount of engagement from the Civil Works program at
the Army.
Mr. Rouzer. I don't know if I like the sound of that. Let
me ask you this. Can you tell us the criteria that the
administration is considering for what will be regulated as a
water of the U.S.?
Mr. Pinkham. Ranking Member Rouzer, I am not going to
predetermine what the outcome is of this process, and this is
why we want to engage the various stakeholders to come up with
what that definition will be. And we hope that definition will
be durable.
Mr. Rouzer. Madam Chair, I notice that my time has expired,
and I hope that we can do some additional rounds. I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, we hope so. Or you can ask they be
submitted and answered in writing. Thank you, Mr. Rouzer.
I would like to--I just gave the courtesy to the chair.
That is why I allowed him to have extra time. But the order of
the speakers for the next few are myself, Mr. Katko, Ms.
Johnson from Texas, Mr. Babin, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Graves.
OK, and I have a question for General Spellmon and Mr.
Pinkham, and I sincerely thank the administration for fully
funding Whittier Narrows, which is in my district. It is so
important for millions of residents in my district and the
surrounding region.
Can you give the committee a status update on the project,
and what the budget request would accomplish?
General Spellmon. Madam Chairwoman, I will start. First,
you know that we have completed the risk reduction measures on
the spillway gates at Whittier Narrows last December, so there
we transitioned from mechanical controls to electrical controls
to prevent premature openings.
This year we have two important prerequisites for the large
dam safety work. We are going toward an environmental
mitigation contract, and we have some utilities that we have to
move. The large-scale dam safety work, we are wrapping up
design. We plan to award that contract in September of next
year. The President's fiscal year 2022 budget funds that work
to completion for this very important project.
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes.
General Spellmon. And this is a large effort, ma'am. We are
scheduled--it is looking at a schedule completion in 2026.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
Mr. Pinkham, in your testimony you mentioned that the
budget provided $23 million of updates to water control manuals
at Corps projects that will account for the changing climate
and for the operation, an issue I have been working for many
years at Prado, Whittier Narrows, Santa Fe in southern
California, and I am pleased to see investment, but I am
concerned that we are talking about water control manual
updates for years, and very little ever gets implemented.
Money is not the only issue, but also bureaucracy, with the
involvement from various agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife
Service outside the Corps. How will you ensure that the manuals
are actually updated to address current hydrological
conditions, and provide sufficient protections and water
supply?
Mr. Pinkham. Chair Napolitano, thank you for the question,
and I think it is an important question, and one that I will
work closely with General Spellmon on, is, in addition to the
manuals, how do we consult and work with the other Federal
interests that are out there, whether it is around endangered
species or water quality.
So, Madam Chair, let me commit to work with General
Spellmon on making sure your concerns are addressed.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. I visited Morris Dam this week,
and I find that dam pristine, run by the county of Los Angeles.
And I think we should have the same situation in all of our
dams that are run by the Corps.
General Spellmon and Mr. Pinkham, as wildfire season is
upon us at the West, all of the West, my district has
experienced four wildfires on Army Corps property along the
river over the past 2 years. These wildfires were caused by
homeless trespassers and reckless behavior. This is a major
hazard to homes and businesses along the river, and the Army
Corps infrastructure and personnel in the region.
What are we doing to address the problem?
How many rangers do we now have for the entire area?
General Spellmon. Madam Chairwoman, first I want to say we
share your concerns for the safety and security, just given the
risks that we are seeing with the increased homeless population
across the region.
And also, I want to say we appreciate Congress' support in
the CARES Act that gave us additional funding to provide
additional security personnel for our projects. With that
support we have already conducted three very large-scale debris
removals from three homeless camps at San Gabriel River and the
Santa Fe River spillway. We have a fourth debris removal
scheduled for this September. And, ma'am, I think you are
tracking, we are working very closely with the L.A. County
Sheriff's Department and the Department of Parks and
Recreation.
We have already expanded our patrols, and we are looking
for other opportunities where we can bring down this fire risk.
And, ma'am, we will keep you updated as we continue to work our
way through this.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. Avila, as drought plagues the Colorado River system,
have recent minutes to your treaty with Mexico addressed
drought contingencies and mitigation, and what are the next
steps for the agency in addressing drought at the Colorado
River?
Mr. Avila. Yes, IBWC is working hard to mitigate the
impacts of the drought in the Colorado River Basin in both the
United States and Mexico.
IBWC Minute 323, signed in 2017, ensures that Mexico will
get reduced water deliveries in 2022, if--and it is very
likely--the Department of the Interior declares a shortage this
August.
We are currently helping Mexico prepare for the reductions
in developing drought plans and conserving water. As agreed
under relevant IBWC minutes, Mexico is already undertaking
temporary water savings, which can be recovered if reservoir
conditions improve. In 2021, these savings amount to 41,000
acre-feet. Mexico's efforts complement similar U.S. savings
under the U.S. lower basin drought contingency plan, which
Congress approved in 2019.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much. My time is up.
Mr. Katko, you may proceed.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Madam Chair, this is Graves of
Louisiana. I think I am going to be next.
[Pause.]
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I just highjack him?
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Graves, you may proceed, then, I am
sorry.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank you both for being here today, and I
certainly do appreciate your service. I have a number of
things. I am going to try and get through them as quickly as I
can.
First of all, BBA 2018, there are a couple of projects that
were funded. One of them is a Comite diversion project. The
other one is one we refer to casually as ``Five Bayous,''
otherwise known as Baton Rouge Area Flood Control. The Comite
project is a critical project. It has history dating back to
the late 1970s, early 1980s. This is a fully funded project. It
was recently announced that the project schedule slipped 50
percent, 50 percent slippage in schedule. Every day that this
thing is delayed, it is potentially putting people at risk.
Just about a month ago we had a record flood. We had
another one a few weeks ago. I just want to put this on your
radar. Colonel Murphy down in New Orleans has been great to
work with, but this project has got to stay on the front
burner, both of them. They have got to stay on the front
burner, and I just don't see them moving at the urgency that
they need, so I just wanted to flag that for you all.
General Spellmon. Sir, this is General Spellmon. I
acknowledge the 1-year slip in delivery. It did take us longer
to get our right-of-way drawings out, which slowed down the
real estate transactions.
And sir, I will just say I appreciate your personal
leadership, as we work through the Florida gas LNG pipeline. We
are currently in a day-per-day slip. I know that is
complicated, but I do appreciate your leadership in helping us
through that. Over.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. General, and I am going to keep
doing it. This is really personal for all the people that we
represent. And I want to say it again. Colonel Murphy has been
great to work with, very communicative, and I appreciate that.
But this--you know, this slippage every single day--you know
the vulnerability we have down there. So I just want to ask
that this be kept on the front burner.
I am going to jump to the next one, the Water Resources
Development Act of 2020, we had a provision there regarding the
hurricane protection system payback. And we did send a
delegation letter asking the Corps to get moving on the
interpretation. We got a pretty tight fuse on this. And I just
wanted to flag that for you all, and ask you to, once again,
please keep that on the front burner. We have got to get moving
on this. Huge financial implications that is potentially
diverting money away from other hurricane protection, coastal
restoration, and flood protection needs in the State.
General Spellmon. Yes, sir, this is General--yes, sir. I
acknowledge all. We acknowledge the WRDA provision. We are
working with the Secretary's office on implementation guidance
to get out in the field, and our suspense back to Colonel
Murphy is the 15th of August.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. OK, and I think you know that some
of the timelines on that date into September and October
timeframe, so there is a really tight fuse on that first kind
of action item.
General, I want to bring up--or Secretary--bring up
something else. We have legislated in Congress, and we do it
all the time on things. And probably the thing that aggravates
me more than anything else I do is when we pass a law, only to
have some bureaucrats come back and tell us that it didn't do
what we said it did, or intended it did. Whenever we
prenegotiated the language, we got drafting assistance and all
that stuff, and we deal with that exact issue right now in
multiple places. But one of them is nonstandard to States, it
has to do with real estate acquisition for environmental
restoration projects.
In the case of Louisiana, and--the landowners will donate
project easements, right-of-ways, whatever, and the Corps has
come back and said, ``No, you have to have it in fee title.''
We can lower the project cost. We can decrease the conflict
with locals and stakeholders. This makes no sense at all. If we
can get all the rights we need through a conservation easement
or a project easement, we change the law only to have the Corps
come back and write the same damn thing in their guidance as
they had written before.
We didn't change the law for fun. We did it because we
don't agree with what the Corps has been doing. And I just want
to ask you all to please go back and take a look at this.
Mr. Pinkham. Representative Graves, and, you know, this--I
am new to the program, and this is an issue I was unaware of.
But I will commit to you that I will look into this, and
provide you with a response.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you. Secretary, I appreciate
that.
Beneficial use of dredged material is another issue.
Congress has come in in the last few WRDAs. I think we have
done two different revisions to beneficial use of dredge
material, because what has happened in areas like south
Louisiana, which--I won't get into all the plumbing issues
related to the Mississippi River causing much of our coastal
land loss, but you also do extensive dredging in the Bird's
Foot, and we changed the law to make it, instead of least-cost
alternative, looking at how beneficial use of dredged material
for ecological restoration can be calculated as a benefit,
appropriately. Yet we continue to see where the spoil material
is dumped in the hopper dredge disposal areas off the deep
waters of the Gulf of Mexico, providing zero benefit. And
meanwhile, we have, by some measure, $15 billion in ecological
restoration projects authorized through the Corps of Engineers,
none of which are moving forward.
This really seems like it is an opportunity for a better
win-win. It is a good environmental win, it is a better use of
resources. And I just want to ask if you could take a 10th
relook at what Congress intended whenever we changed the law on
beneficial use of dredged material calculations.
General Spellmon. And, sir, this is General Spellmon. I
acknowledge all. We want to flip the numbers. Today we put
about 30 percent of our nationwide dredged material to
beneficial use. The other 70 percent, as you said, gets dumped.
I want to flip those numbers.
There is an R&D component to this, and there is some best
practices that we need to share across the enterprise. But,
sir, we are committed to it.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you very much. I just want
to make note for the record that I got my buddies, Mr. Huffman
and Mr. Garamendi from California, that are over there,
cheerleading. So they agree, they are on board with this, and
we don't agree with much.
Mr. Huffman. The Beneficial Reuse Caucus, I think, has just
begun.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. All right.
Mrs. Napolitano. Gentlemen, your time is up, Mr. Graves.
And I agree with you, by the way. So I thank you very much.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Madam Chair, can I talk you into a
second round?
Mrs. Napolitano. We will look at it. It depends on how many
are----
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. If I get you a cup of coffee? If I
get you a king cake, a second round of questions?
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Napolitano. All right, sir, thank you.
Ms. Johnson from Texas, you are on.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, and let me
welcome our witnesses, and simply say that I have an opening
statement that I ask unanimous consent to put in the record.
[Pause.]
Mrs. Napolitano. So ordered.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you. With the proposed funding
increases in your agency's budget, in what way specifically do
you believe that this funding would impact and assist cities
and communities like mine in the Dallas area?
To Mr. Spellmon, and then I will follow up.
General Spellmon. So, ma'am, as you heard in the opening
remarks, this is a record-level budget request from the
President. I think it is going to help us immensely get after a
number of projects to complete what we have already started,
then, of course, with the New Start authorities given to us
from the administration to get after some backlog projects, as
well. So we appreciate the trust and the investment, and I do
believe a number of these will help urban areas, as you have
described.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Well, thank you very much.
About almost 2 years ago now, I convened a COG--council of
governments--geographical area around Dallas; Federal, State,
county, and local officials to talk about a plan for some
preventions that--some catastrophes that we could possibly
avoid, since we know that the Corps has basically looked at
that after the fact.
Are you aware of the plan that we came up with?
General Spellmon. Ma'am, I am not familiar with the
details, no.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. OK, any of the panelists there
familiar with those details?
Mr. Pinkham. Member Johnson, I am not familiar.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. OK. Well, I am sorry we don't have
anyone here from that region, but we did spend a great deal of
time putting together a plan for prevention, because, as you
know, most of our troubles in the area comes from flooding
after the fact. And so we had a plan, and a pilot project came
from that, named the ``Integrated Planning for Regional
Transportation Development and Stormwater Management in the
Dallas-Fort Worth Region.'' And I guess, if you don't know
about the planning that we did, then you don't know about the
project.
I was curious if you were aware of that important pilot
there, with the Army Corps of Engineers, and how you supported
it. But I guess, if you don't know about it, I can't ask you a
question you don't know about.
But specifically, with respect to climate change, just
briefly, what are each of your agencies doing to reduce
disruptive costs of the Federal Government?
One example of concrete action in my congressional district
is the extension of levees in the city of Dallas. For some
reason, we can't seem to get completed projects. Can any of you
comment on that?
General Spellmon. So, ma'am--this is General Spellmon--
first I will tell you that we have been incorporating climate
change into our projects for at least the last 12 years. I know
we are looking at the climate change effects for both the
Dallas Floodway and the Dallas Floodway extension. So we are
accommodating the potential of future flows that we may see in
that region.
I would just also share, from a very high level, we have
also just completed following the administration's guidance to
submit our climate adaptation plan across all of our programs,
not just Civil Works, but also for the construction that we do
around the country.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Let me--this is the final question.
When there is a plan that we have come together with, including
the Corps, what should the----
Mrs. Napolitano. The----
Ms. Johnson of Texas [continuing]. Process--excuse me?
[Pause.]
Ms. Johnson of Texas. How should we get that well known,
and how can it get attention?
General Spellmon. Ma'am, I am sorry, this is General
Spellmon. I am sorry, I don't understand the question.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. When a regional effort comes
together, and puts together a plan to attempt to save money by
providing activities ahead of the storms, how does that become
known in the entire agency, and how can we get that known for
implementation?
General Spellmon. So, ma'am, we have done this in other
regions of the country. So what I will do immediately after
this hearing, I will follow up with General Beck to talk about
the integrated planning for the Dallas-Fort Worth region. I
will get myself smarter on that, and then we will come back to
you with what we believe the next step should be.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Well, thank you very much. I yield
back, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
Next is Mr. Babin, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Weber, Mr. Lowenthal.
Mr. Babin, go ahead, please.
[Pause.]
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Babin?
Mr. Rouzer. Madam Chair, I understand Mr. Mast would be up
next.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. No, Mr. Mast is after Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. Rouzer. He is not here, either.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK.
Mr. Rouzer. My understanding from the team is Mr. Mast
would be next.
Mrs. Napolitano. All righty. Mr. Mast, you are on. Please
proceed.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. I
have with me a photo here. Maybe we will be able to move it
into the shot, if the staff can move it into the shot. And it
is just a snapshot of the hundreds of miles of algal blooms on
Lake Okeechobee.
[Photo displayed.]
General Spellmon, Mr. Pinkham, I know that you are well
aware of what is going on out there. We have spoken about it
numerous times before.
Mr. Pinkham, we spoke about this in private. I visited Port
Mayaca with General Graham during a visit, where it was
absolutely disgusting, it looked exactly like what you see here
behind me. This is the lock and dam. This is where your
individuals work, right up here. We tried to go out onto this
lock and dam, right here. And it was so disgusting that we
couldn't even breathe. And because it was so disgusting and we
couldn't even breathe, we tried to go inside of the building
there. And even in the building, it was an unbearable state. We
were spitting every couple of seconds to get the taste of it
out of our mouths. Our clothes reeked for hours thereafter.
And my question is, have you spoken with Major General
Graham about this, Mr. Pinkham?
And has he issued a written report detailing the conditions
that Army Corps of Engineers personnel, both uniformed
servicemembers and civilians, are being forced to work in in
these conditions? Has he issued a report on that day?
Mr. Pinkham. Representative Mast, yes. And as a result of
our conversations, and your meeting with General Graham on
this, as I laid out in my letter to you, shared how we are
relying on the Florida Department of Public Health, the Centers
for Disease Control, and EPA on guidance on the precautions
that both visitors and the workforce should be taken at that
site. So we had provided written guidance to all personnel
about both the health risks and the other precautions they
should be taking.
Mr. Mast. Yes, I am--thank you, Mr. Pinkham. I am concerned
about the letter that you sent me. It states specifically in
the letter that the EPA, who I know I got to write a standard
on these algal blooms, on this toxic water, says the EPA
indicates health risks associated with inhalation are very low.
I want to submit for the record a study by the University
of Florida, Madam Chairwoman, if there is no objection to that,
that indicates that the inhalation hazard from harmful algal
blooms, these toxic algal blooms, can actually travel for up to
10 miles, and is persistent for hours on end, Mr. Pinkham----
Mrs. Napolitano. So ordered.
[The information follows:]
Article entitled, ``Atmospheric Progression of Microcystin-LR from
Cyanobacterial Aerosol,'' Submitted for the Record by Hon. Brian J.
Mast
Supporting Information
Atmospheric Progression of Microcystin-LR from Cyanobacterial Aerosol
Myoseon Jang \*1\, David E. Berthold \2\, Zechen Yu \1\, Cecilia Silva-
Sanchez \3\, H. Dail Laughinghouse IV \2\, Nancy D. Denslow \3\, and
Sanghee Han \1\
\1\ P.O.Box 116450, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences,
University of Florida, Florida 32611
\2\ 3205 College Ave., Agronomy Department, Fort Lauderdale Research
and Education Center, University of Florida, Davie, Florida 33314
\3\ 2187 Mowry Road, Department of Physiological Sciences and Center
for Environmental and Human Toxicology, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida 32608
\*\ corresponding author: [email protected], 352-846-1744 (phone), 352-392-
3076 (fax)
Number of Figure: 3
Number of section: 1 (Description of the chamber, experimental
procedures, and instrumentation)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure S1. The molecular structure of Microcystin-LR.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure S2: The Atmospheric Photochemical Outdoor Reactor (UF-APHOR)
chambers and instrumentation
Section S1. Description of the chamber, experimental procedures, and
instrumentation
UF-APHOR chamber. The UF-APHOR dual chambers are located on the
roof of Black Hall (latitude/longitude: 29.64185 +/-82.347883 +) at the
University of Florida (UF), Gainesville, Florida.1-3 The air
volume of the half-cylinder shaped, dual chambers is 104 m\3\ (52 m\3\
+ 52 m\3\). The dual, Teflon film chambers were operated simultaneously
to allow for investigation of two different experiments under the same
ambient, diurnal profiles of sunlight, relative humidity (RH), and
temperature (T). To allow for gas and aerosol characterization, chamber
air was pumped through several sampling lines into the atmospheric
chemistry lab that is located directly below the chamber.
Experimental procedure using UF-APHOR. The atmospheric process of
MC-LR in cyanobacterial aerosol was performed on the form of the batch
reaction in UF-APHOR. The chamber air was cleaned using air purifiers
(GC Series, IQAir) for 48 hours prior to each experiment.
CCl4 (>99.9%, Sigma Aldrich) was used as a tracer for
dilution. CCl4 was injected to the chamber using a glass
manifold with clean air. Both gas data (i.e., ozone) and MC-LR data
were corrected for the chamber dilution. The chamber dilution rate
ranged between 0.007-0.008 per hour (less than 1% per hour). Prior to
each experiment, the 4mL cyanobacterial culture aliquot (Microcystis
aeruginosa or Anabaena) was sonicated for 5 minutes. Then, 100 L MC-LR
aqueous solution (500 L/mL) was spiked to the cyanobacterial culture
aliquot. Silica particles (NanoCym Inc., USA) were also employed to
investigate the impact of aerosol media on the degradation of MC-LR.
The 6 mg dry silica particles and the 100 L MC-LR aqueous solution
(500 g/mL) were added into 5 mL water. Silica particles were
polydisperse particles with a mean diameter of 500 nm and a BET surface
area of 5.9 0.3 m\2\ g-1. The MC-LR spiked
cyanobacterial aqueous solution or silica particle aqueous suspension
was atomized into the chamber using a nebulizer (LC STAR, Pari
Respiratory Equipment) with clean air flow. The nebulization of aerosol
took 5-7 minutes. For the ozone experiment, ozone was produced using an
ozone generator (Waterzone 500, Amherst, NH) and introduced into the
chamber prior to cyanobacterial aerosol injection at nighttime. To
measure the initial concentration of MC-LR in cyanobacterial aerosol
for the ozonolysis experiment, the controlled dual chamber experiments
were performed: the MCLR-spiked cyanobacterial aerosol with ozone in
the East chamber and the without ozone in the West chamber.
Aerosol sampling with PILS. A particle-into-liquid sampler (PILS,
Applikon, ADI 2081) was used to collect cyanobacterial aerosol
particles.4-7 Particles inside PILS quickly grow due to the
condensation of water vapor, which is efficiently collected on
impaction. The PILS collection efficiency is larger than 95% for
particles.\4\ In the modified protocol, impacted particles were
collected within a small amount of deionized water \6\ with a flow rate
of 20-40 L/min. A carbon denuder was located upstream the PILS to
remove the gas chemical species in chamber air. The PILS samples were
subsequently applied to LC-MS/MS and ELISA.
Instrument. The instruments used for chamber operation are shown in
Figure S2. Agilent 7820A Gas Chromatography-Flame Ionization Detector
was employed with an oven temperature of 100 +C to measure
CCl4 concentrations. Gas phase concentrations of
NOx and O3 were measured using a Teledyne Model
200E Chemiluminescence NO-NOx Analyzer and Model 400E
Photometric O3 Analyzer, respectively. The particle
distribution and number concentrations of submicron particles were
measured with a scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) (TSI, Model
3025A, MN) coupled with a condensation nuclei counter (TSI, Model 3022,
MN). The concentrations of the particle ranging between 0.5 m and 10
m in particle diameter were also measured using the Optical Particle
Counter (OPC 3330, TSI, MN). No particle was larger than 1 m. Non-
refractory species (sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, chloride and organics)
in submicron aerosol were measured in situ by using an Aerosol Chemical
Speciation Monitor (ACSM, Aerodyne, MA). ACSM spectra analysis was
performed by using the standard ACSM analysis software (version:
ACSM_local_1.6.0.0) provided by Aerodyne which was written within
Wavemetrics Igor Pro. Both SMPS data and ACSM were utilized to estimate
cyanobacteria aerosol mass.
LC-MS/MS operation condition: The concentrations of MC-LR in the
collected aerosol samples were also analyzed by high-performance liquid
chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS\2\) using a 6500 QTRAP
(Sciex, Palo alto, Cal.) coupled to a Nexera 2 UPLC (Shimadzu, Japan)
system. Chromatographic separation was achieved on an Eclipse plus C18
column, 2.1x100 mm, 3.5 mm (Agilent, CA) using 0.5 % formic acid in
water as phase A and 0.5% formic acid in acetonitrile as phase B. The
flow rate was set as 0.2 mL/min. The gradient started at 5% of B for 2
min; ramped to 60% B in 2 min, 95% B in 0.5 min, 96% B in 3.5 min, 100
% B in 0.5 min; and then held for 0.5 min. Data were acquired in
positive mode using the following parameters: 35 psi curtain gas, 5000
V ion spray voltage, 350 +C source temperature, 12 psi collision gas,
50 psi nebulizer gas, and 60psi heater gas. Two transitions were used
for MC-LR:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Data were acquired using Analyst v.1.7 software and analyzed using
Analyst v.1.6.2 software. A MC-LR standard (Abraxis; Cat. No. 300632,
CAS No. 101043-37-2) was solubilized in 5% acetonitrile + 0.5% formic
acid to build a standard curve from 0.5 nm\3\m-3 to 100
nm\3\m-3. The limit of detection and limit of quantitation
were determined as 3 or 10 times the standard deviation of the response
of the curve and the slope of the calibration curve, respectively.
Concentrations of MC-LR
Concentrations of MC-LR in air (ng/m\3\): The concentration of the
MC-LR in chamber air is calculated using the aerosol mass concentration
( g/m\3\) and the mass ratio of MC-LR to dried algae (50:8320 for Exps
A and E; 50:2000 for Exp B; 50:3750 for Exp. C; 50: 6000 for Exp. D).
SMPS data and the density of aerosol (assuming to be one) will provide
the aerosol mass concentration. In order to determine the dry algae
mass concentration in cyanobacterial aqueous solution, a 100 L
homogeneous cyanobacterial aqueous solution was dried on a preweighed
Teflon-coated, glass-fiber filter (Emfab TX40 HI20 WW; Pallflex Corp.,
Putnam, CT) using a dry air tank. The dried cyanobacterial biomass on
the filter was weighed using an analytical balance (MX5; Mettler-Toledo
Ltd., England). The cyanobacterial concentration was determined by the
filter mass with and without cyanobacteria and the volume of the
cyanobacterial solution. The dry cyanobacterial mass concentrations of
Exps. (A), (B), and (C) were 3.3 mg/mL, 0.8 mg/mL and 0.75 mg/mL,
respectively.
MC-LR mass concentration (ng/ g algae aerosol) and cyanobacterial
aerosol: The mass concentrations of MC-LR were calculated using LC-MS/
MS data (ng/mL) (or ELISA) in the PILS samples (mL/m\3\) and the
aerosol mass concentrations ( g/m\3\, SMPS data and the density of
aerosol) in chamber air. For the calculation of the kinetic rate
constant, the MC-LR concentration associated with aerosol
concentrations were corrected for chamber dilution (CCl4
data). The MCLR concentration (ng/ g) at time = t ([MC-LR]t)
was normalized with the initial MC-LR concentration ([MC-
LR]0) at time = 0 in Figure 1 of the manuscript. The
relative concentrations were applied to determine the rate constant for
the reaction of aerosolized MC-LR with ozone.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure S3. Time profiles of temperature (T), %relative humidity (%RH)
and TUVR sunlight irradiance over the course of the chamber experiment
(Table 1).
References
1. Im, Y.; Jang, M.; Beardsley, R., Simulation of Aromatic SOA
Formation Using the Lumping Model Integrated with Explicit Gas-Phase
Kinetic Mechanisms and Aerosol Phase Reactions. Atmos. Chem. Phys.
2014, 13, 5843-5870.
2. Beardsley, L. R.; Jang, M., Simulating the SOA formation of
isoprene from partitioning and aerosol phase reactions in the presence
of inorganics. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 2016, 16, 5993-6009.
3. Zhou, C.; Jang, M.; Yu, Z., Simulation of SOA Formation from
the Photooxidation of Monoalkylbenzenes in the Presence of Aqueous
Aerosols Containing Electrolytes under Various NOx Levels. Atmos. Chem.
Phys. 2019, 19, 5719-5735.
4. Orsini, D. A.; Ma, Y.; Sullivan, A.; Sierau, B.; Baumann, K.;
Weber, R. J., Refinements to the particle-into-liquid sampler (PILS)
for ground and airborne measurements of water soluble aerosol
composition. Atmos. Environ. 2003, 37, (9), 1243-1259.
5. Jiang, H.; Jang, M., Dynamic Oxidative Potential of Atmospheric
Organic Aerosol Under Ambient Sunlight. Environmental Science and
Technology 2018, 52 (13), 7496-7504.
6. Jiang, H.; Jang, M.; Sabo-Attwood, T.; Robinson, S. E.,
Oxidative Potential of Secondary Organic Aerosols Produced from
Photooxidation of Different Hydrocarbons Using Outdoor Chamber under
Ambient Sunlight. Atmos. Environ. 2016, 131, 382-389.
7. Jiang, H.; Yu, Z.; Jang, M., Dithiothreitol Activity by
Particulate Oxidizers of SOA Produced from Photooxidation of
Hydrocarbons under Varied NOx Levels Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
2017, 17, 9965-9977.
Mr. Mast [continuing]. And General Spellmon--thank you,
Madam.
Would you say that the people working in this region fall
within that 10-mile parameter that this University of Florida
study points to?
Do your workers fall within that 10-mile parameter, and
that persistent area that this University of Florida study
points to?
Mr. Pinkham. Representative Mast, yes, the site would be
within the 10 miles. But what I would like to do----
Mr. Mast. I need to pause you there, I just need to pause
you there, sir. I appreciate that. I will give you more time.
That being said, the letter that you wrote me, it said the
EPA indicates the health risks are very low. Do you have any
source material that says where the EPA got that? Because I
have done extensive research on this, and I can't find one EPA
study on inhalation hazards as it relates to these algal blooms
that have measured, in some cases, over 100 times too toxic,
according to the ingestion standard that the EPA put forward.
So do you know, is there source material for what the EPA
stated?
Mr. Pinkham. Representative Mast, I will be happy to follow
up and go through EPA to get that source material.
Mr. Mast. I don't believe that there is source material. I
appreciate you helping me out with that, because I want to read
it, if there is.
General Spellmon, I want to go to you quickly here. Given
the information that I just put out there, this is a picture of
this Sunday, these toxic algal blooms. Are you aware at what
level they measured?
General Spellmon. No. No, I am not.
Mr. Mast. OK, that is concerning, especially considering
that I wrote you guys a letter, talking about the fact that you
have uniformed service personnel working directly on top of
them, and civilian personnel working directly on top of them.
That actually measured about 116 parts per billion. That is 16
times more toxic than what the EPA says is OK.
And my question to you is simply this: Given that
information, and that you acknowledged about 1\1/2\ years ago
that it is toxic water, would you say that your soldiers and
personnel at Port Mayaca are being poisoned?
General Spellmon. No, I would not. I would say we are going
to follow the guidance.
Mr. Mast. Are you willing to risk your career on the fact
that your soldiers and civilians are not being poisoned?
General Spellmon. Sir, we are going to follow the best
guidance from the Florida Department of Health and the EPA.
Mr. Mast. Yes. I am just going to say this last sentence. I
don't take anything more seriously than the safety of the
people in my community, and the safety of my brothers and
sisters in arms. I know you are a uniformed servicemember. I
just gave you pretty damning information about how toxic this
is, and the fact that your personnel are sitting there,
breathing it 10 hours a day.
Would anybody in this room care if I opened this up?
[Indicating jar containing unidentified substance.]
Voice. [Inaudible] open it.
Mr. Mast. Would you care if I opened this up?
Voice. No.
Mr. Mast. Why?
General, would you care if I opened this up in here?
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Mast, your time is up, sir.
Mr. Mast. I will open it up, then, thanks.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. You make a valid point. That is
unconscionable to have that happen. When was that picture
taken, Mr. Mast?
Mr. Mast. No, I will get it open, eventually.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Mast?
Mr. Mast. Yes, ma'am?
Mrs. Napolitano. When was that picture taken?
Mr. Mast. Sunday.
Mrs. Napolitano. General, I hope that----
Mr. Mast. The picture was taken Sunday.
Mrs. Napolitano [continuing]. That the results of his
questioning are available to all the committee. This is an
important issue for the health of the people that are involved.
Mr. Garamendi, you are next.
Mr. Garamendi. Madam Chair, you are really, really
fortunate that you are not here in the hearing room. That man
is about to open that toxic algae bloom, and we are within 10
feet here.
Stop it, Mr. Mast.
Mr. Mast. A lot of people have to breathe this every day. I
can't even get this thing open. Thank God. Somebody on my staff
has got a strong grip.
Mr. Garamendi. Well, we appreciate whoever closed that and
sealed it. We don't need that.
Incidentally, there is a law that we passed. It is called
the OATH Act. It requires that every medical record for anybody
in the military--and we are now going to amend it to include
civilian personnel--that in their medical record, exposure to
toxics be in that medical record for the rest of their lives,
so that any subsequent illness might be traced back to that
toxic.
Mr. Mast. As I requested----
Mr. Garamendi. And you were one of the coauthors of that
piece of legislation.
Mrs. Napolitano. That is great.
Mr. Garamendi. Very good, thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Mast, would you mute yourself?
Mr. Garamendi. I am consuming my time here. Please excuse
me. And Mr. Mast is on to a very, very important issue.
And thank you, Mr. Mast, for raising that. We also have
algae blooms in California.
My questions go to General Spellmon and Secretary Pinkham.
I want to talk about restoration programs. California has some
of the most affected rivers. The Sacramento River system, there
are two major restoration projects on the Sacramento River. I
want to bring to the attention of General Spellmon the Yuba
River Goldfields restoration project, a project that has been
authorized, but is now in abeyance, and may very well stop, as
a result of a specific ruling by the Corps of Engineers.
General Spellmon, your predecessor wrote--in the final
authorization for this from the Corps of Engineers, General
Semonite wrote, ``Great project, proud to contribute to the
restoration of critical fish habitat for nationally significant
aquatic species,'' meaning salmon.
Unfortunately, the final contract between the Corps of
Engineers and the local agencies, the Yuba County Water Agency,
did not limit the future liability of the local agency to
restore the project to the completed program, which made no
sense in two ways. One, unlimited liability could be several
tens of millions of dollars at any time. And secondly, the
project was specifically designed--well, the initial
restoration would be to try to restore as much as humans know
what the river might have looked like before the Yuba
Goldfields totally destroyed a 10-mile stretch of the river.
The project was designed so that the river would run free,
and restore itself over time. That is one thing. I bring that
to your attention, and ask for your consideration on this
liability issue.
The second is a new project that actually would be
authorized under the Yolo Bypass Systems Improvement. The 2016
WRDA legislation would authorize it. This is a 300,000-acre
restoration project that would include two of the major flood
bypasses, the Sutter Bypass and the Yolo Bypass, that work in
coordination with the nearby and adjacent rice fields to
provide 300,000 acres of restored salmon habitat in those
bypasses, using the return flows from the rice fields to
provide nutrients for the salmon. It has been shown in pilot
programs on the Yolo Bypass that the salmon are somewhere
between two and four times more successful in such a project.
I bring this to your attention, would ask for you to
consider joining the Secretary of the Interior in a visit to
this program. The program is supported by the American Rivers,
the Audubon, California Rice Commission, California Trout,
California Waterfowl, Conaway Preservation, Ducks Unlimited,
Ecosystems, Glenn-Colusa, on and on, and the Northern
California Water Association.
This is a 300,000-acre win-win program that is available. I
don't expect a response on either of these now. But for sure,
we are going to get back together again to talk about it, and
how we can actually move these two projects forward. We need to
have a better contract from the Corps of Engineers for the Yuba
River Goldfields program. And we need your engagement on the
California flood plain restoration project.
With that, I yield back my remaining 3 seconds. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, thank you, Mr. Garamendi, for being
so generous with your time.
Mr. LaMalfa, you may proceed.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to echo
some of what Mr. Garamendi was saying on how successful that
restoration is in the rice lands up there in the area, too. It
is not far from my neighborhood. So it is looking good.
I want to address General Spellmon and Mr. Pinkham, as
well, in my thoughts here. We have a situation in the far north
part of my district. There are four hydroelectric dams. Three
are on the California side, one is on the Oregon side, up on
the Klamath River. And at a time when we are facing power
shutoffs because of heat, because of a grid that is not keeping
up, underway is the process of removing these dams that--just
recently, FERC has approved a transfer of the license on these
four dams to an entity called the KRC, as well as the State of
California and Oregon, because KRC is just a shell corporation
that has really no assets to back it up. So now the taxpayers
of California and Oregon will be on the hook for the possible
cost overruns on dam removal.
So FERC sent to Army Corps in the San Francisco District a
memo for the NEPA process. It will direct Army Corps to partner
with FERC, and perform the environmental review functions under
section 404 we are very familiar with, and also section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act. So there are a lot of issues with
the dam removal.
What we saw--what was called the Condit Dam up in the State
of Washington, they breached a dam a while back, it ended up
smothering the spawning grounds with silt. It had about 2.4
million cubic yards of sediment there that ended up going
downstream and smothering spawning grounds. So the number on
the Klamath is not 2.4, but 20 million cubic yards is one
estimate. It could be as high as 60 million, because it is hard
to estimate this behind dams.
So what we are looking at is that, under section 404, the
permits are required to dispose of dredged or fill material in
the Nation's waterways.
So does the Army Corps have any idea--General Spellmon, how
are we going to mitigate 20 million cubic yards of silt and
sediment behind this set of dams, given that the sediment
really hasn't been dealt with in this kind of volume before?
What can we be looking at, as far as a true--when you are
doing your NEPA on this, how do you account for that much
sediment?
General Spellmon. Yes, sir, the answer may be that we can't
account for it, right? And it might not be a good disposal
option. So I won't know the answer to that, sir, until we get
further down the NEPA process, and do the math, and do the
analysis, and do the modeling. But I cannot answer that today.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Does the Army Corps have any plans under
this memo to do an expedited or accelerated NEPA review process
here, as I seem to be hearing?
General Spellmon. Congressman, I am not familiar with an
expedited process on these three hydroelectric dams. I have not
heard that.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK, yes--there is four.
Mr. Pinkham, do you have anything on that?
Mr. Pinkham. Like General Spellmon, I have not heard
anything about an expedited process on NEPA.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. So is there any idea how long the review
itself might take on something like this, either of you
gentlemen?
General Spellmon. Sir, I will follow up with our Sacramento
District, Commander Colonel Handura, and get a better estimate
of timeline for you.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK, I think it is based in the San Francisco
District, though, OK? So you guys will figure that out.
Do you have any idea how long the environmental review of
the Condit Dam took, up in the State of Washington?
General Spellmon. Sir, this is General Spellmon. I do not.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Please let us know on that, as you get the
chance.
On flood control now, obviously, that is a cornerstone of
Army Corps' work in the United States. Is the Army Corps
allowed or are they going to consider flood control to be a
primary purpose of these dams, as it has shown to be?
But is that--in the memo that you are going to be working
on, the MOU, is Army Corps' responsibility and work on flood
control, is that going to be given weight as to whether it
agrees in this NEPA process that the dam removal is a good idea
or not?
General Spellmon. Yes, sir, it will. That will be a
component.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Is that a pretty key component, or is it
secondary to a perceived environmental benefits, or--what are
you looking at, do you think?
General Spellmon. So sir, I will dig into these four dams
that you mentioned. I am not familiar with the authorized
purposes for which they were originally designed and built.
That will be a large function of the answer to that question,
and I will have to follow up with you once I know more.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. They do serve a flood control function, in
addition, as well as they are actually a source of water supply
in firefighting, too, for aircraft that can scoop the water
out, or withdraw the water from the lakes. And so that is
important, as well. But it has been shown to be an important
firefighting tool, as well as the flood control. And with the
removal of these dams, it is fully expected that there is--
further down in Siskiyou County we will have flood problems
that they haven't had since the existence of these dams.
Under section----
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. LaMalfa, your time is up.
Mr. LaMalfa [continuing]. 404, and also section 10----
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. LaMalfa?
Mr. LaMalfa. Ma'am?
Mrs. Napolitano. Your time is up.
Mr. LaMalfa. Oh, that flew by. OK.
Please look into the C. shasta virus aspects, too, where
the river situation causes a virus that affects the salmon on
there, and see if section 404 covers the cause of C. shasta to
be made worse by this dam removal, and the flushing that may or
may not happen.
So thank you, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Lowenthal, you may proceed.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank all the
panelists. This is a fascinating hearing, and I would like to
also ask a question of General Spellmon.
And again, it is going to relate to my own district. There
has been more and more attention, since the pandemic, on ports,
particularly the San Pedro Bay port complex. Half of the Port
of Long Beach is in my district.
Since the pandemic, first the drop-off, then tremendous
growth and congestion, difficulty in backlog, and getting ships
in and out. And not a day goes by that people do not ask me,
``What more is Congress doing for port infrastructure?''
In the case of the Port of Long Beach, which is the port
that I represent, the port is making massive investments in
their rail network. As their executive director, Mario Cordero,
has stated in congressional testimony, the future is in rail. I
agree with him, but I also know that water investments go hand
in hand with rail investments, and I am hoping you can give me
a status update on the Port of Long Beach's deep draft
navigation study.
The purpose of this feasibility study is to identify,
evaluate, improve existing navigation channels within the Port
of Long Beach, to improve conditions for current and future
container and liquid bulk vessels operating safely, and
especially in the event of vessel malfunction----
[Audio malfunction.]
Mr. Lowenthal [continuing]. Study is on track to receive a
Chief's Report this fall. Is that true?
And can you tell me when we can expect your signature on
this critical project document?
General Spellmon. So, Congressman Lowenthal, I had the
opportunity to visit the Port of Long Beach in January of 2019,
so I acknowledge the importance of this report to the region.
The Chief's Report is scheduled to be on my desk in 90
days. I intend to sign that in September. And that will make
that project eligible for Congress' consideration in WRDA 2022.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, and I think that is a wonderful
answer, and I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal, and I would now
like Mr. Babin to go proceed.
Dr. Babin. Yes, ma'am. Thank you so very much, Madam
Chairwoman and Ranking Member Rouzer. Thank you to our
witnesses for being here with us today.
General Spellmon, thank you for your service to our
country, and I would like to commend you on your personal
attention that you have given to my district and the State of
Texas. Your leadership has not gone unnoticed, I promise you.
And Acting Assistant Secretary Pinkham, welcome to the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
I look very much forward to working with you and your staff
before and after you are confirmed. I would also like to
personally extend an invitation to the Greater Houston area to
you to view some of the great Corps projects that we have going
on in southeast Texas, like the Port of Houston Channel
improvement project in Galveston Bay, the Sabine coastal storm
risk management ecosystem restoration project. I was proud to
work with Assistant Secretary R.D. James on several Texas
issues, and look forward to now working with you on improving
our port and water infrastructure.
I have the privilege of representing southeast Texas, from
Houston over to Louisiana, which, in my district, includes four
ports. And this past December I was honored to have helped lead
the effort, alongside other Houston delegation members, to see
through to the end the successful authorization and
appropriation to dredge and widen the Houston Ship Channel in
the Water Resources Development Act.
And to go even further, a few weeks later we were able to
secure $19 million and a New Start designation to begin
construction of this project, which is a timeline very, very
unusual to achieve. This was a very large, huge win, I think,
for the country itself, considering that the Port of Houston is
the number-one-ranked port in the Nation in total of waterborne
tonnage, sustaining 3 million American jobs, $802 million in
U.S. economic value, and generating $38 billion in Federal,
State, and local tax revenues.
But before the Corps could begin construction, a project
partnership agreement must be executed. It is my understanding
that both parties are extremely close to finalizing that
agreement. So, Secretary Pinkham, can you provide me an
estimated date on when the project partnership agreement will
be finalized?
And if there are any delays, will you commit to expediting
the finalization of that agreement?
Expanding and enhancing all our ports here in Texas is a
critical investment that is key to our global competitiveness.
[Pause.]
Dr. Babin. Secretary Pinkham?
Mr. Pinkham. Yes, thank you, Representative Babin. I am not
that familiar with the project. We are happy to look into it,
and look at what the timeline is ahead, and get back to you.
Also, thank you for your invitation to visit the Greater
Houston area. I would like to take you up on your offer. And
just for the record, I am the Acting Assistant Secretary of the
Army, and we are working on the confirmation of Mr. Connor, who
will come in, we hope, as the ASACW.
Dr. Babin. Got you.
Mr. Pinkham. But in the meantime, I would be happy----
Dr. Babin. Got you. Thank you. Thank you very much.
And General Spellmon, it is my understanding that the Port
of Corpus Christi's ongoing channel improvement project did not
meet the required benefit-to-cost ratio for inclusion in the
fiscal year 2022 President's budget. However, they could have
been included in the budget, if the remaining funds of the $154
million had been provided.
Was the Port of Corpus Christi's channel improvement
project considered for inclusion in the fiscal year 2022
President's budget?
And if the port was considered, why was it not included in
the budget?
Were there any other factors besides their benefit-to-cost
ratio that led to the project's exclusion in the President's
budget?
General Spellmon. Sir, I can say, from a technical
perspective, we report capabilities to the administration on
work that we can do on the upcoming fiscal year. The Corpus
Christi project had a capability on the order of about $155
million.
We acknowledge the importance of this port to the people of
Texas and, frankly, to the Nation. And we want to finish
everything that we start.
I will tell you that we will continue to make our strongest
technical recommendations to continue this work.
Dr. Babin. Absolutely. Thank you. And the Port of Corpus
Christi, although not in my district, is extremely important,
in terms of energy being brought out of our great State.
So with that, Madam Chair, I will yield back. Thank you
very much.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mr. Babin. I
appreciate you returning your time. Next we have Mr.
Malinowski.
You may proceed.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to our
witnesses.
So Acting Assistant Secretary Pinkham, I wanted to start by
just thanking you for the response that you sent to the letter
that I sent you in late May, along with Senators Menendez and
Booker, and Congressman Payne regarding our Rahway River flood
risk mitigation study in my district in New Jersey. I think you
probably know at this point how important this is to me and to
my constituents, that we address the persistent flood risks in
that area, and find a solution that will ultimately get this
project into a Chief's Report.
And Lieutenant General Spellmon, you will remember, I
think, that you and I discussed this at a Water Resources and
Environment Subcommittee hearing way back in July of 2019. You
and your colleagues have been hearing from my staff and from me
regularly since then. And I know you are a Jersey native, so
you know the area well, and understand the need. My
constituents and I, as you know, we were disappointed that the
Corps moved to terminate the study in 2019. We, of course,
nullified that termination in the 2020 WRDA bill.
And, as you acknowledged in your letter, Assistant
Secretary, the Corps confirmed its intention to resume the
study, and we are very grateful for that.
So a couple of questions for Mr. Pinkham, and feel free to
weigh in, if you like, General Spellmon, as well.
Just to put a finer point on your response to me earlier
this week, can you reaffirm here your commitment to work
closely and collaboratively with both the non-Federal sponsor
and the local affected communities on a suitable path forward
for this project, and to stay engaged until we have developed a
solution?
Mr. Pinkham. That is correct. And as I said in my opening
statements, the foundations of our work are really built around
partnerships. So I look forward to collaboration on this
project.
Mr. Malinowski. Good. And you noted in the letter that you
sent on June 18th that, in accordance with WRDA, the Corps
intends to resume the study. Can you offer us any more clarity
today as to when?
WRDA was signed, I think, on December 27th of last year, so
6 months ago. And our communities are, naturally, quite anxious
about this.
Mr. Pinkham. Yes. Currently, we are working on the
implementation guidance of the WRDA provisions, which we hope
to be done by this August.
Mr. Malinowski. OK, and can you confirm, finally, that the
Corps has the necessary resources to proceed with the
resumption of the study?
Mr. Pinkham. I really don't know the particulars of that,
but I will be happy to look into it.
Mr. Malinowski. Good. If you can, get back to us.
And then, finally, broadening the discussion out from my
district and my State, as you know, the committee, we recently
advanced a very ambitious water infrastructure bill that, among
other things, would invest $40 billion over 5 years in the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund, millions more in grants to
municipalities for water projects around the country. I think
there is bipartisan consensus that we have underinvested in our
water infrastructure over many years, so it is a lot of money
that we are proposing.
But I would note that the Corps has its own backlog of
projects that have been authorized, but not funded. And I
understand that backlog is around $100 billion. Is that
correct?
General Spellmon. Sir, this is General Spellmon. That is
correct, on the order of $109 billion, across 963 projects.
Mr. Malinowski. Good. And would you be able to enumerate
for us--maybe not today, in our back and forth, but
afterwards--the dollar amount that the Corps could execute for
water resource development projects and studies over the next 5
to 8 years, if you had the funding, what your actual capacity
would be?
General Spellmon. Yes, sir. We can outline that for you,
geographically and over time.
Mr. Malinowski. That would be helpful.
And I will just close with the point we are authorizing a
lot of money, and I strongly support the bill, but I think it
is important for all of us and every American to understand
that, even with the very generous amounts that we will
hopefully be appropriating this year, there will still be deep,
deep needs in our communities that may not be satisfied. And so
let's be ambitious with this opportunity we have this year to
pass a good bill.
Thank you so much. I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Malinowski. You make a
great point. And I have always said we need to stop using Band-
Aid approaches, and be able to give enough funding to be able
to get things done.
Mr. Westerman, you may proceed.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to
General Spellmon and Acting Secretary Pinkham for being here
today to discuss the proposed budget.
And before I begin questioning, I would like to acknowledge
that the proposed budget does include $149 million for the New
Start construction for the Three Rivers project. And, as you
all are aware, that project that is at the confluence of the
Arkansas and Mississippi Rivers affects the whole MKARNS
system, and all the States and groups that depend upon the
MKARNS for navigation, as well as the flood control component
of that. Another critical component that affects my State, as
well as other States, is the MKARNS project, and the
President's budget includes $56.1 million in operations and
maintenance funding for the MKARNS. I believe this is low, but
it is a start.
Congress made clear in the Water Resources Development Act
of 2020 that I was--you know, enjoyed working with Chairwoman
Napolitano on that. I thought we had a good bill, and we
specified in there that the MKARNS does not require a New Start
through the annual funding process. And I understand that the
districts are updating the economic feasibility of the project,
but what is the Corps' plan to resume construction of this
project that, unbelievably, began in 2005?
General Spellmon. Sir, this is General Spellmon. So I will
tell you I have had the opportunity to visit this project in
Three Rivers earlier this year, and we acknowledge it is
important.
So we appreciate the support Congress gave us in the fiscal
year 2021 work plan, that $559,000. What we are doing with
those funds, sir, we are investing them and ensuring our design
is up to date, and our cost estimate is up to date. And once we
have those two products, that will help us support our
budgetary submission for consideration by the Secretary. And we
are working on these actions now.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you. We will, obviously, be monitoring
that closely, and we are here to help with it however we can.
As I said previously, the President's budget proposal did
include O&M funds above the fiscal year 2021 enacted level for
the entire MKARNS. Arkansas projects are proposed to receive
approximately $1 million less in the proposed budget. And
noting that MKARNS faces an approximately $230 million critical
infrastructure and maintenance backlog, and that this system
has a responsibility to be maintained by the Federal
Government, what is the plan to address the critical
maintenance backlog on the MKARNS?
General Spellmon. Sir, this is General Spellmon, I will
start.
So my latest numbers show we have a $245 million backlog on
the system. And so, just for context, across the Nation on
Corps projects, our O&M backlog is about $4\1/4\ billion.
I will say we appreciate the President's budget request, a
record high for operations and maintenance funding, over $4
billion. And that will help us immensely, both on the MKARNS
and on other important projects that we have to bring down that
backlog number.
Mr. Westerman. Yes, so it is $15 million more than the
numbers we had. I think that shows how quickly this maintenance
backlog is piling up.
So, General, what is the annual capacity for operations and
maintenance on the MKARNS?
How much work could be done if the funding were available?
General Spellmon. Sir, I don't have that number with me,
but I can get that and follow up with you shortly after the
hearing.
Mr. Westerman. I appreciate that. My sources tell me that
the capability is much higher than the amount of funding that
is there, and we know that the longer we delay critical
maintenance, that it increases the cost even more. So, coming
from an engineering background, it just makes sense to me that
we would spend money wisely, that we would take care of
maintenance issues before they became emergency issues.
I know this isn't unique just to the MKARNS, it is unique
to the whole system. I think it is something that we need to
focus more on in Congress. I think Chairwoman Napolitano and
many others on the committee would agree to that, that it is a
shame that we don't have the--it almost seems like we don't
have the moxie to do the required maintenance that we need to
do, whether that is funding, or getting projects approved, or
actually getting execution on these projects.
So I wish you all the best. And again, this is a very
important part of the President's budget. And I look to see
good results coming from it.
I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Westerman. And I sure miss
you, sir.
The order next is Mr. Carbajal, Miss Gonzalez-Colon, Mr.
Stanton, Mrs. Steel, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Nehls, Mr. Brown, Ms.
Norton.
Mr. Carbajal, you are next.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you----
Mrs. Napolitano. You may proceed.
Mr. Carbajal [continuing]. Chairwoman. Thank you,
Chairwoman Napolitano.
And thank you, Lieutenant General Spellmon and Acting
Secretary Pinkham, for being here. As you know, I represent the
central coast of California, and we are all too familiar with
the increased threats of climate change from increased
wildfires, prolonged droughts, more severe flooding, and
devastating debris flows. The central coast is all too familiar
with this new reality.
Currently, we have various Army Corps projects that might
bring some relief to my constituents as we deal with these new
risks. San Luis Obispo County is having ongoing conversations
with the L.A. District about potentially taking on ownership of
the Salinas Dam. My understanding, from discussions with
Colonel Julie Balten, overseeing the Los Angeles District, is
that the dam is currently a military asset.
So a couple of questions. Do you see any obstacles to the
transfer of the dam to the county of San Luis Obispo?
And two, is there legislation that I should consider in
order to accomplish the goal of delegating authority and
transferring the dam to San Luis Obispo County?
General Spellmon. Congressman, my understanding on this
process is the Corps would request to do a disposition study on
this project. Again, this dam was built in 1942, over a 6-month
period, and then transferred to the Corps 7 months later.
The purpose of the disposition study is to make sure that
all parties have eyes wide open on the structural integrity of
the dam, any seismic concerns, any environmental concerns, and
let's have all that on the table, and then have that
discussion.
Regarding legislative drafting services, sir, we have done
this before on other parts of our infrastructure, and we would
be happy to work with you after we get started on the
disposition study, on what that legislative language might look
like.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. I don't know, Acting Secretary
Pinkham, if you have anything else to add.
Mr. Pinkham. I have nothing to add, sir.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Moving on, the Lower Mission Creek
flood control project began as a partnership between the county
of Santa Barbara and the Corps in the late 1960s. I am glad to
see that the Corps is working with Santa Barbara County on a
Post-Authorization Change Report to account for post-fire
hazards and current construction performed by the county of
Santa Barbara.
Would you be able to provide an update on where this
project stands at this point?
General Spellmon. Congressman, I can. Again, we appreciate
Congress' support in the 2021 work plan. That $500,000 allowed
us to initiate the Post-Authorization Change Report that you
just mentioned. We are in the President's fiscal year 2022
budget for $600,000. That will allow us to complete the PACR
report, and we estimate that will be an 18-month effort.
Again, we are here to update the economics, the benefits,
and the costs, and then we would welcome the opportunity to
keep you informed as we progress on that report.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, General, I appreciate your
attention to this particular project in my district, and I look
forward to continuing to work with your staff on this important
project.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Carbajal, very much
appreciated.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, you may proceed.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Madam Chair, I am happy to
be here. And thank you, as well, to the ranking member, and the
witnesses and the work they do, and the information they
provide to us.
I need to say that, in the case of the Army Corps of
Engineers, it is an agency very close to me. The Army Corps
team has been outstanding in Puerto Rico, and their leaders
should be proud of them. They have truly delivered during the
last 5 years that I have been working with them, and I need to
do a shout-out to Mr. Tim Murphy of Jacksonville, and Milan
Mora, as well, of the Jacksonville office, and Jorge Cruz,
among many others from the Puerto Rico team, for their
outstanding job.
And having said that, I would like to go directly to some
of the questions.
One of the reasons that I am very worried is to see
significantly lower numbers in both the investigations account
and in the construction account. The investigations are
essential to know where and how to proceed with construction.
And construction, as you may know, is essential for the mission
of protection of life and property. In our letters we had--we
requested funding for the construction account at no less than
the $2.69 billion that was in the fiscal year 2021 enacted
level. So we hope we can better approach that amount to ensure
the Army Corps' mission capability.
Having said that, I know there is a strong demand for Army
Corps construction projects in Puerto Rico, including my two
priorities, the Cano Martin Pena ecosystem restoration project,
and the San Juan Harbor navigation project. The first one is
authorized to address condition, channeling, the health and
well-being of approximately 26,000 residents in 8 communities,
the area's economic development, and critical infrastructure
like the San Juan International Airport.
I have already called on the appropriators for funds for
the first contract of the construction phase, which is shovel-
ready, and the non-Federal sponsor has already met the real
estate requirements, and yet, after 14 years of construction,
has not commenced, despite repeated extensions of the
authorizations of ecosystem restoration ``new start.'' So that
is one of the areas that I want to focus on.
Also critical for us is the San Juan Harbor navigation
project, which I also brought up with appropriators, and this
is our principal port, handling most of Puerto Rico's
waterborne trade, and most of the cruise passengers to the
island. It is also a key point of operation for the U.S.-
flagged merchant fleet. And the project has the necessary
Chief's Report. We are looking for it to be budgeted for a
start, as well.
We also have issues with the coastal erosion, and I will
submit for the record some comments regarding that. I would
like--there was an initial study for the Rincon area. You know,
the community doesn't just want to put a wall on those areas.
It would rather protect the natural shoreline as much as
possible. So I would like to be updated on those
communications, and how we can make it easier.
So my question at this point, although I am going to submit
some for the record, Madam Chair, is how we can help, from
Congress, to those two projects, to move it forward, to get it
included, what you need from us. What do you need from
Congress? What do you need from the Government of Puerto Rico
to make that happen?
And if I can count on reaching out to your office to work
with the non-Federal sponsor to determine how we can best
improve the outlook of--to get that started, the Cano Martin
Pena, and if there are any issues that hinder its inclusion in
the work plan under the construction account.
General Spellmon. So, ma'am, this is General Spellmon. I
will begin.
First off, I will tell you I will be in Puerto Rico next
week. I am going to go walk, and see all of these projects
again, and I will have a more detailed update after I am there.
I will tell you Congress is doing everything they need to
be doing to help us. On Cano Martin ecosystem restoration
project, the President's 2022 budget offers us $2.15 million.
We are going to use that to conduct preliminary engineering and
design of the project, and that is an important prerequisite we
need to have complete before we go back to the administration
and request construction funding.
So, again, we want to complete the design, and then we will
go ask for the construction dollars.
As you already know, the San Juan Harbor, we already have
the money from Congress that was given to us in the 2019 work
plan to complete preliminary engineering and design. That will
be done next month. And then that will allow us to seek, in our
next budget proposal to the Secretary, construction funding.
And ma'am, I just want to say we appreciate your leadership
and passion for these projects.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. So I know my time expired, Madam
Chair. I will submit for the record a list of other questions,
and I hope we can see you next week in Puerto Rico.
I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Miss Gonzalez-Colon.
Mr. Stanton, you are recognized.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
First let me address my questions to General Spellmon.
General Spellmon, my home State of Arizona has a number of
critically important ecosystem restoration and flood protection
projects. But for far too long they haven't received the
support that they need from the Corps. And as I have reviewed
the budget proposal and previous work plans, it is clear to me
that Arizona is not getting its fair share. This current budget
proposes less than $5 million for the entire State of Arizona,
one of the most populous States in the country. And all of that
funding is directed to operation and maintenance.
Sadly, it includes nothing to advance construction of the
Little Colorado at Winslow flood protection project, nothing
for ecosystem restoration projects, including Rio Salado, Tres
Rios, and Rio Salado Oeste, and nothing to advance critical
feasibility studies at Cave Buttes Dam and the Agua Fria Trilby
Wash.
General Spellmon, will you commit today to working with me
to address these glaring funding shortfalls, and help advance
these and other critical Arizona water resource projects?
General Spellmon. Congressman, yes, we will absolutely work
with you.
One of the criteria that we use when we send our proposals
to the Assistant Secretaries, we want to finish what we start.
And certainly Tres Rios is a great example of that.
Mr. Stanton. OK, well, I appreciate that, although,
unfortunately, the budget presented doesn't reflect that. But
you are an honorable person. I take you at your word.
Mr. Pinkham, same question for you. Will you work with me
and the Arizona delegation to address these glaring funding
shortfalls for the State of Arizona?
Mr. Pinkham. You have my commitment, sir.
Mr. Stanton. We have spoken at length previously about Tres
Rios, an ecosystem restoration project along the Salt and Gila
River corridors. That is only partially complete. And I am
disappointed and frustrated that funds have not been allocated
to complete the project's Post-Authorization Change Report. The
2020 WRDA directs the Corps to prioritize this report, and it
is imperative that the Corps do just that.
With each passing day, we risk missing the chance, and yet
another chance to adjust the project's 902 limit, which is
necessary to complete its construction. General Spellmon, do
you agree that the Corps should finish this project which it
has started?
General Spellmon. I do agree we should finish it. Sir, I am
going to give you my humble assessment, and I may be wrong----
Mr. Stanton. Please.
General Spellmon. I hope I am wrong. I think this project
has an image problem because I have seen others like it across
the Nation.
So first I will tell you that I have two non-Federal
sponsors, the Gila River Indian Community and the city of
Phoenix, and they both want different things, moving forward.
So I told my team in the field, we have got to narrow that gap
before we take our next proposal to the Secretary. And I have
dug through this, because this has not seen Federal funding in
some time. So I have dug through the budgetary documents.
And I will tell you, we are highlighting too many
recreation components in this project, where we need to be
focused on the Corps' mission of aquatic ecosystem restoration.
I have asked my team to work with the non-Federal sponsors.
Let's clean all of that up. And then, if we are offered a
fiscal year 2022 work plan from Congress, we will put forth a
better proposal to the Secretary.
Mr. Stanton. It is a critically important project to me, as
a former mayor of Phoenix. I know, currently, to the city of
Phoenix, to our nearby Tribal communities. But it has received
funding and support, and we don't want that money to go to
waste.
Mr. Pinkham, I am going ask you the same question. Should
the Corps complete this critically important restoration
project in Phoenix?
Mr. Pinkham. Representative Stanton, like General
Spellmon--and I am not as familiar with this project as he is,
but certainly it would be something I will coordinate with him,
to make sure that something is made possible to address the
concerns you are raising.
Mr. Stanton. I appreciate that very much. We have advocated
this for a long period of time, we have gotten verbal
assurances. We have done our part to get the right language in
the various reports, and now it is time for the Corps to do
their part.
Another important provision in the 2020 WRDA is section
162, which ensures the Corps has the authority to review and
modify the water control manual at Roosevelt Dam. With climate
change expected to bring increased temperatures and higher
precipitation variability on the Salt and Verde watersheds,
both of which provide critically important water to the Greater
Phoenix metro area, successful management will require existing
water infrastructure operations to be adaptable. So I
appreciate your team engaging with us on this, and ask you to
keep me updated on its implementation.
And with that Madam Chair, I am about to run out of time,
so I will yield back and submit my additional questions for the
record, and hope to get responses in the near future.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mrs. Steel, you are recognized.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Napolitano and
Ranking Member Rouzer, for hosting this hearing, and giving me
time to speak about an issue that is incredibly important and
urgent to Orange County.
Before being elected to Congress, I served on the Orange
County Board of Supervisors. During my time on the board, I
worked with the L.A. Army Corps District to fund and complete
the Surfside-Sunset and Newport Beach replenishment project on
the Orange County coastline. This issue has a long history, but
the short version is this: More than 60 years ago, the
construction off the coast by the Federal Government narrowed
our beaches. And in the time since, the coastline has eroded.
Erosion is a major safety issue, not to mention it is
hurting our wildlife and our Orange County ecosystem. The Army
Corps started fixing this damage by adding sand back to our
beaches, but they stopped funding the project in 2000. My
constituents feel abandoned by Army Corps. Every day this
project goes unfinished, the taxpayers of Orange County are
left on the hook to pay more, and are living in a higher risk
of a natural disaster, causing major destruction and loss of
life.
I have local resolutions and support letters from Orange
County, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Seal Beach, and photos
from the July 2020 Newport Beach flood I would like to submit
for the record.
[The information follows:]
Local Resolutions from Huntington Beach, Seal Beach, and Newport Beach,
California; Support Letters; and Photos from the July 2020 Newport
Beach Flood, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Michelle Steel
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUESTING THAT THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FUND AND
IMMEDIATELY PROCEED WITH SURFSIDE-SUNSET BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT
STAGE 13 FROM ANAHEIM BAY HARBOR TO NEWPORT BAY IN ORANGE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS the longshore current carries beach sand southward along
the California coast, nourishing the beaches of Orange County from
Anaheim Bay Harbor through Huntington Beach to Newport Beach; and
Prior to onshore structural development between the San Gabriel
River outlet and Newport Bay, local beaches received sand from flood
runoff of the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana Rivers; and
In 1942, the United States constructed jetties at Anaheim Bay to
serve the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, adjacent to Surfside Beach.
Waves reflected off the East Jetty combine with ocean waves, causing
strong, localized southward-flowing longshore currents near the jetty.
These currents cause severe down coast erosion at both Surfside Beach
in Seal Beach, and Sunset Beach in Huntington Beach. In response, and
without any formal Congressional action, the Army Corps of Engineers
initiated beach replenishments in 1945, 1946 and 1956; and
The Army Corps conducted studies and issued a Report (House
Document 602, October 2, 1962) identifying three causes of Orange
County beach erosion: (1) the jetties at the entrance to Anaheim Bay;
(2) flood-control structures constructed on the Los Angeles, San
Gabriel, and Santa Ana rivers reducing sand delivery; and (3)
construction of the Los Angeles/Long Beach breakwater system further
altering and exacerbating the local sediment transport processes. The
Army Corps acknowledged that all three causes of beach erosion were the
result of the Federal government's own actions. Accordingly, the Army
Corps recommended that the Federal Government provide sixty-seven
percent (67%) of the cost of initial deposition of sand, with periodic
beach nourishment. Congress authorized the Report's recommendations
through the 1962 River and Harbor Act, Public Law 87-874, which the
President signed; and
From 1964 through 1997, Beach Nourishment Stages 1 through 10 were
completed. For 32 years, the Army Corps Commander considered beach
nourishment a mandatory requirement. However, in 1995, the Army Corps
began a phase-out of nourishment without regard to its past practice
that nourishment was unique and necessary. Nourishment Stage 11 was
completed in 2001, and Stage 12 was not completed until 2009; and
On April 2, 2018, the City of Huntington Beach and the County of
Orange executed an Agreement For Construction of Periodic Nourishment
Of the Orange County Beach Erosion Control Project Stage 13, in which
the City agreed to contribute $281,966 towards Stage 13 construction.
The State of California, the City of Newport Beach and others will
provide additional contributions; and
In September 2018, the Army Corps issued a Draft Environmental
Assessment for Nourishment Stage 13, indicating the project would begin
in the winter of 2019, and that Stage 14 would occur in 2023. The
Environmental Assessment acknowledged that Stages 13 and 14 were
required pursuant to the 1962 act of Congress, Public Law 87-874, and
that ``Federal authority directs the Corps to nourish the beaches
between the Anaheim Bay jetties and the Newport pier;'' and
If nourishment is discontinued, Orange County beaches will erode,
reducing recreation opportunities and protection of shoreline
facilities from of storm damage; and
Despite the warning that failure to nourish local beaches would not
only reduce recreation opportunities but also expose property to storm
damage, the Army Corps has failed to fund the Nourishment Stage 13 for
11 years, and shows no signs of pursuing it;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
does hereby resolve as follows:
1. The City Council finds all of the above Recitals true and
correct.
2. The City Council urges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South
Pacific Division Los Angeles District to immediately fund and proceed
with Surfside-Sunset Beach Nourishment Project Stage 13.
3. The City Council directs the City Clerk to forward this
Resolution to Lt. Gen. Scott A. Spellmon, Commanding General of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gen. Paul E. Owen, Commander of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers South Pacific Division, and Col. Julie Balten,
Los Angeles District Commander.
4. The City Council directs the City Manager and the City Director
of Public Works, or their designees to meet directly with Colonel
Balten, and take all other actions reasonable and necessary to ensure
that Nourishment Stage 13 proceeds immediately in 2021, and Stage 14
occurs within two years of the completion of Stage 13.
5. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of
April, 2021.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, ROBIN ESTANISLAU, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the
City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of
said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the
City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the
foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of
at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a
Regular meeting thereof held on April 19, 2021 by the following vote:
AYES: Peterson, Kalmick, Ortiz,
Carr, Posey, Moser,
Delgleize
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Robin Estanislau,
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California.
__________
RESOLUTION 7144
A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING THE UNITED
STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FUND AND PROCEED WITH SURFSIDE-SUNSET
BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT STAGE 13 FROM ANAHEIM BAY HARBOR TO NEWPORT
BAY IN ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the longshore current carries beach sand southward along
the California coast, nourishing the beaches Orange County from Anaheim
Bay Harbor to Newport Beach; and,
WHEREAS, prior to onshore structural development between the San
Gabriel River outlet and Newport Bay, local beaches received sand from
floor runoff of the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana Rivers;
and,
WHEREAS, in 1942, the United States constructed jetties at Anaheim
Bay to serve the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, adjacent to Surfside
Beach. Waves reflected off the East Jetty combined with ocean waves,
causing strong, localized southward-flowing longshore currents near the
jetty. These currents cause severe down coast erosion. In response, and
without any formal Congressional action, the Army Corps of Engineers
(Army Corps) initiated beach replenishment in 1945, 1946, and 1956;
and,
WHEREAS, the Army Corps conducted studies and issued a Report
(House Document 602, October 2, 1962) identifying three causes of
Orange County beach erosion:
1. The jetties at the entrance in Anaheim Bay.
2. Flood-control structures constructed on the Los Angeles, San
Gabriel, and Santa Ana rivers reducing sand delivery.
3. Construction of Los Angeles/Long Beach breakwater system.
The Army Corps acknowledged that all three causes of beach erosion
were the result of the Federal Government's own action. Accordingly,
the Army Corps recommended that the Federal Government provide sixty-
seven percent (67%) of the cost of initial deposition of sand, with
periodic beach nourishment. Congress authorized the Report's
recommendation through the 1962 Rivers and Harbor Act, Public Law 87-
874, which the President signed; and,
WHEREAS, from 1964 through 1997, Beach Nourishment Stages 1 through
10 were completed. For 32 years, the Army Corps Commander considered
beach nourishment a mandatory requirement. However, in 1995, the Army
Corps began a phase-out of nourishment without regard to its past
practice and Congressional declaration that periodic nourishment was
unique and necessary.
Nourishment Stage 11 was completed in 2001, and Stage 12 was not
completed until 2009; and,
WHEREAS, in September 2018, the Army Corps issued a Draft
Environmental Assessment Nourishment Stage 13, indicating the project
would begin in Winter 2019, and that Stage 14 would occur in 2023. The
Environmental Assessment acknowledged that Stages 13 and 14 were
required pursuant to the 1962 Act of Congress, Public Law 87-874, and
that ``Federal authority directs the Corps to nourish the beaches
between the Anaheim Bay jetties and the Newport Pier;'' and,
WHEREAS, if the nourishment is discontinued, Orange County beaches
will continue to erode as a result of federal actions, reducing
recreation opportunities and protection of shoreline facilities from
storm damage; and,
WHEREAS, despite the warning that failure to nourish local beaches
would not only reduce recreation opportunities but also expose property
to storm damage, the Army Corps has failed to fund Stage 13 for 11
years.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section 1. The City Council finds all of the above Recitals true
and correct.
Section 2. The City Council urges the United States Army Corps of
Engineers, South Pacific Division Los Angeles District to immediately
fund and proceed with Surfside-Sunset Beach Nourishment Project Stage
13.
Section 3. The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to
forward this Resolution to the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
Section 4. The City Council hereby directs the City Manager to
take all other reasonable actions necessary to ensure Surfside-Sunset
Beach Nourishment Project Stage 13 proceeds immediately after the Army
Corps of Engineers acts to fund it.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a
regular meeting held on the 26th day of April, 2021 by the following
vote:
AYES: Council Members: Kalmick,
Massa-Lavitt, Moore,
Sustarsic, Varipapa
NOES: Council Members: None
ABSENT: Council Members: None
ABSTAIN: Council Members: None
Joe Kalmick,
Mayor.
ATTEST:
Gloria D. Harper,
City Clerk.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH )
I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of
Resolution 7144 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed,
approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on
the 26th day of April, 2021.
Gloria D. Harper,
City Clerk.
__________
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-33
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THAT THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FUND AND IMMEDIATELY PROCEED WITH SURFSIDE-SUNSET BEACH NOURISHMENT
PROJECT STAGE 13 AND PRIORITIZE ALL FUTURE BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECTS
FROM ANAHEIM BAY HARBOR TO NEWPORT BAY IN ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the longshore current carries beach sand southward along
the California coast, nourishing the beaches of Orange County from
Anaheim Bay Harbor through Huntington Beach to Newport Beach;
WHEREAS, the construction of engineered flood control structures
between the San Gabriel River and Newport Bay have prevented the
natural transportation of sediment and sand from the Los Angeles, San
Gabriel and Santa Ana rivers, which would otherwise, naturally
replenish sand depleted by winter storms and other naturally occurring
sand depletion actions;
WHEREAS, in 1962, the United States Congress passed the Rivers and
Harbors Act, Public Law 87-874, which required the Army Corps of
Engineers (``Army Corps'') to address the impacts of flood control
structures on natural sand deposits;
WHEREAS, the Army Corps studied and issued House Document 602,
October 2, 1962 which led to beach nourishment projects wherein sand
was imported onto beaches where sand depletion was occurring;
WHEREAS, from 1964 through 1997, Nourishment Stages 1 through 10
were completed, however, since 1995 the Army Corps began a phase-out of
nourishment projects;
WHEREAS, Nourishment Stages 11 and 12 were completed in 2001 and
2009, respectively;
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2016, the City of Newport Beach (``City'')
and County of Orange entered into an Agreement for Periodic Nourishment
of the Orange County Beach Erosion Control Project Stage 13, in which
the City agreed to contribute $158,601 towards Nourishment Stage 13
with additional funding from the State of California, City of
Huntington Beach and others contributors;
WHEREAS, in September 2018, the Army Corps prepared a Draft
Environmental Assessment for Nourishment Stage 13 which acknowledged
that Nourishment Stages 13 was required pursuant to the Rivers and
Harbors Act, Public Law 87-874 and projected Nourishment Stages 13 and
14 would begin in 2019 and 2023, respectively;
WHEREAS, despite the warning that failure to nourish local beaches
would not only reduce recreation opportunities but also expose property
to storm damage, the Army Corps has not funded the Nourishment Stage 13
for 11 years, and shows no signs of pursuing future nourishment
projects; and
WHEREAS, if Nourishment Stages 13 and other future nourishment
projects are discontinued, Orange County beaches will erode and,
consequently, reduce recreation opportunities and protection of
shoreline facilities from storm damage.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach
resolves as follows:
Section 1: The City Council does hereby urge the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, South Pacific Division Los Angeles District to immediately
fund and proceed with Surfside-Sunset Beach Nourishment Project Stage
13.
Section 2: The City Clerk shall forward this resolution to
Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lieutenant
General Scott A. Spellmon, Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers South Pacific Division General Paul E. Owen, and Los Angeles
District Commander Colonel Julie Balten.
Section 3: The City Manager and the Public Works Director, or their
designees, may meet directly with Colonel Balten or her designee and
take all other actions reasonable and necessary to ensure that
Nourishment Stage 13 proceeds immediately in 2021, and for Nourishment
Stage 14 to occur within two years of completion of Nourishment Stage
13.
Section 4: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and
correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this
resolution.
Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase
of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The
City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution,
and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 6: The City Council finds the adoption of this resolution
is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (``CEQA'')
pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a
direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined
in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no
potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly
or indirectly.
Section 7: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote
adopting the resolution.
ADOPTED this 27th day of April, 2021.
Brad Avery,
Mayor.
ATTEST:
Leilani I. Brown,
City Clerk.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Aaron C. Harp,
City Attorney.
__________
Support Letters
April 22, 2021.
The Honorable Michelle Steel,
United States House of Representatives,
1113 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
Re: Surfside Sunset Beach Nourishment Project Stage 13 Funding
Request--SUPPORT
Dear Congresswoman Steel,
On behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, I write to
express my strong support for the Surfside Sunset Beach Nourishment
Project Stage 13 to receive community project funding. This
collaborative project will directly serve the residents of the County
of Orange by reducing severe beach erosion and allowing for habitat and
wildlife preservation along our coast.
This sand nourishment project will alleviate the beach erosion
problem caused by flood control and water conservation along the Los
Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana Rivers, general navigation
improvements in Long Beach and federal jetties that are constructed at
the entrance to Anaheim Bay.
The project consists of periodic beach nourishment through
construction of a feeder beach at Surfside/Sunset and includes back-
passing of sand to fill in the cells of the Newport Beach groin field
which was constructed during the earlier stages of this project. These
beach nourishment projects were authorized by Section 101 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1962 and were slated to be conducted every five
years. To date, there have been 12 stages of beach nourishment projects
since 1964, with the latest Stage conducted in 2010. The impacted
cities and the County have been prepared to provide our share of the
local matching funds since this project was scheduled to commence in
2018.
Thank you for continuing to advocate for the Surfside Sunset Beach
Nourishment Project as a project to receive community project funding.
This project impacts the entire region and has strong benefits to the
taxpayers of Orange County and for these reasons, the Orange County
Board of Supervisors enthusiastically supports this budget request. If
you have any questions, or would like more information, please contact
Peter DeMarco, Director of Legislative Affairs.
Sincerely,
Andrew Do,
Chairman, Orange County Board of Supervisors, Supervisor, First
District.
cc: Members, Orange County Board of Supervisors
Frank Kim, County Executive Officer
James Treadaway, PE & SE, Director-OC Public Works
__________
May 13, 2021.
Hon. Representative Michelle Steel,
17011 Beach Boulevard, Suite 570,
Huntington Beach, CA 92647.
Re.: Stage 13 Surfside-Sunset Beach Sand Replenishment Project--
SUPPORT
The Independent Special Districts Association of Orange County
(ISDOC) writes to express its full support for the federal funding and
scheduling of the crucial Stage 13 Surfside-Sunset Beach Sand
Replenishment Project, with work to be conducted, per prior precedent,
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (``USACE'').
As a nonprofit membership association, ISDOC represents the
interests of and provides advocacy for Orange County's 27 independent
special districts, including the Surfside Colony Storm Water Protection
District, that provide essential government services to Orange County's
coastal and other communities.
Sand replenishment to protect 12 miles of coastline from the
impacts of currents, sea-level rise, and waves has not happened since
2010. The area's sand erosion, caused by multiple U.S. Government
actions and compounded by natural forces, is threatening the area's
beaches, public health and safety, property values, recreation, and
tourism so vital to our region's economy. The situation is dire--1.9
million cubic yards of sand is urgently needed to shield the area's
beaches from further damage.
ISDOC would greatly appreciate your assistance in petitioning the
federal government to immediately fulfill its obligations to the Stage
13 Surfside-Sunset Beach Sand Replenishment Project by allocating funds
and scheduling the USACE to conduct this work as soon as possible.
If you have any questions about this letter, please feel free to
call me. Thank you for your time and consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Mark Monin,
ISDOC President and Director, El Toro Water District.
c: City of Huntington Beach Mayor Kim Carr
City of Newport Beach Mayor Brad Avery
City of Seal Beach Mayor Joe Kalmick
County of Orange, 2nd District Supervisor Katrina Foley
ISDOC Executive Committee and Member Agencies
Orange County Congressional Delegation
Orange County State Legislative Delegation
Orange County Council of Governments Chair Trevor O'Neil
USACE Los Angeles District Commander Col. Julie Balten
__________
Newport Beach Flooding--July 4, 2020
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Steel. As we speak, my district is bracing for extreme
high tides that could hit Newport Beach any time. My
constituents are fearing another flood like last July's that
inundated streets and drenched homes and businesses along the
Balboa Peninsula. Newport Beach has already closed the beach
parking lot to protect its visitors and residents. Last year,
COVID kept the beaches closed, but now thousands have returned
to the area, leaving the risk much higher. City workers are
raising sand berms on the Balboa Peninsula and handing out
sandbags to residents hoping to avoid flood brought by high
waves last Fourth of July.
I requested General Spellmon for a meeting 3 weeks ago, and
am still waiting patiently, waiting for a reply to set up a
meeting. I look forward to sharing these documents with you at
our meeting.
So you, General Spellmon, you will continue to hear a lot
from me about this project. In your testimony today you said
the Corps focuses on work that provides the highest economic,
environmental, and public safety returns to the Nation, and
helps communities respond to and recover from flood and other
natural disasters.
In 2018, an estimated 3.74 million tourists spent $565
million while visiting Huntington Beach. Newport Beach had 7.3
million visitors who spent $1.2 billion, which supported 16,828
jobs in Orange County. In July 2020, Newport Beach saw strong
ocean waves overpower the coastline, and flood surrounding
areas including neighborhoods and automobiles. Officials had to
rescue over 100 people.
So my question is, with a lack of action by Army Corps to
fund these critical projects, man-made, Government-made erosion
has continued to reduce the shoreline and create new and
enhanced liabilities. Are you concerned with the heightened
risk of safety issues, including loss of life and cost to
municipalities if these floods continue?
The extreme high tides are coming now. As we speak, the
local officers have shut down the parking lots. When a storm
comes in and business is washed away, who will be held
responsible?
General Spellmon. So, ma'am, this is General Spellmon.
First of all, I will tell you that--thank you for the
invitation to meet with you, and I will have my team set that
meeting up as soon as possible. I look forward to discussing
this with you.
What you are describing in Orange County is not unique to
this part of California. We see this coastal erosion across the
Nation. We see it on the Great Lakes, we see it on our inland
waterways. And as you heard me say in previous testimony, the
backlog for the Corps' operation and maintenance program today
is about $4\1/4\ billion.
So we are going to continue to make our best
recommendations to the Secretary to get after these issues.
Certainly, life safety is the first priority, the first
criteria we use when we rack and stack these projects and take
our proposals. But, ma'am, I look forward to working with you
in more detail on this, and I look forward to our office call.
Mrs. Steel. I would love to look at the budget, because,
General Spellmon, I have more questions, and, actually, I have
more----
Mrs. Napolitano. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mrs. Steel. My time has expired, I know. So I am going to
do everything in writing, and I will submit in writing all of
these questions.
Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Madam.
Mr. Cohen, you are recognized, 5 minutes.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Firstly, I would like to discuss a strictly local issue,
the Byhalia pipeline, with Mr. Pinkham.
Mr. Pinkham, we have talked about this, and I appreciate
your time, and I look forward to working with you on this. The
Byhalia crude oil pipeline goes through low-income, African-
American communities that have been burdened with a lot of
industrial pollutants for years. One of the representatives of
the pipeline company called this the ``point of least
resistance,'' and the city of Memphis, many, many people in the
city of Memphis are up in arms about it, feeling that this is
wrong, to put another potentially hazardous facility project,
which could leak into our aquifer, through this community, and
jeopardize the drinking water from the well field that goes
through this community.
The Army Corps permitted the construction through the 2017
version of a nationwide permit, NWP 12. The Corps is committed
to an environmental policy and being a good partner in the
environment, and yet this project has not taken into
consideration community issues.
As the Corps is committed to securing environmental
justice----
[Inadvertent interruption by unmuted committee member.]
Mr. Cohen [continuing]. The Corps has an obligation to
consider those effects now for this community.
[Inadvertent interruption by unmuted committee member.]
Mr. Brown. Representative Steel, please mute your mic,
Representative Steel.
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Pinkham, are you there?
Mr. Pinkham. I am here, Representative Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pinkham. OK. Well, thank you for your letter, and also
thank you for taking a call from me to discuss this project.
And you are right. And I have shared with the Corps leadership
that I would be working on taking a review of the Byhalia
project. And you are right, there are some concerns about the
environmental justice, what are the impacts to the groundwater,
the water that the community relies on. And those are two
concerns that I don't take lightly.
I am still taking a look at the project. I got a briefing
from the Corps of Engineers, and I would like to arrange an
opportunity for a followup conversation as we look at what our
options are ahead.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you very much. This is an important issue,
and I appreciate your interest. And the people in Memphis
[inaudible] they did their job, but they didn't necessarily
look at the environmental justice that the Corps looks at.
Another issue in Memphis is Tom Lee Park, and the Corps
helped create Tom Lee Park in the 1980s, with work on the
bluff. Now we are looking at making it into one of the finest
urban parks in the country, and giving a lot of low-income
people access to a park where they can enjoy the river, and get
outside, and enjoy the nature.
We have applied for a--we have got a section 408 permit
which has been submitted, and I would like to offer my strong
support for the issuance of that permit as soon as possible, so
construction can begin. And you can help us with that project.
Got your support?
General Spellmon. Sir, this is General Spellmon. First, I
have been to Tom Lee Park, and acknowledge--and had a great
briefing from our team out there. But yes, absolutely, we look
forward to working with the community on this 408 permission.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Lyash, I have got a few questions for you. And I
appreciate your service and your earlier remarks.
You emphasized in your written material TVA's interest in
helping work on the environment, and how much nuclear is a part
of that, and how much nuclear is a part of TVA. Modular nuclear
can help, but we have got this big plant, which we have talked
about at length, down in Alabama and Bellefonte, that if we
allow it to be--attempt to be reconstructed and put back into
use, we can take $10 billion of TVA assets and put them to use,
and really help the economy in Alabama, and help Memphis
citizens with the utility rates.
Can you give me any hope that you will work with Nuclear
Development to try to come up with a solution that helps both
the people of Alabama who need that economic incentive, and the
people of Memphis who need lower utility rates, and the whole
people and the TVA and the country that need more energy
sources that are not pollutants, like the coal plants have been
in the past?
Mr. Lyash. Yes, thank you, Congressman. As you have pointed
out, TVA is committed to driving down our greenhouse gas
emissions, while at the same time maintaining low prices, high
reliability, and high resiliency. And there are many facets of
doing that, including integration of a significant amount of
renewable storage and other technologies.
But you are correct. We believe preservation and extension
of our existing nuclear fleet, and construction in the near
term, and construction of new nuclear in the long term--2030s
into 2040s--has got to be a part of that solution.
Our strategy in nuclear focus is on extending the lives of
our current fleet, upgrading them to get more from them,
building whitewater small modular reactors and advanced modular
reactors that can be replicated across TVA, and perhaps across
the country or the world.
We evaluated completing the Bellefonte plant. And our
decision, as an entity, was that it was neither cost effective
nor in the interests of our customers to do so, to invest in
that 60-year-old technology. Rather, more cost effective to
invest in new nuclear technologies.
We are, as you know, we are currently in litigation with
Nuclear Development, who had a contract to purchase that plant,
but didn't meet the conditions to close. And it would have been
illegal for us to close. That lawsuit is pending, so I need to
refrain from commenting on it, but I----
Mr. Cohen. Let me interrupt you just a second, which I hate
to do, because you were so kind to me in your earlier remarks,
but I have limited time. Hopefully, you can resolve that. It
does seem like Bellefonte is a place that could be really
important for everything you stand for.
But another thing is the coal ash in Memphis. We talked
about that, too. And you promised me you are going to do what
you can to remove the coal ash at the Allen Steam Plant, which
caused, by the way, a lot of the problems with people in
Boxtown, in that district I talked about, Byhalia. They have
Valero Oil and the TVA coal plant. They have four times the
cancer of people, other people in similar conditions. It is
partly because of that.
Can you not expedite the removal of that coal ash? Because
it affects our Memphis aquifer, as well, and it affects the
people in that neighborhood.
Mrs. Napolitano. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Cohen. Can he answer the question?
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Lyash. Thank you, ma'am.
Yes, Congressman. It is a top priority for us to safely and
effectively dispose of that coal ash by removing it and moving
it to a licensed landfill. And we are committed to mitigate
groundwater contamination that may be there as a result of the
coal ash, and restore that site to a good purpose, economic
development for that community.
Beginning in late July, after we finish our permitting
process with TDEC and EPA, we will begin moving that ash out of
there by truck. We will be transporting 120 trucks a day, and
moving that out as quickly as we can safely do so. And you have
my commitment that we will work that project until it is
acceptably complete.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
And thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mrs. Napolitano. You are very welcome, sir.
Mr. Nehls is followed by Mr. Huffman, Ms. Norton, and Mr.
Brown.
Mr. Nehls, you may proceed.
Mr. Nehls. Thank you, ma'am. I would like to thank General
Spellmon and Secretary Pinkham for being here.
I know that you have heard from many of my colleagues, many
of them sharing with you stories, issues that need to be
addressed. And I feel certain that you are taking each and
every one of their concerns very seriously.
I represent Southwest Houston in the great State of Texas,
and if you--I feel certain both you gentlemen are familiar with
a storm we had reach our shores in Texas called Harvey, just a
few years ago. I was then the county sheriff for Fort Bend
County, and I spent an enormous amount of time, several days,
addressing issues related to homes that had water up to their
cupboards. We lost life. We had people that were just
devastated by Hurricane Harvey.
I don't feel I need to have any type of static displays
behind me, pictures of Harvey. I am sure that you are very
familiar with the devastation, the devastation that that storm
caused Southwest Houston and really, quite honestly, most of
the State of Texas.
So now it is my job, as a Member of Congress, to try to
help those people, the people that have been flooded. I can
assure you that the water in the streets have receded today,
but I will guarantee that the floodwaters are still in the
minds of many of those that lost everything.
So now it is my time. It is an attempt for me to work with
you all, work with the local county officials and everyone
else, to find a solution to make sure it doesn't happen again.
So I am working with the Willow Fork Drainage District and Fort
Bend County Drainage District to prevent upstream flooding of
my constituents, so that the devastation of Hurricane Harvey
does not repeat itself. Because we need both improved storage
capacity in Barker and Addicks Reservoirs, and greater
conveyance out of the reservoirs. I am closely following the
solutions that will provide these flood mitigation
improvements, and help finish the job of the Corps' 1940 Flood
Protection Plan for Houston.
I am a big proponent of Willow Fork Drainage District's
pilot program--again, this is a pilot program--otherwise known
as the Barker Reservoir flood risk reduction and park project,
which begins the process of creating the much-needed additional
storage in Barker Reservoir. But we cannot stop with this one
project. Other areas within Barker and Addicks need to be
scoped for similar projects in order to affect the regional
flood management benefit.
So my question for the good general here is has the Corps
commenced an amendment to the master plan for the Barker and
Addicks Reservoirs that would identify locations where more
storage can be created to increase capacity for the purpose of
protecting upstream property owners?
General Spellmon. Yes, Mr. Nehls, I will get an answer for
you. I am not sure. I don't know the answer to that.
I am familiar with the pilot. I was just down at Addicks
and Barker here in the last couple of months. So I do
understand the approach that we want to take here.
I would just tell you that we are going back to the
Secretary for some more time on this particular investigation.
We could not reach agreement with our non-Federal sponsors on
an upstream approach, nor a downstream approach. We have been
asked to take a look at the feasibility of a tunneling option
to improve conveyance from the reservoir out to the Galveston
Bay. So that work is ongoing. The technical analysis here is
ongoing, and we are going to go to the Secretary once we know a
bit more from our partners, and ask for a bit more time, and do
some additional analysis on this other conveyance option.
Mr. Nehls. Well, thank you, General. I just want to let you
know that I know that there are a lot of discussions, and I
have to tell you the people want to see action. They want to
see their Government do everything they can to help protect
them. God forbid we ever have another rain event like we had
with Harvey.
So I am just saying that there has got to be some solutions
to this. I am going to continue to reach out to you and your
team to try to find some answers and at least get the ball
rolling. We can't sit on our hands. We are one storm away from
devastation again, and we have to do everything we can to find
a way to reduce some of this flood mitigation. And I would
appreciate your support. So thank you again----
General Spellmon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Nehls [continuing]. For being here.
General Spellmon. I assure you, no one is sitting on their
hands, sir.
Mrs. Napolitano. Do you yield back, sir?
Mr. Nehls. That I do. Thank you, ma'am.
Mrs. Napolitano. You are very welcome, and thank you very
much.
The order of speakers: Huffman, Norton, and Brown.
Mr. Huffman, you are recognized.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And Secretary Pinkham and General Spellmon, let me just say
I appreciate the amount of preparation that surely both of you
had to undertake to get ready for this hearing, because every
member of this committee is going to take you on a deep dive on
the high-priority, critical infrastructure projects in their
district. And I am in awe of your ability to keep up with all
of that, and have thoughtful, in many cases, quite responsive
things to say in response to each of us. So thank you for that.
This budget request, in my view, is a real win for the
American people. And I think it is up to Congress now to
deliver on the ambition of this budget request. We are talking
about the largest ever request by any administration for the
Army Corps of Engineers, the largest ever proposed transfer
from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. These are things that,
not only represent a historic investment in our Nation's ports,
harbors, and waterways.
This isn't just an abstract amount. In many cases, this
determines whether, certainly, small ports, like the ones in my
district, are even going to be ports, because if we don't get
our critical maintenance dredging, you don't have ports in
places like this. So I am talking about facilities like the San
Rafael Canal, which I am going to ask you about in a moment.
But I am also hopeful, in spite of the things I certainly
liked in this budget, that the Corps will move ahead with the
second phase of the Hamilton Wetlands restoration project,
another priority in my district. Restoring wetlands and
creating a natural habitat for endangered species, these are
investments that are going to help modernize--that are
definitely needed in my district.
And then another one is investments in modernizing the
operations of Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma to conserve more
water, because you know about the critical drought conditions
that we are facing.
Anyway, it is a long list, and these budget items are not
abstract numbers. They make a huge difference for communities,
and for the people that many of us represent.
So, Secretary Pinkham, let me take you to San Rafael and
ask you about the San Rafael Canal. This channel was last fully
dredged in 2002. Today we have incidents of boaters becoming
stuck in sediment that are just increasingly common. Marina
operators can't even rent slips anymore because access is
totally dependent on tides.
Now, the President's budget does request $6.75 million for
this project. That is really important. But some of the
estimates for a full dredge are significantly higher than that.
So I want to just ask you about whether you believe that that
amount is sufficient to completely dredge the San Rafael Canal
and, if there are any shortfalls, whether you will commit to
working with Congress on additional funding, as needed, to make
sure we get the job done.
Mr. Pinkham. Representative Huffman, I am not familiar with
San Rafael and the issues that you are facing, and certainly,
if there are additional resources, and it is within the Corps'
capacity, I would be happy to work with General Spellmon on--if
we can get additional resources to do the work, to do it right.
Mr. Huffman. All right. I appreciate that. I will now ask
you about Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma. Their operations are
really important for the entire Russian River Basin, which is
in critical drought conditions right now.
Over the last few years the Corps has worked with a range
of stakeholders, including Sonoma Water, to look at updating
operations of these reservoirs with forecast-informed reservoir
operations, something I have been supporting for many, many
years. And I am very pleased to see that the Corps is finally
moving ahead with updating the water control manuals necessary
to change operations, and ensure that we are operating these
reservoirs with the best available science.
In the budget justifications, though, the Corps outlined
completing the update of the manual at Dry Creek, which is Lake
Sonoma. There is an $800,000 request for that. However, it was
silent on Lake Mendocino, Coyote Valley Dam, which is, frankly,
well ahead of most other projects, in terms of incorporating
FIRO. And I just wanted to ask if you could confirm that,
notwithstanding the absence of a specific justification for
that, that the intent of the Corps is to finish and update both
sets of manuals.
General Spellmon. Sir, if that question is to me, we are in
the President's budget for 2022 for $860,000 to complete the
Lake Sonoma water control manual. And, as you said, that should
be complete within a year. And we are going to apply everything
we learned through the FIRO pilot, as you said, a great
program.
And we have what we need to do the Lake Sonoma water
control manual in the President's budget request, as well.
Mr. Huffman. Terrific. That is great to hear. Thank you,
General.
And lastly, I just want to talk about an exciting project
in my district, Hamilton Wetlands restoration. I see that my
time has expired, but the Corps has come a long way with this
project. It is time now to move on to the next phase. And I
hope I can have a conversation with you, General, about
matching this significant State and local funding that has been
made available to complete that phase. It is a really
wonderful, multibenefit project that I think we will all be
very proud of.
Mrs. Napolitano. Yield back?
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Huffman.
Ms. Norton, you are recognized.
[No response.]
Mrs. Napolitano. Ms. Norton, you are recognized.
Ms. Norton. Did you call on me?
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, I did. You are recognized, Ms.
Norton.
Ms. Norton. I can't hear you.
Mrs. Napolitano. I don't know, but----
Ms. Norton. Wait a minute.
Mrs. Napolitano. We can hear you.
Ms. Norton. Wait a minute, I am sorry.
Mrs. Napolitano. You are now recognized. You may speak.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for
Lieutenant General Spellmon. It concerns the Corps' proposed
rule to restrict the Southwest Waterfront. And that is the--I
am sorry, the Washington Channel next to the Southwest
Waterfront. It is the Washington Channel near Fort McNair. Now,
the reason I raise the Southwest Waterfront is that that is a
major bill of mine. It is still ongoing, which was supported by
the Congress. It has reinvigorated the community around that
area.
I hosted a public meeting with the Army, the Corps, and DC
residents and officials to discuss the proposed rule. And DC
residents overwhelmingly oppose restrictions on recreational
and commercial access to the channel. At the meeting, you may
remember, your agency could not provide a security rationale,
or address whether less restrictive measures would provide the
same security for Fort McNair.
So then I wrote the Secretary of Defense, the new
Secretary, Lloyd Austin, to direct the U.S. Army Military
District of Washington and the Army Corps of Engineers to
withdraw the proposed rule, and to bar these agencies from
proposing a similar one.
In response, the Army indicated the proposed rule would be
paused. And that is where my question comes in, that it would
not be finalized until an appointee of President Biden can
review it.
So now we are 6 months into the Biden administration. Can
you provide an update on the pause? Is there an appointee yet?
General Spellmon. Ma'am, I can't give you an update.
First, there is not an appointee. Mr. Connor has been
nominated, and is going through the confirmation process right
now.
Ma'am, just very quickly, any security concerns at the
public meeting would have come from the commander of the
Military District of Washington, not the Army Corps of
Engineers. We are involved because this is a Federal navigation
channel.
As you know, the President elevated this decision by an
Executive order to a political appointee, Mr. Connor, once he
is confirmed. And this action, the details, are now here in my
headquarters from our Baltimore District. If Mr. Connor asks me
for my military advice, I will dive into the details, get
familiar, and I will give him my best recommendation.
Ms. Norton. I certainly would appreciate that. We are still
waiting.
Now, I have another question, as well. The Washington
aqueduct, that has been an issue for me, I think, ever since I
have been in Congress, because it is owned and operated by the
Corps, but it provides public water not only for Washington,
DC, but for the Virginia suburbs. So it is very important to
us.
Now, I recognize that the Corps does not receive
appropriations here. It is paid for only by taxpayers. Your
agency has highlighted to me the need for an appropriation to
continue to maintain the aqueduct without passing on the costs
to users. So I understand the difficulty.
Now, let me pose two alternatives. Former President Trump
and the Secretary of the Army supported selling the aqueduct to
the private sector, but I oppose that. This is public water. Or
to State and local government. I didn't think that was
practical. It would require funding from them. Alternatively--
and that is my question--a new quasi-governing body, similar to
the Tennessee Valley Authority, might be a good fit for the
Washington aqueduct, and help us solve this problem.
What is your view?
General Spellmon. Yes. So, ma'am, we have been asked for a
wide variety of assessments on what is the best way to move
forward to this, and we have provided those assessments to the
Secretary. Ma'am, we will keep the communication channels wide
open with you as this dialogue continues.
But you are correct, we receive no Federal funding. This
project is maintained by local--by ratepayers.
Ms. Norton. And that is the problem. Did you say you have
already provided recommendations to the Secretary?
General Spellmon. Ma'am, on the quasi-Federal, local--I am
not familiar. I will follow up on that. But there have been
other requests from Members of Congress for different types of
assessments, and we are going to provide that for you, as well.
Ms. Norton. I wish you would follow up with the
administration on this alternative, because I don't think that
there is any good alternative right now available to us, and
I----
Mrs. Napolitano. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Norton. We will proceed to
the next speaker, and it is Mr. Weber, followed by Mr. Brown,
followed by Ms. Wilson.
Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate that. These are
some questions that may have been asked--I had to step out for
another event, so I apologize if they are.
This month both the Corps and the EPA agencies announced it
would redo the Trump administration's navigable waters rule,
and rewrite the definition of, ``waters of the United States.''
We call it WOTUS. I have serious concerns with this action, as
the Obama administration's rule failed to take into account
genuine stakeholder feedback, placed burdensome and confusing
requirements on not only farmers, but small businesses, local
communities, individuals, and on and on and on.
So my question is, how does the Biden administration plan
to solicit and incorporate true feedback from those affected by
the regulation?
If you can tell me the plan, and who is going to be in
charge of it, those would be questions for Acting Secretary
Pinkham. What is the plan, and who is in charge of it, and how
do we get feedback on it?
Mr. Pinkham. Representative Weber, the strategy is still
under development yet, and I will be working side by side with
EPA on establishing a series of sessions, listening sessions,
so that we can gather the input from all the stakeholders, and
they would be held by stakeholders. Also, we are looking at
holding regional convenings.
And you are right, this is going to be about honest
listening, really looking at what are the concerns from the
various perspectives, and making the decisions on how can we
find a good, balanced rule that provides people with a sense of
durability, so that we can move forward. So we are committing
to--and it is going to be time-consuming, and it should be
time-consuming and deliberative, to solicit as much input as we
can take.
I perceive this being an exhaustive, but necessary effort.
Mr. Weber. So right now, Mr. Secretary, we don't--the rule
has not been canceled. Is that correct or not correct?
Mr. Pinkham. At this time the rule has not been canceled.
Mr. Weber. Do you foresee it being canceled in the
foreseeable future?
Mr. Pinkham. You know, I am--that is going to take a lot
more discussions with some of our interagency partners on, you
know, what are the immediate steps, and no commitment on the
most immediate steps of whether it is going to be canceled or
not.
Mr. Weber. Of course, it is a big thing for me. I am from
Texas. I am from an agrarian State, and not to mention an
industrial State. We have a lot of energy and stuff in our
State. So it is a big concern for my district.
Would you say, or do you know at this point, is there a
priority assigned to this ``rule change''?
What is the number? Number 1, 12, 28?
Mr. Pinkham. Well, I guess for Army Corps Civil Works, I
would say it is certainly within my top three priorities to
work on this----
Mr. Weber. Top three priorities?
Mr. Pinkham. Yes.
Mr. Weber. So is that to say, Mr. Pinkham, that you have
problems with the rule the way it is currently in place?
Mr. Pinkham. Well, Congressman Weber, I think everybody has
concerns with the rule, as it currently exists. And some of the
concerns even involve kind of interpretation, and how we apply
it on the ground, kind of misalignment of how do we define what
is a historic or a formerly converted cropland, and differences
of interpretation. So certainly, there are some concerns even
about how we apply it on the ground.
Mr. Weber. So if this is one of your top three concerns, as
you stated, going in--actions to take care of, what are the top
three concerns?
You just stated one concern. What is your next top concerns
with the rule?
Mr. Pinkham. Well, I would say one of my other top concerns
is working on the budget right now, making sure that we are----
Mr. Weber. But I mean as a--Mr. Pinkham, I mean as it
relates to the rule, the WOTUS rule. What are the top three
issues with the rule?
How do you define the cropland that has been previously
designated?
And what is your number 2 and number 3 concern with the
rule?
Mr. Pinkham. Oh, OK, I am sorry, Congressman Weber. I must
have misunderstood your question, but----
Mr. Weber. All good.
Mr. Pinkham. Yes, you know, well, I think the--my biggest
concern is the fact that there is a lot of divisiveness over
the interpretation of the rule. And you are hearing both sides
of the spectrum. You know, how can we kind of mediate the
differences, to make sure that people continue to practice
good, sound agriculture, and know that their farms will be
productive, and stay within the family?
And at the same time, how do we prepare for the changing
climate conditions? We have got drought in some areas.
So one is finding a rule that everybody agrees on, or as
much agreement as possible. So that is number 1.
Number 2 is to make sure that we find ways that we can
avoid kind of the complications of applying it on the ground.
And I guess the third one is, just to make sure that we
have got good community engagement, that we have a strong
outreach effort, and don't leave any voices left unheard.
Mr. Weber. Have you ever heard the saying----
Mrs. Napolitano. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Weber. Well, thank you, ma'am, and I will yield back.
Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
Mr. Brown, you are on the list now. You may speak.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you and
your colleagues on the Water Resources and Environment
Subcommittee for allowing me to waive on this morning.
General Spellmon, as you know, the Anacostia watershed is
one of the most urbanized watersheds within the Chesapeake Bay
region. And 86 square miles are located in Prince George's
County, Maryland, the greater part of which I have the
privilege to represent. I don't represent the land, I represent
the people around the watershed.
In 2018 the Chief of Engineers, and your immediate
predecessor, signed the Chief's Report for the Anacostia
watershed study in Prince George's County, and this report
allowed for the authorization of the project in the Water
Resources Development Act of 2020.
The continued enhancement of the Anacostia watershed is
critical to the environmental health of my district and the
State of Maryland. Protecting and restoring the Anacostia River
will benefit all of the residents living in its watershed, as
well as future generations. And I am very pleased to see that
President Biden included $30 billion in construction funds in
his budget request. These funds will be used to restore
degraded in-stream habitat, and create opportunities for fish
passage as part of the Anacostia watershed restoration project.
And I believe it is imperative that the Appropriations
Committee fund this project at the level in the budget
presented or requested by the President.
So, General Spellmon, the President's budget request
provides for robust funding for this project. Can you speak to
the local and regional benefits of this project, and why it is
a good investment of Federal dollars?
And also, from your perspective, what are the next steps
for this project?
General Spellmon. Yes, Congressman Brown. First I will tell
you we are very excited about this project. We appreciate
Congress authorizing this in WRDA 2020, and we certainly
appreciate the President's budget request of $30 million.
We believe we are on a path that we could get--if dollars
are appropriated to start this work in October of 2022--and
this will be less than a 2-year effort--it is going to restore
7 miles of river habitat at six locations, and restore fish
passage at 4 miles. Again, sir, those are the highlights. We
are very much looking forward to working with the State and our
partners there in moving this project forward.
Mr. Brown. Right. Well, look, I really appreciate it. I
appreciate you, your leadership team, everyone at the Corps of
Engineers for what you do, not only in my district and the
National Capital region, but around the Nation. So thank you.
And thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the opportunity
to pop in on your subcommittee hearing.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
Ms. Wilson, you are recognized.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you so much, Chair Napolitano and Ranking
Member Rouzer, for calling this important hearing. And thank
you to today's witnesses for illuminating President Biden's
budget priorities to protect our waterways, increase
infrastructure resiliency, and fund critical projects.
As the founder and cochair of the Florida Ports Caucus and
a Representative of Miami-Dade County, today's discussion is of
critical importance to me and my fellow Floridians. Florida's
top two industries--tourism and agriculture--largely depend on
our waterways. As a result, a robust water infrastructure
system and effective flood mitigation efforts are critical to
Florida's economy and public health. I look forward to working
with the Army Corps of Engineers and local Miami leaders to
find effective solutions to mitigate destructive storm surges
along the south Florida coast.
Now, more than ever, it is imperative to provide increased
funding for critical programs such as the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund programs that address water pollution, and
funding to preserve the Everglades.
Mr. Pinkham, I am glad to see that the funding level has
increased to $350 million for the south Florida Everglades
restoration program. However, I am concerned about the ability
to fund the $7 billion needed to complete all of the Everglades
restoration projects. In your opinion, with the current funding
levels, are we still on schedule to meet the 2030 deadline?
If not, what are your plans to meet it?
[No response.]
Ms. Wilson. This is for Mr. Pinkham.
Mr. Pinkham. Representative Wilson, I----
[Audio malfunction.]
Mr. Pinkham [continuing]. And if I could defer to whether
we are on time or on--if I could defer that question to General
Spellmon, who has a deeper history and understanding of the
project.
Ms. Wilson. No problem.
General Spellmon. Ma'am, I would be happy to take that on.
Currently, the south Florida ecosystem restoration program
receives--this year will receive 70 percent of our aquatic
ecosystem restoration budget, nationally, 70 percent. At that
funding level, it would take us about 17 years to complete the
68 projects in the SFER program. Even if Florida received 100
percent of my aquatic ecosystem restoration project, it would
take over 13 years to complete that program.
So I think we have got to think about this differently. I
have some ideas that I am working and pushing my team on. For
example, the wetland attenuation feature associated with the
Lake Okeechobee water restoration project, this is water supply
north of the lake. That is about a $1 billion additional
reservoir. I have challenged my team to come back to me: Can we
add additional aquifer storage recharge wells at $5 million
apiece, and get the same water supply benefit?
I have challenged my team to look harder at research and
development. Are there other ways that we can get after these
harmful algal blooms that are plaguing the State, not just
around Lake Okeechobee, but everywhere, to come up with more
meaningful solutions, aside from billion-dollar projects? So we
are taking that on, as well.
And last, I will tell you I am trying to accelerate this
schedule by the use of a rare tool that the administration has
and offers us, and that is a continuing contract authority. So
I would like to apply that in fiscal year 2023 to the
Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir. We know, we can prove
it mathematically, that on projects of that size and scope, we
can save years and hundreds of billions of dollars in project
execution by just having that authority. It brings down risk
for our contractors, there is less contingency, and we are just
more effective.
Ms. Wilson. OK, thank you. I hope I don't run out of time,
but last year, Lieutenant General Spellmon, the Army Corps of
Engineers released its first proposal for the Miami-Dade County
Back Bay study to find solutions to protect the vulnerable
south Florida coast from storm surges. This proposal included
constructing a 20-foot-high seawall along 6 miles of coastline,
which would bisect neighborhoods, lower property values, and
impact tourism. Local leaders voiced their concerns about this
proposal.
Can you commit today that the Corps will work with local
leaders to ensure that alternative, nature-based solutions are
incorporated into future proposals?
General Spellmon. Ma'am, absolutely. This was one of
several proposals that we put on the table, and that is why we
do that [inaudible] critical feedback from the public.
But as I said in my opening statement, we absolutely want
to do more engineering with nature everywhere we work across
the Corps. You have my commitment.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you, and I yield back.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Wilson. We appreciate that.
And that wraps up all the Members on queue to ask questions.
But, General, I understand that the Corps mission has the
three missions, but I would like to submit that we support the
study that you are doing on the water storage and delivery. I
sure am--I am--well, somehow we need to add the water storage
and delivery to your mission, because it is so important. You
have so many dams, you have so much water that you can help
ease the drought sections in many areas.
General Spellmon. Ma'am, I would just say there are over
1,500 dams in the State of California. A small percentage of
those are the Corps'. Some are from the Bureau, but many are
State.
In a perfect world, I would recommend we would have a
forecast-informed reservoir operations validation done on all
of those, just because of the greatness that we saw at Lake
Mendocino. I think we are going to repeat that at Prado. I
think we are going to have a similar effect up at Howard Hanson
Dam in the State of Washington. I think we need to do more of
that type of research and development.
Mrs. Napolitano. May we follow up with you on that, sir?
[No response.]
Mrs. Napolitano. May we follow up with you on that, sir?
General Spellmon. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Napolitano. All right, sir. As you heard from many of
the Members, both sides, your budget is not enough to take care
of all the backlog. Is there any way of actually assessing the
backlog that you have, so that we have an idea of how much more
we need to infuse into Army Corps to get the job done?
General Spellmon. Ma'am, that is----
Mrs. Napolitano. Because it----
General Spellmon. I am sorry.
Mrs. Napolitano. It is a security issue. It is an
environmental issue. It is a Congress issue, especially
dredging.
General Spellmon. Ma'am, I would--that is a long answer. I
would love the opportunity to have my team sit down with you
and your staff, and walk you through how we see our current
backlog.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate
that. I look forward to it.
We will not have a second round. Sorry, Mr. Mast and Mr.
Graves. Please submit the questions in writing for the
committee to follow up with you.
And I do ask unanimous consent that the record of today's
hearing remain open until such a time as our witnesses have
provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them
in writing.
And also, please forward a copy to the subcommittee, so we
are able to understand the issues.
And unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15
days for any additional comments and information submitted by
Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's
hearing.
And without objection, so ordered.
I would like to thank all our witnesses. General, you have
been great; Mr. Pinkham, you have been very helpful. Mr. Lyash
and Mr. Avila, I am sorry for the delay and ask forgiveness for
the indulgence you have been put through.
Thank you very much.
General Spellmon, our gratitude to the men and women of the
Corps for the fine job in always performing for our Members. As
you can see, some of them are very grateful.
And I would like to make sure that we thank our staff on
both sides for the great job they have done.
If no other Members have anything to add, the committee
does stand adjourned. Thank you, and goodbye.
[Whereupon, at 2:02 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chair Napolitano, for holding this hearing, and thank
you to our witnesses.
It is important that we learn the views and priorities of the
agencies represented here.
Out of these agencies, the Corps plays a significant role in
promoting waterborne transportation and providing flood protection.
America's inland waterway and flood protection infrastructure is
especially important to Missouri, where we experienced devastating
floods in 2019--dangers that continue to threaten many of the same
areas.
As such, I look forward to hearing about the Corps' plans when it
comes to improving flood control and navigation, on the Missouri and
Mississippi Rivers.
I am extremely concerned, however, about the Corps' plans to re-
write the Trump Administration's Navigable Waters Protection Rule and
the definition of ``Waters of the United States''.
The current rule provided much needed clarification for farmers,
homeowners, small businesses, and local governments on the extent of
waters covered by the Clean Water Act.
We will be watching this process closely, but it's hard to imagine
the administration's decision to initiate a new rulemaking is anything
other than a plan to bring back burdensome regulations for our
agriculture and business sectors, state and local governments, and
private citizens.
I want to remind the Corps that the Obama administration utterly
failed to properly incorporate feedback from those stakeholders who
would have to live and work under the regulation, and the result was
the deeply flawed WOTUS rule.
I look forward to learning how the Corps plans to proceed on this
and to hear from the panel about their agency priorities.
I yield back.
Appendix
----------
Questions from Hon. David Rouzer to both Lieutenant General Scott A.
Spellmon, Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works, Department of the Army
Question 1. The Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA)
of 2014 (P.L. 113-121) Section 7001 requires the Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to submit an annual report to Congress by February 1
of each year. However, Congress has yet to receive this year's report.
Question 1.a. When can we expect to receive the report?
Answer. The report is under review and will be transmitted to
Congress when that review is completed.
Question 1.b. What is the cause for delay?
Answer. The report is under review and will be transmitted to
Congress when that review is completed.
Question 2. Can you please give us an update on the status of
implementing guidance on the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of
2020 (P.L. 116-260)?
Answer. There are 32 sections of WRDA 2020 that require written
guidance. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works and Corps staff are working expeditiously to complete the
drafting of that guidance. I have approved 20 guidance documents so far
and we are making great progress on the remaining sections. I expect to
approve and make the remaining the guidance publicly available in the
near future.
Question 3. How is the Corps engaging stakeholders and Congress as
it works to implement WRDA 2020? How can the Corps and stakeholders
work together for more efficient, timely, and less costly project
development and implementation?
Answer. We conducted a 60-day public comment period during which
the public and stakeholders were encouraged to provide written comments
on any section of WRDA 2020. Additionally, the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and the Corps co-hosted five
virtual stakeholder meetings in which stakeholders discussed concerns
with specific sections of WRDA 2020. Stakeholders who contacted our
point of contact were able to discuss their concerns with the
provision.
Question 4. If Congress adopted the President's proposed budget
reduction for the Corps, would this require the Corps to cancel any
contracts? If so, please supply the Committee with a list of project
terminations proposed by the President's budget request and their
associated remaining-benefit to remaining-cost ratios and their
associated termination costs. Does the President's proposal presume
Congress will continue to fund these projects?
Answer. No, if Congress enacts the President's budget for the
Corps, it would not require the cancellation of any contracts.
Question 5. What was the basis for deciding which on-going
projects, studies, and new construction starts would be supported in
the President's budget request?
Question 5.a. The President's budget request for the Corps
describes the objectives utilized to develop the request:
``In developing the Budget, consideration was given to
advancing three key objectives including: 1) increasing
infrastructure and ecosystem resilience to climate change and
decreasing climate risk for communities based on the best
available science; 2) promoting environmental justice in
disadvantaged communities in line with Justice40 and creating
good paying jobs that promote a chance to join a union; and 3)
not funding work that directly subsidizes fossil fuels
including work that lowers the cost of production, lowers the
cost of consumption, or raises the revenues retained by
producers of fossil fuels.''
Answer. The FY 2022 Budget press book includes performance
guidelines for both the Construction and Operation and Maintenance
accounts.
Question 5.b. Can you please explain the third objective of ``not
funding work that directly subsidizes fossil fuels including work that
lowers the cost of production, lowers the cost of consumption, or
raises the revenues retained by producers of fossil fuels''?
Answer. Consistent with Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate
Crisis at Home and Abroad, the Budget begins the process of no longer
directly subsidizing fossil fuel subsides, helping to transition to a
low carbon economy, while also supporting efforts to help fossil fuel
workers transition to good-paying, cleaner, greener jobs. The President
asked all Federal agencies, including the Corps, to begin the process
of identifying and eliminating direct fossil fuel subsidies within
their programs. Agencies are working to identify appropriate actions
that they can take to support this policy objective.
Question 5.c. What types of work under the purview of the Corps
would be considered to directly subsidize fossil fuels?
Answer. The Army Corps is working with OMB on this issue.
Question 5.d. How will the Corps determine if an activity ``lowers
cost of production, lowers the cost of consumption, or raises the
revenues retained by fossil fuels''?
Answer. The details of implementation are under development.
Question 5.e. What staffing expertise does the Corps currently have
to determine these considerations?
Answer. The Army retains economists and experts in commercial
navigation, including the Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center
responsible for capturing information on vessels, tonnage, commodity,
origin, and destination from vessel operating companies. These data and
information are intended to assist the Corps commercial navigation
mission by providing statistics used to analyze the feasibility of new
projects, and to set priorities for new investments and for the
operation, rehabilitation, and maintenance of existing projects. Users
of the data include government agencies, private industry, academia,
and the general public.
Question 5.f. Would work that ``lowers the cost of consumption''
include the cost for consumers who purchase fossil fuels for home and
transportation-related energy? Would this include lowered costs of
gasoline, diesel, home heating oil or natural gas purchased by
consumers?
Answer. The details of implementation are under development.
Question 6. In your testimony, you discussed how the President's
budget request would support the Corps' essential missions--commercial
navigation, flood risk reduction, and restoring aquatic ecosystems.
This budget request includes $8 million for charging infrastructure for
federally owned vehicles.
Question 6.a. While this may be included in other areas of the
President's budget request, how does this proposed expense support, or
why it is even mentioned within, these essential Corps missions?
Answer. The Corps leases approximately 4,200 vehicles from the
General Services Administration to support Civil Works activities. As
the Corps transitions to electric vehicles for staff use, charging
station infrastructure will be required at Corps facilities.
Question 6.b. Can you please explain the justification for this
request and how it fits within these Corps mission areas?
Answer. Vehicles are needed for staff to support the Corps'
mission. See attached FY22 Justification Sheet for more details.
Question 6.c. Is the Corps looking to use mission area funds to pay
for internal operating expenses?
Answer. The Electric Vehicle Fleet and Charging Infrastructure is
its own line item as an operation expense in the Operation and
Maintenance account.
Question 7. How many Chief's Reports are expected to be signed by
the end of 2021?
Answer. The Commanding General for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
is expected to sign 14 Chief's Reports in calendar year 2021. Six
Chief's Reports have been signed and 20 are projected for FY 2022.
Question 8. This month, both the Corps and EPA (the ``Agencies'')
announced that they plan to rewrite the Navigable Waters Protection
Rule (NWPR), including the definition of ``Waters of the United
States'' (WOTUS). There are many concerns that as the Obama
Administration's rule failed to take into account stakeholder feedback,
and placed burdensome and confusing requirements on farmers, small
businesses, local communities, and other regulated entities.
Question 8.a. How does the Biden Administration plan to solicit and
incorporate substantive feedback from those affected by this
regulation?
Answer. The agencies are committed to meaningful stakeholder
engagement to ensure that a revised definition of ``waters of the
United States'' reflects the experience of and input received from
landowners, the agricultural community, states, Tribes, local
governments, businesses, community organizations, environmental groups,
and underserved and overburdened communities with environmental justice
concerns. This included virtual public listening sessions, as well as
dedicated stakeholder conversations with agricultural, industry,
environmental and environmental justice groups, and state, local and
tribal leaders, from August through October 2021. In addition, the
agencies intend to hold roundtables in 10 geographically-focused
regions in early 2022.
Question 8.b. What specific steps do you intend to take to engage
the states in substantive consultation to ensure their concerns are
fully addressed in a final rule?
Answer. The agencies are committed to meaningful stakeholder
engagement to ensure that a revised definition of ``waters of the
United States'' reflects the experience of and input received from all
stakeholders, and recognize the importance of the role of such input
from our co-regulators, the states, territories and Tribes. The
agencies have engaged in and will be engaging in additional stakeholder
conversations with state, local and tribal leaders. In addition, the
agencies intend to hold roundtables in 10 geographically-focused
regions in early 2022.
Question 8.c. When does the Administration plan to issue a notice
of proposed rulemaking?
Answer. The agencies published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register on December 7, 2021, the first step in a two-part rule process
to restore the regime in place prior to the 2015 implementation of the
definition, updated to be consistent with relevant Supreme Court
decisions.
Question 8.d. Will EPA or Army Corps be doing outreach or both?
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of
the Army will both be doing outreach in a joint manner.
Question 9. Knowing that there are significant geographic
variations across the U.S. and that a single set of standards will not
fit all, how do the Agencies plan to address these differences in any
new rule? Should there be a role here for state and local governments
and water districts in identifying regional differences and fashioning
a workable solution? What are the Agencies going to do to work with
states and localities to address these concerns?
Answer. The agencies recognize that there are regional variations
in precipitation rates and common geomorphologic conditions that affect
typical stream flow regimes across the country which need to be
considered in the development of a durable definition of WOTUS. The
agencies will engage stakeholders and states and Tribes across the
country to ensure their regional perspectives are considered.
Question 10. Many States and local governments and their
representative organizations are concerned that the Agencies will not
sufficiently consult with them, and that the rulemaking could impinge
on state authority in water management. Do you consider the states and
local government a partner in our Nation's intergovernmental system? Or
just another stakeholder group in this discussion? Will the Agencies
engage the states and local government in substantive consultation when
promulgating or revising rules, taking into account and specifically
addressing the concerns raised by the states and local governments, to
ensure their concerns are fully addressed in any final rule?
Answer. The agencies are committed to meaningful engagement with
states, Tribes, and local governments. This engagement included
dedicated dialogues with state, territories, local and Tribal leaders;
formal consultations with intergovernmental partners under E.O. 13132
(federalism) and E.O. 13175 (Tribal consultation); and government-to-
government consultations with the Tribes. Additional opportunities for
similar dialogues will occur for the second step of the rule process as
well as another opportunity for consultation with states and local
governments, territories, and Tribes. In addition, the agencies intend
to hold roundtables in 10 geographically-focused regions in spring
2022.
Question 11. Do the Agencies plan to prepare a detailed response to
public comments, which will respond to each issue raised in each
comment? Will you commit to having the Agencies prepare a detailed
response to public comments, which will respond to each issue raised in
the comments, before proceeding to finalize a rulemaking?
Answer. The agencies remain committed to following the requirements
of all applicable laws and regulations as we conduct these rulemaking
efforts and will provide a response to comments as part of any final
rule.
Question 12. There is a concern that a new NWPR rule would end up
having a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities,
but that the Agencies will fail to conduct a Small Business Advocacy
Review (SBAR or ``SBREFA'') panel before proceeding with this new
rulemaking. Will you commit to formally examining the impacts of any
new proposed rule on small entities? Will you conduct an SBAR panel, as
required by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(P.L. 104-121) before proceeding any further with this rulemaking?
Answer. The agencies commit to robust stakeholder engagement, which
will include small entities (e.g., small businesses) and hosted a
listening session with small entities in August 2021; presentation
materials and a recording are available at https://www.epa.gov/wotus/
2021-waters-united-states-public-meeting-materials. The agencies also
participated in two environmental roundtables hosted by the SBA in
January 2022. The agencies remain committed to following the
requirements of all applicable laws and regulations as we conduct these
rulemaking efforts.
Question 13. Please provide details and definitions for what the
Corps considers ``significant environmental damage'' and ``ongoing
environmental harm'', as cited in the announcement for the decision to
repeal the current NWPR.
Answer. The Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR), the
announcement for the decision to repeal the NWPR, and the proposal to
repeal the NWPR were issued joint by the EPA and the Army. Upon review
of the NWPR, the agencies determined that the rule was reducing Clean
Water Act protections, and this lack of protections is particularly
significant in arid states, like New Mexico and Arizona, where nearly
every one of over 1,500 streams assessed has been found to be non-
jurisdictional under the NWPR. The agencies are also aware of 333
projects that would have required Clean Water Act Section 404
permitting prior to the NWPR, but would not have done so under that
rule. After conducting that review, the agencies announced their intent
to revise the definition of ``waters of the United States'' to better
protect our nation's vital water resources that support public health,
environmental protection, agricultural activity, and economic growth.
As described in the proposed repeal of the NWPR, a broad array of
stakeholders--including states, Tribes, local governments, scientists,
and non-governmental organizations--saw significant impacts to critical
water bodies under the NWPR. The agencies provide more detail about
their concerns about the NWPR, and information that supported their
analysis, in their proposed revision of the definition of ``waters of
the United States'' and supporting documents, available at https://
www.epa.gov/wotus/revising-definition-waters-united-states.
Question 14. The Agencies have been inconsistent when describing
their plans for the NWPR. In the press release announcing
reconsideration, the Agencies suggested they will first repeal the NWPR
and reinstate the pre-2015 definitions, followed by a second rulemaking
to redefine WOTUS. But in litigation filings, the Agencies said they
have ``decided to commence a new rulemaking to revise or replace the
rule.'' Which of these paths do the Agencies intend to take? Have the
Agencies already determined that they will repeal the NWPR? Can the
Agencies commit to maintaining an open mind on whether it may be
appropriate to merely revise the NWPR, as opposed to outright repealing
or replacing the rule?
Answer. The agencies initiated a new rulemaking process that
proposes to put back into place the pre-2015 definition of ``waters of
the United States,'' updated to reflect consideration of Supreme Court
decisions. The proposed rule was published in the federal register on
December 7, 2021. The agencies will also consider changes through a
second rulemaking that they anticipate proposing in the future, which
would build upon the foundation of the proposed rule. The agencies are
committed to meaningful state, Tribal, and stakeholder engagement
throughout the process so that we can incorporate experience of and
input received from all stakeholders.
Question 15. You recently stated that the NWPR ``resulted in a 25
percentage point reduction in determinations of waters that would
otherwise be afforded protection.'' \1\ But that figure does not seem
to align with the data analysis that the Agencies disclosed upon
announcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA, Army Announce Intent to Revise Definition of WOTUS (June
9, 2021), https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-army-announce-intent-
revise-definition-wotus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 15.a. What methodology did the Agencies use to arrive at
this 25% figure?
Answer. The agencies' remand motion and declarations filed in the
litigation, as well as the documents reviewed and other supporting
information can be found at https://www.epa.gov/wotus/request-remand-
and-supporting-documentation which includes the data sources and
analysis. The analysis provided in the technical support document and
supporting materials for the current proposed rule constitute the most
up to date and comprehensive analysis. This secondary analysis included
a full year of data. This information is available in the technical
support document and supporting materials for the current proposed rule
found at: https://www.epa.gov/wotus/revising-definition-waters-united-
states.
Question 15.b. What data or database did the agencies use as the
baseline for comparison to the NWPR?
Answer. This information is available in the technical support
document and supporting materials for the current proposed rule, found
at: https://www.epa.gov/wotus/revising-definition-waters-united-states.
The data is sourced from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Operation
and Maintenance Business Information Link, Regulatory Module (ORM2)
database.
Question 15.c. What is the geographic distribution of this
reduction in jurisdiction (nationwide or isolated to certain regions)?
Answer. Upon review of the NWPR, the agencies determined that the
rule reduced Clean Water Act protections. This lack of protections was
particularly significant in arid states. As described in the agencies'
proposed replacement rule, a broad array of stakeholders--including
states, tribes, local governments, scientists, and non-governmental
organizations--saw significant impacts to critical water bodies under
the NWPR. This data was nationwide in scope, although data is not
available within ORM2 for the states of Michigan and New Jersey, which
have assumed the 404 permitting program.
The agencies provide more detail about their concerns about the
NWPR, and information that supported their analysis, in their proposed
revision of the definition of ``waters of the United States'' and
supporting documents, available at https://www.epa.gov/wotus/revising-
definition-waters-united-states.
Question 16. The Agencies have expressed ``substantial concerns
about the lawfulness of aspects of the NWPR.'' \2\ Yet courts like the
Northern District of California ruled that petitioners are unlikely to
succeed on the merits of its claims that the NWPR violates either the
Clean Water Act (CWA) or the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This
is in stark contrast to the extremely poor track record of the 2015
Rule, which was preliminarily enjoined in numerous courts and
invalidated after full merits adjudication by two courts. What precise
``aspects'' of the NWPR are unlawful in the Agencies' views? How does
that justify wholesale replacement or repeal (as opposed to targeted
revisions)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Declaration of Jaime A. Pinkham, Conservation Law Foundation v.
EPA, (D. Mass) Case No. 20-cv-10820-DPW, available at https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-06/documents/
2_conservation_law_found._d._mass._-_jaime_pinkham_declaration_
final_signed_508c.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. The NWPR has been vacated by two courts on the grounds that
it was unlawful, and remanded to the agencies by six additional courts.
On August 30, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
remanded the NWPR and vacated the rule, finding that ``[t]he
seriousness of the Agencies' errors in enacting the NWPR, the
likelihood that the Agencies will alter the NWPR's definition of
`waters of the United States,' and the possibility of serious
environmental harm if the NWPR remains in place upon remand, all weigh
in favor of remand with vacatur.'' Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. EPA, No. 4:20-
cv-00266, 2021 WL 3855977 at *5 (D. Ariz. Aug. 30, 2021). On September
27, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. also
issued an order vacating and remanding the NWPR. Navajo Nation v.
Regan, No. 2:20-cv-00602 (D.N.M. Sept. 27, 2021). In vacating the rule,
the court agreed with the reasoning of the Pascua Yaqui court that the
NWPR suffers from ``fundamental, substantive flaws that cannot be cured
without revising or replacing the NWPR's definition of `waters of the
United States.' '' Slip. op. at 6. Six other courts also remanded the
NWPR without vacatur or without addressing vacatur. As described in the
agencies' declarations requesting remand of the NWPR, the agencies have
concerns about the lawfulness of aspects of the NWPR and the harmful
effects of the NWPR on the nation's waters. The agencies provide more
detail about their concerns about the NWPR, and information that
supported their analysis, in their proposed revision of the definition
of ``waters of the United States'' and supporting documents, available
at https://www.epa.gov/wotus/revising-definition-waters-united-states.
Question 17. The Agencies have represented to a federal court that
they ``have noted on-the-ground effects of the NWPR since the rule went
into effect,'' \3\ citing vague and speculative ``concerns'' \4\ raised
by stakeholders that the NWPR ``is resulting in significant, actual
environmental harms.'' \5\ What, if anything, have the Agencies done to
evaluate and verify whether any of the claimed activities are occurring
or whether any activities involve discharges into ``newly deemed non-
jurisdictional'' wetlands and streams?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for
Voluntary Remand without Vacatur, Conservation Law Foundation v. EPA,
(D. Mass) Case No. 20-cv-10820-DPW, available at https://
www.eenews.net/assets/2021/06/09/document_pm_01.pdf.
\4\ Supra n.2.
\5\ Supra n.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. Upon review of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, the
agencies determined that the rule is reducing Clean Water Act
protections, and this lack of protections is particularly significant
in arid states, like New Mexico and Arizona, where nearly every one of
over 1,500 streams assessed has been found to be non-jurisdictional.
The agencies are also aware of 333 projects that would have required
Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting prior to the Navigable Waters
Protection Rule, but no longer do. The agencies provide more detail
about their concerns about the NWPR, and information that supported
their analysis, in their proposed revision of the definition of
``waters of the United States'' and supporting documents, available at
https://www.epa.gov/wotus/revising-definition-waters-united-states.
Question 18. Declarations you and Assistant Administrator Radhika
Fox submitted refer to 333 projects ``that would have required Section
404 permitting prior to the NWPR, but no longer do under the NWPR.''
\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Supra n.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 18.a. Have the agencies verified that each project has
moved forward?
Answer. The agencies do not perform inspections or compliance
checks on work which they determine do not require authorization under
the Clean Water Act. However, the fact that such landowners requested
authorization does signal an intent to perform work.
Question 18.b. For those projects that have moved forward:
Question 18.b.i. Did the Agencies confirm that each involves an
actual discharge to ``newly deemed non-jurisdictional'' waters?
Answer. The agencies do not perform inspections or compliance
checks on work which they determine do not require authorization under
the Clean Water Act. However, the fact that such landowners requested
authorization does signal an intent to perform work.
Question 18.b.ii. Did the Agencies confirm that no state agency
regulated the project?
Answer. The agencies do not perform inspections or compliance
checks on work which they determine do not require authorization under
the Clean Water Act. However, the fact that such landowners requested
authorization does signal an intent to perform work.
Question 18.b.iii. What findings have the Agencies made concerning
water quality impacts of these projects?
Answer. The agencies do not perform inspections or compliance
checks on work which they determine do not require authorization under
the Clean Water Act. However, the fact that such landowners requested
authorization does signal an intent to perform work. In addition, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates the discharge of dredged and/or
fill material under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and does not
regulate water quality under Section 401 of the Act.
Question 18.b.iv. When will the Agencies disclose those findings?
Answer. The agencies do not perform inspections or compliance
checks on work which they determine do not require authorization under
the Clean Water Act. However, the fact that such landowners requested
authorization does signal an intent to perform work. In addition, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates the discharge of dredged and/or
fill material under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and does not
regulate water quality under Section 401 of the Act.
Question 19. You and Assistant Administrator Fox have asserted in
sworn declarations that ``[p]rojects are proceeding in newly non-
jurisdictional waters in states and tribal lands where regulation of
waters beyond those covered by the CWA are not authorized.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Supra n.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 19.a. What factual support do you have for this claim?
Answer. The agencies' remand motion and declarations filed in the
litigation, as well as the documents reviewed and other supporting
information, can be found at https://www.epa.gov/wotus/request-remand-
and-supporting-documentation. The agencies provide more detail about
their concerns about the NWPR, and information that supported their
analysis, in their proposed revision of the definition of ``waters of
the United States'' and supporting documents, available at https://
www.epa.gov/wotus/revising-definition-waters-united-states.
Question 19.b. What projects are proceeding and in which states?
Answer. The agencies' remand motion and declarations filed in the
litigation, as well as the documents reviewed and other supporting
information, can be found https://www.epa.gov/wotus/request-remand-and-
supporting-documentation. The agencies provide more detail about their
concerns about the NWPR, and information that supported their analysis,
in their proposed revision of the definition of ``waters of the United
States'' and supporting documents, available at https://www.epa.gov/
wotus/revising-definition-waters-united-states.
Question 19.c. Have the Agencies confirmed that each of these
states do not have laws in place that address discharges to ephemeral
streams or wetlands that are not jurisdictional under the NWPR?
Answer. The agencies' remand motion and declarations filed in the
litigation, as well as the documents reviewed and other supporting
information, can be found at https://www.epa.gov/wotus/request-remand-
and-supporting-documentation. The agencies provide more detail about
their concerns about the NWPR, and information that supported their
analysis, in their proposed revision of the definition of ``waters of
the United States'' and supporting documents, available at https://
www.epa.gov/wotus/revising-definition-waters-united-states.
Question 19.d. Have the Agencies confirmed that any of these
unnamed projects involve discharges to newly non-jurisdictional waters?
Answer. The agencies' remand motion and declarations filed in the
litigation, as well as the documents reviewed and other supporting
information, can be found at https://www.epa.gov/wotus/request-remand-
and-supporting-documentation. The agencies provide more detail about
their concerns about the NWPR, and information that supported their
analysis, in their proposed revision of the definition of ``waters of
the United States'' and supporting documents, available at https://
www.epa.gov/wotus/revising-definition-waters-united-states.
Question 20. The Agencies have found that in New Mexico and
Arizona, nearly all of the more than 1,500 streams has been deemed a
non-jurisdictional ephemeral resource, ``which is very different from
the status of the streams as assessed under both the Clean Water Rule
and the pre-2015 regulatory regime.'' \8\ Under the pre-2015 regime,
however, ephemeral resources were not per se jurisdictional, but
instead had to undergo case-by-case determinations to see if there was
a ``significant nexus.'' What data do the Agencies have to show that
any of these streams would have been jurisdictional under a case-by-
case determination for ``significant nexus''?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Supra n.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. The agencies' remand motion and declarations filed in the
litigation, as well as the documents reviewed and other supporting
information, can be found at https://www.epa.gov/wotus/request-remand-
and-supporting-documentation. The agencies provide more detail about
their concerns about the NWPR, and information that supported their
analysis, in their proposed revision of the definition of ``waters of
the United States'' and supporting documents, available at https://
www.epa.gov/wotus/revising-definition-waters-united-states.
Question 21. If there is a hurricane and it floods a section of
farmland in my district, which then drains into the Cape Fear River and
then the Atlantic Ocean, would that constitute a ``Water of the United
States''?
Answer. ``Waters of the United States'' are defined in regulation
at 33 C.F.R. 328.3. An approved jurisdictional determination (AJD) is
the tool used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to help implement
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Sections 9 and 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA). An AJD makes a definitive
determination of whether aquatic resources within a parcel meet the
definition of ``waters of the United States.'' AJDs are completed on a
case by case basis and are based on accurate and reliable, site
specific information. Only an AJD can provide such determination as
presented in the question. The agencies do not regulate land, but
rather ``waters of the U.S.''
Questions from Hon. Greg Stanton to both Lieutenant General Scott A.
Spellmon, Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works, Department of the Army
Question 1. As I understand, construction of the Rio de Flag
project in Flagstaff, Arizona, is delayed because BNSF Railway and the
City of Flagstaff have not completed the construction and maintenance
agreement that fully defines how to project will cross BNSF's existing
railroad tracks and the real estate acquisition is not complete.
Question 1.a. Assuming the City of Flagstaff is able to acquire the
real estate, could the Corps proceed with downstream phases of the
project while the City and BNSF continue to work out a plan for
crossing the railroad tracks?
Answer. Two Construction Maintenance Agreements (CMAs) are required
to successfully implement the project. BNSF has made the execution of
both CMAs contingent on the construction of other track improvements to
be constructed by the City separate from the Federal project; including
approximately six miles for a third main track that would run through
the City of Flagstaff. The Corps could proceed with construction of the
downstream phases of the project using the funds appropriated in FY
2020 to complete those phases of the project once the City acquires the
necessary real estate and BNSF signs the first of the two CMAs.
Question 1.b. Will you commit to maintaining the Rio de Flag
project in an active, continuing status to ensure the funding Congress
has provided will be available when it is needed for construction?
Answer. Yes. The Corps is committed to maintaining the project in
an active status in accordance with law and policy. We will continue to
work with the City of Flagstaff and assist them in their efforts to
obtain the necessary real estate easements and instruments including
the two Construction Maintenance Agreements with BNSF.
Question 2. Congress had previously provided the Corps an authority
for a pilot program which allowed the Corps to advance funds for
sponsors to implement construction (Section 1043(b) of WRRDA 2014).
Question 2.a. Did the pilot program help accelerate any Corps
projects, and if so, could a similar authority help accelerate the Rio
de Flag project if the City of Flagstaff wanted to investigate that
program?
Answer. An examination of 1043(b) pilot program, to assess impacts
on the delivery of Corps projects, has not yet been undertaken.
Use of Section 1043(b) is not expected to accelerate completion of
the Rio de Flag project. The primary factor affecting the schedule and
timeline to initiate physical construction of remaining features is the
ability of the non-Federal sponsor to obtain the necessary real estate
easements and instruments including the two Construction Maintenance
Agreements.
Questions from Hon. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon to both Lieutenant General
Scott A. Spellmon, Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army
Question 1. There is a strong demand for USACE construction in
Puerto Rico, including my two priorities, the Cano Martin Pena
Ecosystem Restoration Project and the San Juan Harbor Navigation
project.
Question 1.a. What can you tell us about the status and prospects
of this project?
Answer. With respect to the Cano Martin Pena Ecosystem Restoration
Project, funding for the completion of plans and specifications for the
first construction contract is included in the Administration's Fiscal
Year 2022 budget request. Should FY 2022 funds be appropriated and
received, it is estimated that pre-construction, engineering and design
(PED) could be complete within 10 months. San Juan Harbor has been
fully funded for PED and design is scheduled for completion in Spring
2022. Both projects will be considered by the Administration in future
Budgets and Work Plans for new start Construction funding. The Cano
Martin Pena Ecosystem Restoration Project received $163,287,000
(Construction) in IIJA funding in January 2022. The funding will be
used to physically complete and fiscally closeout the project. The
project did not receive DRSSA or FY2022 Work Plan funding. San Juan
Harbor received $45,561,000 (Construction) in IIJA funding in January
2022. The funding will be used to initiate, complete and fiscally
closeout the project. The project did not receive DRSSA or FY2022 Work
Plan funding.
Question 1.b. Have you identified any issues that hinder its
inclusion in the Work Plan under the construction account, how do we
overcome that?
Answer. The Army and the Corps are working to gain clarity on this.
Question 1.c. Could I count on reaching out to your office work
with mine and with the non-federal sponsor to determine how we can best
improve the outlook to get the start?
Answer. Yes.
Question 2. Also critical is the San Juan Harbor Navigation
Project, which I have also brought up with appropriators. This is our
principal port, handling most of Puerto Rico's waterborne trade and
most of its cruise passengers, a key point of operation for the U.S.-
flagged merchant fleet. The project has the necessary Chief's Report
and we are looking for it to be budgeted for a start as well.
Question 2.a. What is the outlook for this project? Is it an agency
priority?
Answer. The San Juan Harbor Improvement project was fully funded
for construction in the FY2022 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
Pre-construction, engineering and design is essentially complete and a
Project Partnership Agreement will be executed in the 4th quarter of
FY2022.
Question 2.b. What can we do to help move it forward and be
budgeted and included in the work plan? What do you need from the
Congress?
Answer. No action from Congress is required at this time.
Question 3. In areas like coastal erosion or river channeling there
is a strong call from communities for solutions that preserve as much
of the natural shoreline as possible rather than just walling it. In
the Rincon coast, after an initial study recommendation of a full
revetment, the Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources has proposed
a review of alternatives, including a modified version of the limited
offshore breakwater. I did exchange correspondence with the prior
Acting Assistant Secretary on the matter.
I would like to be updated to the communications between USACE and
the Department on this, and to encourage looking favorably at that
alternative that protects the value of the shore as well as controlling
erosion. Let me know how we can enable the Corps to do this.
Question 3.a. How do we make it easier for the agency to consider
these alternatives?
Answer. The Corps will coordinate with your office regarding the
status of the Puerto Rico Coastal Storm Risk Management (CSRM) Study.
Question 3.b. How is the Corps approaching the community interest
in preserving shores and riverbanks with more natural or nonstructural
measures?
Answer. The Jacksonville District, in collaboration with the non-
Federal partner, is looking at the natural feature and nature-based
feature alternatives along with their long term costs and benefits. The
Jacksonville District and the non-Federal partners also are
collaborating with the public and stakeholders to ensure all benefit
types are assessed and receive equal consideration.
Question 4. Under the Investigations Account, already finished the
study phase and pending moving to the construction are the Rio
Guayanilla and Rio Grande de Manati at Ciales projects pointed out for
expedited attention last year, and still pending for investigations Rio
Inabon/Ponce, Yauco and Aibonito, among others.
Many of these projects are often reported as ``being in the
Congressional queue'' but many in the local leadership do not quite
understand what that means. They ask if that means that I have a say in
their going forward, or if it means it comes up in the next budget.
Question 4.a. How can we best communicate to local leaders the
status of the projects in the so-called ``queue''?
Answer. The Executive Branch does not have such a ``queue.'' The
Budget includes which studies the Executive Branch proposes to fund
each year based on a myriad of factors, including economic performance.
Question 4.b. Would it be viable to have our office keep advised of
what makes the ``queue'' and what moves in it?
Answer. The Corps maintains lists of projects that are included in
the Budget and/or receive funding through regular or supplemental
appropriations at https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/
Budget/.
Question 5. What can you advise us about the possibility or need
for assumption of maintenance of harbors in Guayama, Yabucoa and
Guayanilla in Southern Puerto Rico--harbors that were first built by
private entities but that are now important and necessary for future
economic activity? Would this require administrative or legislative
action? If the latter, would you work with our office to help create
the necessary measures?
Answer. Maintenance of private harbors is typically a non-Federal
responsibility. Assumption of maintenance of the harbors in Guayama,
Yabucoa and Guayanilla in Southern Puerto Rico would require
legislative action.
Question 6. Section 1156 of WRDA of 1986, as amended by WRRDA of
2014, provided a waiver of the local match for projects originally of
$200,000 and then adjusted the limit to $430,000. Is it the Corps'
estimation that this is still a reasonable waiver amount? Should this
be made a continuous inflation adjustment?
Answer. Section 135 of WRDA 2020 amended Section 1156 of WRDA 1986
and directs the Secretary to adjust the dollar amount on an annual
basis for inflation.
Question 7. Of any other Puerto Rico Projects, what is the latest
status of those that are already ongoing, or have been approved for
start?
Answer. The published plans for the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018
and the Disaster Response Assistance Act of 2019 included over $2.5
billion of emergency supplemental funds to accomplish work in Puerto
Rico for six large construction projects, two small construction
projects, five studies, two Operation and Maintenance projects, and two
projects that received Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE)
funds. The Corps has obligated approximately $192 million of the funds
provided.
The Army Corps has completed the following work:
Four flood and storm damage reduction studies: Rio
Culebrinas, PR; Rio Grande de Manati, PR (Ciales); Rio Guayanilla, PR;
and the San Juan Metro Area Coastal Storm Risk Management Study, PR;
construction of two small streambank stabilization
projects (Section 14 of the Continuing Authorities Program): Rio Grande
de Loiza, PR and Salud Creek at San German, PR;
operation and maintenance of two projects: Arecibo
Harbor, PR and Mayaguez Harbor, PR; and
repairs to one FCCE projects: Rio Puerto Nuevo, PR.
Remaining work includes one flood and storm damage reduction
study--Puerto Rico Coastal Storm Risk Management Study, PR, which is
scheduled to complete in May 2024 and construction of six large flood
and storm damage reduction projects:
Rio de La Plata, PR
Rio Grande de Arecibo, PR
Rio Grande de Loiza, PR
Rio Guanajibo at Mayaguez, PR
Rio Nigua at Salinas, PR
Rio Puerto Nuevo, PR
The Corps has also recently completed work at another FCCE project:
Rio Grande de Manati, PR.
Question 8. In the case of those that are still pending approval,
pending funding, pending New Start or ``in the queue'', could the Corps
identify what needs to be done to facilitate, expedite or obtain the
necessary approvals?
Answer. Potential non-Federal sponsors are encouraged to work with
local Corps District offices to discuss any water resources challenges
with which the Corps might assist.
Questions from Hon. Michael Guest to both Lieutenant General Scott A.
Spellmon, Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works, Department of the Army
Question 1. Southwest Mississippi has continued to experience
annual flooding that has left the batture lands in Jefferson, Adams,
and Wilkinson Counties under water for a majority of the year. In
conversations with the Vicksburg District of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, I understand that much of this is caused by continued
sediment rising in the channel along the Old River Control (ORC)
Structure. Although there is a large bend in the river where the ORC is
that may contribute to this sediment, there are also multiple sediment-
heavy waters, including the Homochitto River and Bayou Pierre, that
empty into the river near this point. Previous projects, such as the
Delta Headwaters Project, have been used to address sedimentation of
the river in order to curtail flooding.
Question 1.a. Has the Army Corps explored the possibility of
expanding the Delta Headwaters Project to areas outside of the
Mississippi Delta in order to prevent sedimentation of the river where
continual flooding is occurring as a result of MR&T structures?
Answer. No. While the cause of sedimentation in specific locations
of the river is due to many variables, the Mississippi River Valley as
a whole has seen increased flooding mostly due to unprecedented amount
of rainfall in recent years.
Question 2. The batture land of Mississippi has enjoyed centuries-
long prosperity in terms of agricultural productivity. However, that
has reversed in the last decade, where fields have been unable to be
planted, mature trees harvested, and petroleum extraction halted due to
months of high water. The economic strain this has put on an already
distressed population is troublesome. Citizens within the Morganza
Spillway, which has rarely received the high water that Mississippi
has, have USACE easements that pay them for use of their land for
flooding purposes. However, citizens in Southwest Mississippi must
instead incur losses from unplanted fields and rotted trees, which
impacts counties' tax revenues.
Question 2.a. What are some ways that the Army Corps of Engineers
is looking to address this long-term annual flooding and the economic
impact it is putting on Mississippians and the communities?
Answer. In order to assess annual long-term flooding impacts, a
comprehensive study of the Lower Mississippi River basin, from Cape
Girardeau, Missouri, to the Gulf of Mexico has been funded and
initiated.
Question 2.b. Will you commit to working with me, my colleagues,
and the Mississippi Delegation to try to find a long-term solution to
annual flooding in the batture land of Mississippi?
Answer. Yes.
Questions from Hon. Garret Graves to both Lieutenant General Scott A.
Spellmon, Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works, Department of the Army
Question 1. Congress funded a number of Louisiana projects in the
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2020, including the Comite Diversion and West
Shore Lake Pontchartrain:
Question 1.a. What is the status of these efforts?
Answer. Both Comite Diversion and West Shore Lake Pontchartrain are
BBA-18 projects. The Comite Diversion Project consists of construction
of a 12-mile canal in East Baton Rouge Parish to divert Comite River
floodwaters to the Mississippi River. The project is being advanced in
close partnership with the Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development (LaDOTD), with construction complete or ongoing on eight of
the project's 16 construction contracts. As the non-Federal sponsor,
LaDOTD is responsible for providing all Lands, Easements, Rights of
way, Relocations, and Disposal sites (LERRDs), the delivery of which is
a major focus of the project effort. It is anticipated that LaDOTD will
provide all project LERRDs by the end of calendar year 2021, with the
exception of the relocation of the Florida Gas Company pipeline
(Channel Segment 3 construction contract). Delivery of LERRDs in this
timeframe will allow USACE to award five of the eight remaining
construction contracts by the end of calendar year 2021, and two more
construction contracts in the first quarter of calendar year 2022
(these seven contracts are scheduled to be completed by the end of
calendar year 2022). The timeline for award and completion of the
Channel Segment 3 construction contract is currently unknown as it is
dependent on LaDOTD successfully negotiating the relocation of the
Florida Gas pipeline.
The West Shore Lake Pontchartrain Project includes construction of
an 18-mile levee system spanning two parishes, and ring levees/non-
structural measures in a third parish. The project is being advanced in
close partnership with the non-Federal sponsors, Coastal Protection and
Restoration Authority and Pontchartrain Levee District, with seven of
the project's 24 construction contracts either completed or ongoing.
The non-Federal sponsors have acquired most of the real estate along
the main project alignment and continue negotiations to acquire access
along utility corridors. The remaining construction contract awards are
scheduled for FY 2022. Planning is ongoing to address the required
mitigation for unavoidable impacts to the human environment that will
result from the construction of this project.
Question 1.b. How is the Corps addressing any delays?
Answer. With regards to the Comite Diversion Project, delays on
this large infrastructure project have been reduced by breaking project
reaches into additional segments where provision of LERRDs have been
completed and awarding contracts for approximately half of the
diversion footprint. The issue that could cause future delays is the
relocation of the Florida Gas Company pipeline, which is the
responsibility of the non-Federal sponsor (LaDOTD).
With regards to the West Shore Lake Pontchartrain Project, the
Corps continues to work with the non-Federal sponsors on real estate
acquisition and mitigation to move the project forward.
Question 1.c. What is the most recent update on milestone goals and
completion for the projects?
Answer. Comite Diversion: The six ongoing construction contracts
are on schedule for completion by the end of calendar year 2022.
Subject to LaDOTD granting full and clear authorization for entry,
USACE is scheduled to award five of the remaining eight construction
contracts by the end of calendar year 2021, and two more construction
contracts in the first quarter of calendar year 2022 (these seven
contracts are scheduled to be completed by the end of calendar year
2022). The timeline for award and completion of the final contract
(Channel Segment 3) is currently unknown as LaDOTD continues to
negotiate the relocation of the Florida Gas pipeline.
West Shore Lake Pontchartrain: The remaining 17 construction
contracts are scheduled to be awarded by the end of FY2022, with
project completion scheduled for December 2024.
Question 2. What is the status of the WRDA 2020 authorized
feasibility studies for the following projects:
Question 2.a. Amite River, flood control;
Answer. This study is being conducted using Bipartisan Budget Act
of 2018 funding at full Federal expense and in close coordination with
the state of Louisiana. Based on recent communication from the state,
the Corps and the state are actively working on the next steps of the
study.
Question 2.b. Grand Isle, modification of project for erosion and
hurricane protection;
Answer. Section 204 of WRDA 2020 authorizes, subject to the
availability of appropriations, the Secretary to provide assistance to
a non-Federal interest developing a proposal for modification of the
project for beach erosion and hurricane protection, Grand Isle,
Louisiana, to include periodic beach nourishment, for consideration in
the annual Section 7001 report. As of the date of this hearing, the
Corps has not undertaken a study to evaluate options for such
assistance.
Question 2.c. Tangipahoa, flood risk management.
Answer. As of the date of this hearing, the Corps has not
undertaken this study.
Question 3. The Morganza to the Gulf Project in Terrebonne and
Lafourche Parishes in Louisiana has been, to date, entirely constructed
with local funds, providing significant flood protection to the
community which has already been tested by a number of weather events.
In 2005, Hurricane Rita resulted in 11,000 flooded homes in
Terrebonne Parish. However in 2019, a similar event, Hurricane Barry,
resulted in only 11 flooded homes. This dramatic decrease is directly
because of the quality of the infrastructure our local agencies have
been able to implement on their own over the past 15 years.
Louisiana's Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority recently
sent a letter to your office requesting that Morganza be considered for
inclusion in the 1043 pilot program.
Question 3.a. Now that this project has received a new start for
construction, is the Morganza project being considered for inclusion in
the 1043 program?
Answer. As of the date of this hearing, the State of Louisiana,
Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority has not submitted a letter
to USACE requesting that the Morganza to the Gulf Project be considered
for inclusion in the Section 1043(b) pilot program.
Question 3.b. The Corps is authorized to move forward with up to 20
projects as part of the pilot program. What other projects are being
considered for construction under Section 1043?
Answer. Prior to the enactment of WRDA 2020, the USACE executed two
PPAs for implementation of projects under Section 1043(b): McCook
Reservoir, IL Flood Risk Management Project and Clear Creek, TX Floor
Risk Management project. USACE has not received any formal requests to
advance other specific projects at this time.
Question 4. Section 351 of WRDA 2020 included a provision which
provides for renegotiation of interest and prepayment without interest
for the SELA, WBV, and LPV Projects. The provision also included
additional crediting for work performed on the Louisiana Coastal Area.
A letter was sent to both Mr. Pinkham and General Spellmon on this
subject by the LA delegation earlier this month.
Question 4.a. Where is the Corps on providing guidance on the
payback provision of Section 351 of WRDA 2020?
Answer. No implementation guidance is required to implement Section
351 of WRDA 2020. As stated in my response letter to the Louisiana
Congressional delegation, in accordance with Section 351, which amends
Section 103(k) of WRDA 1986, if the State of Louisiana pays at least
$200 million for the LPV, WBV, or SELA project on or before September
30, 2021 and pays the remaining cash contribution under the deferred
payment agreement for that project, respectively, by September 30,
2023, the U.S. Army is required to accept those amounts as payment in
full, without any interest required on the deferred cash contribution,
for that project. The State of Louisiana made the necessary payments
for the LPV and WBV Projects before September 30, 2021. No payment was
made for the SELA Project prior to September 30, 2021.
Question 4.b. Where is the Corps on providing guidance on the
crediting provision?
Answer. No guidance is required.
Question 5. The Lower Mississippi Comprehensive Management Study
(Section 213 of WRDA 20) seeks to gain a science-based understanding of
today's river, and requires the Corps to make actionable
recommendations to Congress including structural or operational
modifications to existing water resources development projects,
construction of new projects, and changes to operation and maintenance
practices. This approach anticipates that the Corps will be empowered
to utilize its multiple mission sets (i.e. hurricane and storm damage
reduction, flood risk management, navigation, and ecosystem
restoration) to dynamically manage its structures and assets for
multiple mission benefits.
Question 5.a. Where is the Corps in moving forward with this study?
Answer. The implementation guidance for this study is posted at
https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll5/
id/35898. Per that guidance, the study must be selected as a MR&T new
start investigation and compete for funding in the MR&T account for
study initiation. The project was selected as a new start in the FY2022
Work Plan.
Question 5.b. Has the Corps engaged the States along the river
where the study is to be conducted?
Answer. The Corps would engage with interested parties and
stakeholders, as well as the states along the Lower Mississippi River,
as part of this study.
Question 5.c. Is the Corps contemplating the cost share structure
for this study?
Answer. The authorized cost-share for this study is 50% Federal and
50% non-Federal.
Question 5.d. How would a multi-state cost-share on the study work?
Answer. The Corps would execute an agreement with multiple sponsors
specifying that each sponsor is jointly and severally liable for the
non-Federal obligations for the study.
Question 5.e. Is the Corps concerned that a multi-state costs share
detract from the exigency of efforts to improve conditions on the
river?
Answer. No. The Corps acknowledges the challenges in identifying
non-Federal cost share partners and negotiating a cost share agreement
with partners from up to seven states, but does not expect multi-state
costs sharing will detract from the exigency of efforts to improve
conditions.
Question 6. The Corps previously indicated it was revising the E.R.
405-1-12, Chapter 12 Real Estate Guidance, last modified in May of
1998. In comments regarding the implementation of Section 125 of WRDA
2020 on the BUDMAT program, multiple commenters noted that the Corps
should reconsider its policy of mandating fee acquisition for ecosystem
restoration projects, specifically including beneficial use projects.
This mandating of fee / full ownership estates for ecosystem
restoration has been a hindrance to projects in Louisiana, California
(Sacramento River), and the Upper Mississippi River, including
preventing non-federal sponsors from working with landowners in
cooperative and potentially economically beneficial endeavors. The
inflexible policy has nationwide negative impacts and delays efforts to
restore rapidly deteriorating areas.
Question 6.a. When is the Corps expecting to release the drafts of
that guidance for vetting by the public, including non-federal
sponsors?
Answer. Section 125 (a) of WRDA 2020 implementation guidance is
under review.
Question 6.b. Has any effort been made to revise the Chapter 12
Guidance to bring into conformity with Section 1115 of WRDA 2018 which
mandates consideration of state laws and acquisitions procedures in
developing estates for Corps projects?
Answer. Section 1115 of WRDA 2018 says that state laws and
acquisition procedures shall be considered ``to the extent that such
procedures are generally consistent with the goals of a project or
action.'' As part of our real estate acquisition process all applicable
state laws are considered. My office issued updated guidance in April
2019 in response to this legislation. The guidance established that
Corps districts would obtain the minimum real estate interest needed to
protect the federal investment. Fee simple, easements, etc. will be
analyzed on a project-by-project basis by the Corps to determine the
appropriate real estate interest required. The guidance notes that
``[s]tate or local statutory restrictions on a non-Federal sponsor's
capability alone will not be sufficient to justify deviation from the
interests identified in paragraph 12-9 of ER 405-1-12.''
Question 6.c. Is an effort being made to revise the procedure by
which non-standard estates can be approved, including delegating such
authority to the district commanders and real estate staff who best
understand local conditions?
Answer. This issue is being reviewed to determine if changes are
warranted.
Question 7. Section 125 of WRDA 2020--Beneficial Use of Dredged
Material
Question 7.a. What efforts is the Corps making to revise the
federal standard to better consider the ecosystem restoration benefits
of beneficial use of dredged material as part of the USACE analysis
into whether the cost-benefits of beneficial use meets the federal
standard least-cost alternative?
Answer. WRDA 2020, Section 125 requires consideration of the Corps
to include economic and environmental benefits when calculating the
federal standard and requires more regular stakeholder engagement. My
staff, in consultation with the Corps, is investigating the courses of
action available regarding how the federal standard is calculated.
Question 7.b. What specific efforts are being made to modify the
federal standard to apply the directives under Section 125 to develop
and apply methodologies that better evaluate, calculate and factor the
ecosystem restoration benefits of beneficial use into the federal
standard in determining the least cost alternative for dredge disposal?
Answer. My staff, in consultation with the Corps, is investigating
the courses of action available regarding how the federal standard is
calculated.
Question 7.c. How does the Corp intend to better develop mechanisms
to calculate the tangible value in the intangible benefits of
beneficial use project, including the ecosystem services and hurricane
storm damage risk reduction and flood protection benefits provide by
such projects?
Answer. The Corps has established methodologies for evaluating
flood and coastal storm damage and aquatic ecosystem restoration
benefits.
Question 8. Section 212--Report on Status of Restoration in the
Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA)
Question 8.a. What is the status of this report? It is due by the
end of the year.
Answer. No activities have occurred, nor have any reports or
recommendations been made available to date.
Questions from Hon. John Garamendi to Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army
Question 1. Assistant Secretary Pinkham, does the Army Corps of
Engineers now have a reasonably accurate National Levee Database of the
levees and their condition?
Answer. The majority of levees across the Nation have been located
and identified, with some limited gaps in unmapped areas. The National
Levee Database contains detailed information on 2,000 levees with ties
to Corps authorities. It includes the condition of each levee and the
risks to the levee system. Other levee information has been collected
from various sources such as states and other federal agencies and has
been included where applicable. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), the largest contributor of levee locations to the National
Levee Database, added 5,000 levee locations that were captured through
its production of flood hazard maps.
Question 2. As the Corps continues to update the National Levee
Database, do you have a refined estimate for what it would cost to do
the necessary maintenance and repairs for every deficient levee in the
United States? The most recent estimate I have indicates $80 billion in
need, from the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Answer. No. The Corps does not have an estimate of the cost to do
the necessary maintenance and repairs for every deficient levee in the
United States. In 2018, the Corps developed a cost estimate to address
performance deficiencies that could lead to a levee breach (i.e.
overtopping, seepage, slope stability, erosion, or malfunctioning
closure) for 1,600 federally authorized and locally maintained levee
systems. The cost estimate also included non-structural factors related
to evacuation planning. The total cost estimate was developed by
analyzing performance issues for portions of 350 federal levees ranging
from very high to moderate risk and developing specific cost estimates.
The resulting cost estimates were then extrapolated to the 1,600 levee
systems for a total estimated cost of $21 billion. The cost estimates
did not include routine maintenance. More information on the cost
estimate published in 2018 can be found in the USACE Levee Portfolio
Report 2018 at https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/
collection/p266001coll1/id/6922. The Corps intends to update this cost
estimate with the best information, including any changed conditions or
levee improvements that have been accomplished.
Questions from Hon. Michelle Steel to Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army
Question 1. Before being elected to Congress, I served on the
Orange County Board of Supervisors. During my time on the Board, I
worked with the LA Army Corps District to fund and complete the
Surfside-Sunset & Newport Beach Replenishment Project on the Orange
County coastline.
This issue has a long history more than 60 years ago, the
construction off the coast by the federal government narrowed our
beaches, and in the time since, the coastline has eroded. Erosion is a
major safety issue, not to mention it's hurting our wildlife and our
Orange County ecosystem. The Army Corps started fixing this damage by
adding sand back to our beaches, but they stopped funding the project
in 2000.
In 1962, the Department of the Army conducted a study and presented
their finding to Congress on October 2nd. In that study, there was a
proposed measures to ``mitigate adverse effects of previously
constructed projects'' and ``its views concerning responsibility for
such mitigating measures.'' House Document 602 acknowledged that the
Federal government was responsible for the disruption to the naturally
occurring replenishment process. On October 23rd, 1962, Congress
accepted the findings from the study and passed Public Law 87-874 which
approved and authorized the Orange County replenishment. The law also
declares that there will be ``periodic beach nourishment with no time
limit on Federal aid authorized.'' This project was last modified by
Chief of Engineers on September 1963. The Army of Civil Works
acknowledged that this ``project is a periodic continuing construction
project.''
Mr. Pinkham, you mentioned that ``this Budget relies on a
foundation of strong relationships between the Corps and local
communities, which allow us to work together to help develop, manage,
restore, and protect the Nation's water resources.''
Question 1.a. From 1962 through today, the tangible benefits of
this project have exceeded the estimated annual cost. Why do you feel
justified in not funding this authorized project that your own office
acknowledged is a ``periodic continuing construction project''? What do
I report back to my constituents and local governments who feel
forgotten by the Federal government?
Answer. The Army will continue to consider this project for funding
along with other programs, projects and activities across the Nation
that are competing for available Federal resources.
Question 1.b. Every day this project goes unfinished, the taxpayers
of Orange County are left on the hook to pay more and are living with a
higher risk of a natural disaster. Congress passed a law declaring
``periodic beach nourishment with no time limit on Federal aid
authorized'' for this project. Why is your office no longer budgeting
for future stages despite its recognition that this is an important
ongoing concern?
Answer. The Army will continue to consider this project for funding
along with other projects, projects and activities across the Nation
that are competing for available Federal resources.
Question 1.c. Are you concerned with the heightened risk of safety
issues including loss of life and cost to municipalities if these
floods continue? The extreme hide tides are coming in, as we speak,
local officials have worked on emergency procedures. When storms come
in and businesses wash away, who will be held responsible?
Answer. The Army Corps considers potential risk to public safety
and storm damage impacts in it evaluation of projects for future
funding.
Question from Hon. Michael Guest to Jaime A. Pinkham, Acting Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army
Question 1. The US Army Corps of Engineers' Engineer Research and
Development Center provides crucial civil works research that impacts
our nation's waterways and surface transportation systems. A robust and
sustained U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works research,
development, testing, and evaluation program could play a key role in
addressing some of today's biggest civil works challenges and in laying
the groundwork for future technologies critical for American
competitiveness. President Biden has indicated a desire to reinvest in
American science, and an investment in a robust and sustained U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Civil Works R&D program would align with these
goals. Consolidation of ongoing research efforts into a dedicated
Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation account would increase
transparency about these critical efforts and provide a strong
foundation to meet future civil works needs.
Question 1.a. Will you commit to working with the Administration
and the Office of Management and Budget to stand up a dedicated
Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation account within the next
President's budget to work to address our country's civil works needs?
Answer. I will continue to give full consideration to research and
development needs.
Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, on behalf of Hon. Conor Lamb,
to Lieutenant General Scott A. Spellmon, Chief of Engineers and
Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Question 1. Lieutenant General Spellmon, on May 13, 2021,
Congressman Lamb sent a letter to the Office of Management and Budget's
Acting Director, as well as to you at the U.S. Army Corps (Corps) of
Engineers outlining strong, bipartisan Congressional support for the
Upper Ohio Navigation Project in Pennsylvania's 17th Congressional
District. My understanding is that Rep. Lamb has mentioned this project
to you before and he remains grateful for your previous visit to see
the project firsthand.
The Upper Ohio Navigation Project has received approximately $40
million in funding to date. The Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Subcommittee included seven new starts for construction
in the FY2021 appropriations bill, H.R. 133, including one for an
inland waterways lock and dam modernization project. The Upper Ohio
Navigation Project fortunately received this new start for construction
in January 2021.
However, Congressman Lamb was disappointed to see that the project
was not included in the President's Budget Request. As you may recall,
the three locks included in the Upper Ohio Navigation Project are the
oldest of the entire Ohio River system--all more than 70 years old. The
current condition of these locks, especially the Montgomery Lock, is a
state of critical structural and operational degradation. They are
increasingly at risk of structural or operational failure that could
halt navigation for a year or longer. In addition to impacting
commercial freight, pool loss from a failure would affect municipal and
industrial water intakes, recreation, and wildlife habitats.
It is Rep. Lamb's understanding that the Corps primarily uses
transportation rate savings when computing benefits for navigation
projects and does not consider water supply, recreation, or potential
future private sector investments. He would argue these aspects should
also factor into consideration.
Question 1.a. The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2018
(P.L. 115-270) directed the Corps to enter into an agreement with the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study the economic principles and
analytical methodologies currently used by the Corps to formulate,
evaluate, and budget for water resources development projects and
report to Congress on the results of the study. Could you provide an
update on the progress the Corps has made with respect to this
Congressional directive?
Answer. As of the date of this hearing, the Corps has not requested
the National Academy of Sciences to undertake this study.
Question 1.b. What is the Corps' plan to recapitalize the
navigation facilities on the upper Ohio River with the knowledge that
it may not be budgetable, based on the Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) budgeting processes, which I would argue fail to
consider the full costs and benefits associated with the Upper Ohio
Navigation Project outlined above?
Answer. The Army will consider this project for Construction
funding, along with other programs, projects and activities across the
Nation that are competing for the available Federal resources.
Question 1.c. As you put together the FY2022 Corps Work Plan, can
you commit to giving the Upper Ohio Navigation Project, full and fair
consideration given the urgent state of the project and its significant
benefits for my region and our country?
Answer. Yes.
Question from Hon. John Garamendi to Lieutenant General Scott A.
Spellmon, Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Question 1. Lieutenant General Spellmon, do you agree that capping
the post-construction costs--Operations, Maintenance, Repair,
Replacement, and Rehabilitation (OMRRR)--for aquatic ecosystem
restoration projects with no physical infrastructure might increase
willingness for local agencies to partner with the Army Corps on these
projects?
Answer. I cannot speculate on a non-Federal sponsor's decision to
partner on a project.
Questions from Hon. Michael Guest to Lieutenant General Scott A.
Spellmon, Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Question 1. The US Army Corps of Engineer's Continuing Authorities
Program (CAP) 205 Flood Damage Reduction fills a critical need
nationally, supporting projects that are too large for sponsors or
cannot be funded through emergency funding but are crucial for safety
and need to be completed in a timely manner. Many of these communities
and project areas are left to push local divisions to try to prioritize
their projects, creating a growing backlog.
Question 1.a. How many pending CAP 205 applications were there 5
years ago; how many pending applications today?
Answer. In 2016, there were 110 pending requests and in 2020 there
were 120 pending requests.
Question 1.b. How many CAP 205 projects have been completed
annually over the last 5 years by division and district?
Answer. There were 23 identified CAP 205 construction completions
over the last 5 years.
FY 2016--Six projects: Great Lakes and Ohio River
Division--Louisville District; Mississippi Valley Division--St. Louis
and St. Paul Districts; North Atlantic Division--three in New York
District.
FY 2017--Three projects: North Atlantic Division--New
York District; South Atlantic Division--Jacksonville and Charleston
Districts.
FY 2018--Three projects: North Atlantic Division--New
England and Philadelphia Districts; Great Lakes and Ohio River
Division--Buffalo District.
FY 2019--Four projects: North Atlantic Division--
Philadelphia District; Northwestern Division--Omaha District;
Southwestern Division--two in Fort Worth District.
FY 2020--Seven projects: Great Lakes and Ohio River
Division--Louisville District; Mississippi Valley Division--Memphis and
St. Paul Districts; North Atlantic Division--New England District;
Pacific Ocean Division--Alaska District; South Atlantic Division--
Memphis District; South Pacific Division--Albuquerque District.
Question 1.c. How many new start CAP 205 projects have been awarded
for each of the last 5 years, nationally, by division, by district?
Answer. There were 39 new CAP 205 projects initiated over the last
five fiscal years using regular appropriations (summarized below). Two
additional CAP 205 projects were started in North Atlantic Division
using Hurricane Sandy supplemental funds. There were also 10 projects
that were small enough to be converted from authorized studies into the
CAP program (Two projects each district--Philadelphia, Omaha, Seattle,
Chicago and Honolulu).
FY 2016--14 projects: Mississippi Valley Division--St.
Louis, Rock Island and St. Paul Districts; North Atlantic Division--
Baltimore and New England Districts; Great Lakes and Ohio River
Division--Huntington, Louisville and Chicago Districts; South Atlantic
Division--Two in Jacksonville District; South Pacific Division--Two in
Los Angeles District; Southwestern Division--Two in Fort Worth
District.
FY 2017--Nine projects: Mississippi Valley Division--Two
in Rock Island District; North Atlantic Division--Baltimore and
Philadelphia Districts; Northwestern Division--Walla Walla District;
Great Lakes and Ohio River Division--Nashville and Chicago Districts;
Southwestern Division--Two in Fort Worth District.
FY 2018--No projects.
FY 2019--Eight projects: Mississippi Valley Division--St.
Louis District; North Atlantic Division--New England District;
Northwestern Division--Omaha District; Great Lakes and Ohio River
Division--Chicago District; Pacific Ocean Division--Alaska District;
South Atlantic Division--Jacksonville District; South Pacific
Division--San Francisco District; Southwestern Division--Little Rock
District.
FY 2020--Eight projects: Mississippi Valley Division--
Vicksburg District; North Atlantic Division--New England District;
Northwestern Division--Omaha District; Great Lakes and Ohio River
Division--Chicago District; Pacific Ocean Division--Honolulu District;
South Atlantic Division--Wilmington District; South Pacific Division--
Albuquerque District; Southwestern Division--Little Rock District.
Question 1.d. What criteria does headquarters, and the divisions
use to prioritize and allocate new start CAP 205 projects annually?
Answer. Based on direction in the statement of managers for CAP
included in the annual Appropriations Act, new projects can be
initiated after all eligible work for on-going projects have been
allocated funding and an affordability analysis is prepared to evaluate
the affordability of new projects over the upcoming two years. Once the
addition of new start projects is affirmed based on the affordability
analysis, a list of CAP 205 projects with an updated Letter of Intent
and funding need expressed in the current fiscal year will be ranked
based on prioritization within a region, timeframe since original
sponsor request, and external stakeholder interest.
Question from Hon. David Rouzer to Jeffrey J. Lyash, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Tennessee Valley Authority
Question 1. If the Biden Administration wants to decrease the
carbon footprint of federal facilities such as the numerous Department
of Defense (DOD) and Department of Energy (DOE) facilities that TVA
serves, how important is it to our national security that the
government support power generation that is reliable and resilient,
such as small modular reactors (SMRs), which I know you are exploring
at your Clinch River Site?
Answer. Reliable, resilient, affordable and clean energy is
critical to the daily lives and national security of the people of the
Tennessee Valley and the nation. As TVA and others set goals for
delivering increasingly cleaner energy, the federal government's
support for the development and deployment of new technologies is
essential.
TVA supplies highly reliable, low-cost energy for a seven-state
region through one of the nation's most diverse generation portfolios.
About 60% of our energy supply today comes from carbon-free sources. We
have reduced our carbon emissions by 63% since benchmark levels in
2005; we are working to achieve a reduction of 70% by 2030 and have a
path to achieve about 80% by 2035.
Nuclear power is TVA's single largest source of carbon-free energy,
providing more than 40% of all the energy we supply for the 10 million
people we serve. Nuclear power is the most reliable and least expensive
form of baseload power generation--energy that is available in large
quantities to fuel homes, businesses and industries around the clock.
TVA's aspirational goal is to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by
2050. We recognize that closing the last 20% gap in carbon emissions
depends on the development of emerging technologies at a commercial
scale and at a cost that will enable their deployment. These
technologies include carbon capture and sequestration, long-duration
energy storage, alternative fuels such as hydrogen, and, importantly,
advanced nuclear technology.
TVA's mission of service includes national defense. TVA has proudly
supported the unique energy needs of the Oak Ridge, Tennessee, national
defense and research complex since its inception during the early days
of the Manhattan Project. We currently provide approximately 290
megawatts of electric power to Department of Energy and Department of
Defense installations throughout our service region. TVA and the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) partner in a number of initiatives,
and we have opportunities to work together to reduce carbon emissions
through advanced technologies that include small modular reactors
(SMRs).
In December 2019, TVA received the nation's first Early Site Permit
from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a small modular reactor at
our Clinch River Site in Oak Ridge. An SMR demonstrated at scale at the
Clinch River site could supply enough carbon-free energy to offset
emissions from not only ORNL's energy supply--currently approximately
31% of DOE's total carbon footprint--but also from the energy TVA
supplies to almost all of the federal government's other facilities
across our 80,000-square-mile service area.
Further deployment of SMRs could enhance national security by
positioning the SMRs with a micro-grid power network that could be
isolated from the region's main power transmission system in times of
natural or national emergency. This approach would provide a resilient
and reliable energy supply dedicated to meeting the energy needs of
critical federal facilities, such as Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
As a recognized leader in nuclear technology and as a part of the
federal government, TVA has the expertise and regulatory approval to
expand development of advanced nuclear technology to help support our
nation's energy and security needs.
However, the costs and risks associated with first-of-a-kind
demonstration technologies--specifically SMRs--are significant. The
federal government can play a vital role in supporting technological
developments that would help ensure a resilient, reliable and cleaner
energy supply for DOE and DOD facilities in the Tennessee Valley and
across the country.
We look forward to future opportunities to work in partnership with
ORNL, the Department of Energy and other agencies as we strive to help
develop energy technologies on behalf of the nation.
Question from Hon. Michael Guest to Jeffrey J. Lyash, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Tennessee Valley Authority
Question 1. The Tennessee Valley Authority provides crucial
resources to families and businesses across the Tennessee Valley,
including access to economic development project funding and needed,
affordable electric resources. Mississippi has the second-largest TVA
coverage area among all states in the TVA, yet currently holds no
positions on the TVA board. The absence of representation on the board
leaves out a huge population of Mississippi stakeholders who use TVA
resources every day. Additionally, new structure under the TVA groups
my state into a region with much of Eastern Tennessee, a region with
different issues and concerns than Mississippi. I am disappointed in
the President's decision not to fill a board member position from the
State of Mississippi, as well as the TVA's decision to group the state
under the new West Region.
Question 1.a. Does TVA currently have a plan on how to better
represent the second largest stake-holding state within the Authority's
board structure?
Answer. We appreciate your interest in the TVA Board. In compliance
with the TVA Act, and as a federal agency, TVA does not directly or
indirectly influence the Executive Branch's choice of nominees or
influence the confirmation process. The Act also covers eligibility
qualifications of Board members and outlines the confirmation process
for nominees, which are to be appointed by the President by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.
Regardless of state representation on TVA's board, our mission of
service and new organizational structure in the regional model ensure
that the local needs and interests of the communities TVA serves are
equitably understood and represented.
TVA's service area in Mississippi is a vital and valued part of our
integrated public power model, and we are honored to serve the people
and communities of the state. TVA provides reliable, affordable
electricity generation and transmission service to 28 local power
companies in Mississippi and employs a team of approximately 250
Mississippi-based professionals (FY20) to help ensure we are meeting
the needs of local power companies and their residential and business
customers.
Of the 28 local power companies, 27 have elected to become long-
term partners with TVA, reflecting their high degree of engagement and
partnership with TVA on our activities and long-term planning. Local
power companies within your district, including Starkville Utilities,
play significant roles in thought leadership and innovative project
implementation with TVA.
TVA is also moving to a regional model to provide more value and
increase our knowledge and responsiveness to the needs of our local
communities. By increasing TVA's presence locally, we aim to build
trust with your constituents and deliver solutions for each community's
unique strengths and challenges.
Mississippi and western Tennessee comprise TVA's West Region due to
the service territories of our local power companies, and due to
similarities in local geography, demographics, and economic
dependencies.
Additionally, as we fully develop our regional operating model, we
intend to create regional community panels of local business, civic,
and philanthropic leaders to provide local counsel on the best use of
TVA's resources in their area to maximize impact. We look forward to
engaging panel members from Mississippi in the near future through this
new working body, and we are committed to continuing to carrying out
TVA's mission of service.
Questions from Hon. Grace F. Napolitano to Daniel Avila, Acting
Commissioner, U.S. Sector of the International Boundary and Water
Commission
Question 1. With respect to the Nogales wastewater treatment plant
(WTP), your testimony states that effluent exceedances are often noted
and that at the Nogales WTP, detection of heavy metals sometimes occur.
Improving the pipeline integrity is necessary but you do not address
what can be done to treat the heavy metals in the flow that do arrive
at the WTP from international sources. The heavy metals in the flows
coming into the United States will not be reduced with improved
pipelines.
Can you provide us with your plan on addressing the heavy metal
flows into the United States?
Answer. The United States has spent considerable time and money to
improve the wastewater treatment capacity and pretreatment programs in
Nogales, Sonora. Under a North American Development Bank/EPA grant, the
city of Nogales, Sonora was able to construct a wastewater treatment
plant that reduced wastewater flows to the United States. With funds
from multiple U.S. entities, a wastewater systems study was conducted
and determined that three industrial parks in the city of Nogales,
Sonora are discharging the heavy metals of concern. Due to a lack of
further funding, it has not been possible to conduct more intensive
surveys to identify the exact industrial sources of the metals and any
legal recourse. U.S. officials wrote to U.S. companies located in
Mexico, asking them to address the discharges.
Further, the USIBWC holds quarterly meetings with agencies from
both countries to raise the concern about the metals to regulatory
bodies and the regulated communities in Nogales. The USIBWC monitors
the wastewater flow from Mexico and notes any metals levels of concern
to the Mexican Section of the IBWC and submits formal requests for
Mexican agencies to address the issue. Heavy metals will likely remain
a challenge in the medium- to long-term, in light of Mexico's heavy
industrial presence along the U.S. border. USIBWC will work with the
U.S. Department of State to press the Mexican government to fund
regulatory agencies to the levels needed to find, sanction, and/or
close the discharges.
Question 2. Your testimony states that 5 of the 6 dams that the
IBWC and Mexico manage on the Rio Grande are either ``urgent,
potentially unsafe'' or ``high priority, conditionally unsafe''. Your
testimony further delineated the efforts you are taking to improve
flood control levees along the Rio Grande, yet you are not seeking
funds for the Safety of Dams Program.
How do you intend to address dam safety at the five dams identified
as problematic?
Answer. USIBWC will use $20 million in unobligated carryover funds
from previous fiscal years to develop and implement risk mitigation
plans for the dams jointly operated by the U.S. and Mexican Sections.
The dam of greatest concern--Amistad--has received a Dam Safety Action
Classification (DSAC) of ``Urgent, Potentially Unsafe.'' The Principal
Engineers of the U.S. and Mexican Sections have agreed on a risk
mitigation project for Amistad and the Sections seek to complete the
necessary IBWC Minute, with a binding binational cost share, in the
coming months.
The U.S. Section has received the appropriations needed to fund its
share of the project and the Mexican Section is obtaining its share.
Inspections of the other dams--Falcon, Anzaldua's, American, and
Retamal Dams will continue on schedule (every 5 years) and monitoring/
seepage systems will be evaluated for necessary repairs and upgrades.
Question 3. In October of 2020, two days before Mexico would be in
violation of the 1944 Treaty for delivery of water to the United
States, Minute 325 was signed which allocated 105,000 acre-feet of
water from Amistad and Falcon International reservoirs from Mexican
ownership to U.S. ownership. Mexico's delivery of water to the U.S.
occurs on 5-year cycles and has been problematic.
Can you please identify if the U.S. and Mexican Sections of the
IBWC have formulated a plan to move forward to ensure future on-time
deliveries of water to avoid future water challenges on both the
Mexican and U.S. sides of the border?
Answer. The two Sections of the Commission are working in
partnership with the State of Texas and Mexico's National Water
Commission to address water challenges on both the Mexican and U.S.
sides of the border. The Commission's 2020 agreement, Minute No. 325,
``Measures to End the Current Rio Grande Water Delivery Cycle without a
Shortfall, to Provide Humanitarian Support for the Municipal Water
Supply for Mexican Communities, and to Establish Mechanisms for Future
Cooperation to Improve the Predictability and Reliability of Rio Grande
Water Deliveries to Users in the United States and Mexico,'' provides
tools to address these challenges.
Minute No. 325 formally establishes a binational Rio Grande
Hydrology Work Group and a binational Rio Grande Policy Work Group. The
Hydrology Work Group, comprised of technical experts from both
countries, is developing a binational Rio Grande model that will be
used as a tool to analyze potential future water management scenarios.
The Policy Work Group provides policy guidance to the Hydrology Work
Group and will address legal and policy issues associated with any
potential future water management scenarios. Minute No. 325 states the
goal for these work groups is to develop a Minute prior to December
2023 that would provide increased reliability and predictability in Rio
Grande water deliveries to users in the United States and Mexico. Both
of these groups have been meeting regularly this year.
Questions from Hon. David Rouzer to Daniel Avila, Acting Commissioner,
U.S. Sector of the International Boundary and Water Commission
Question 1. It appears that the IBWC has responsibility for a lot
of severely deteriorated infrastructure, including levees, dams,
canals, outfall interceptors, and wastewater treatment plants.
Question 1.a. What are the primary reasons for this infrastructure
having become so deteriorated?
Answer. IBWC infrastructure is used heavily, under conditions that
cause rapid deterioration. The wastewater treatment plants, and outfall
interceptors receive influent that contains stormwater, sand and debris
that causes erosion and deterioration at a much faster rate than that
experienced by a plant that only receives wastewater influent. In
addition to the official use of USIBWC levees by Customs and Border
Protection, there is illegal use by off-road vehicles. Both legal and
illegal use cause wear and tear at a much faster rate than the typical
levees that are closed off to use by others. Although the canals have
been maintained, they have reached the end of their lifespan and are
being rehabilitated as required. The dams are regularly inspected and
maintained as required.
USIBWC has performed maintenance on its infrastructure as funding
becomes available through the budget process. USIBWC focuses on
mitigating high-risk items to ensure we can continue to complete our
mission. Low-risk items are deferred, since resources do not allow for
the performance of all maintenance requirements in the short term.
Question 1.b. What has the IBWC been doing to maintain its
infrastructure, so it does not become so deteriorated?
Answer. USIBWC has taken steps to maintain infrastructure and
reduce further deterioration by requesting a new appropriation
specifically for deferred maintenance. USIBWC received a $7 million
appropriation for deferred maintenance in fiscal year 2019. The agency
has identified deferred maintenance projects and developed a plan with
cost estimates and a schedule in order to request future appropriations
under the Deferred Maintenance Program.
USIBWC also currently receives between $47 and $49 million in
appropriations for construction to rehabilitate levees and other
related infrastructure to improve flood control and water conveyance,
renovate facilities, provide security to critical infrastructure,
ensure dam safety and improve wastewater treatment. The agency
recognized the need for action by increasing our appropriation request
by $20 million from $29 million a few years ago. In USIBWC's Strategic
Plan, we formulated an action plan that prioritizes new construction
within our resource constraints, as well as deferred maintenance to
address our border infrastructure and wastewater concerns.
Question 1.c. Please describe the IBWC's asset management program
for maintaining and improving its infrastructure.
Answer. The USIBWC asset management program is centered on mission
fulfillment and risk mitigation. Each field office performs annual risk
assessments and identifies deficiencies. Annual work plans are created
to address immediately the highest-risk deficiencies, while projects to
address low-risk deficiencies are planned for the out-years.
Opportunities for improving or upgrading our infrastructure are also
identified annually and captured in the annual updates to our 10-year
Capital Plans.
These plans are tied to our agency-wide Strategic Plan to ensure we
are completing actions identified by the agency as priorities and
assessing progress through performance metrics.
Question 2. How much money has the United States spent directly on
Mexican wastewater infrastructure to combat problems and deterioration?
Answer. Although the United States Section of the IBWC executes
critical coordinating and advisory functions with Mexican counterparts
to improve sewage treatment and address transboundary flows, the USIBWC
does not spend appropriated federal funds on wastewater infrastructure
located in Mexico except when specifically authorized. However, the
U.S. has contributed to several binational wastewater projects that are
located in the United States and that treat Mexican wastewater at the
South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Nogales
International Wastewater Treatment Plant, and the Nuevo Laredo
International Wastewater Treatment Plant and collection system. These
IBWC binational projects have served to treat Mexican wastewater and
prevent the entry of that wastewater into the United States without
treatment. With continued partnership and authority IBWC will continue
to address the issue of aging infrastructure and expanding treatment
capacity to serve the growing population.
The EPA has the authority to co-fund projects that are located in
Mexico to improve the wastewater collection and treatment systems in
that country through the Border Water Infrastructure Program and that
the EPA and entities like NADBANK and BECC have invested substantially
in Mexican-side infrastructure. We refer you to EPA for the most up-to-
date figures regarding expenditures on Mexican wastewater
infrastructure.
PRESIDENT BIDEN'S FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET REQUEST: AGENCY POLICIES AND
PERSPECTIVES (PART 2)
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:01 a.m., in
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon.
Grace F. Napolitano (Chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present in person: Mr. Rouzer.
Members present remotely: Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Johnson of
Texas, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. Malinowski, Mr.
Delgado, Mr. Pappas, Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Stanton, Mr. Webster,
Dr. Babin, Mr. Bost, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Mast, Miss Gonzalez-
Colon, and Ms. Mace.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
July 12, 2021
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: Members, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
FROM: Staff, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
RE: Subcommittee Hearing on ``President Biden's Fiscal Year
2022 Budget Request: Agency Policies and Perspectives (Parts I and
II)''
_______________________________________________________________________
PURPOSE
On Wednesday, July 14, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. EDT, the Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment will hold a hearing in the Rayburn
House Office Building, Room 2167, and via Zoom, to receive testimony
related to ``President Biden's Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Request: Agency
Policies and Perspectives (Part II)''. The subcommittee received
testimony from the remaining federal agencies under the jurisdiction of
the subcommittee on Thursday, June 24, 2021.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Accessible at https://transportation.house.gov/committee-
activity/hearings/president-bidens-fiscal-year-2022-budget-request-
agency-policies-and-perspectives-part-i.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of these hearings is to provide members with an
opportunity to review the FY 2022 budget request and the
administration's program priorities for the authorities under the
jurisdiction of the subcommittee.
At the July 14th hearing, the subcommittee will hear testimony from
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Great Lakes St. Lawrence
Seaway Development Corporation (GLS), the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) at the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
At its June 24th hearing, the subcommittee received testimony from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA), and the U.S. Sector of the International Boundary and
Water Commission (IBWC) within the Department of State.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
The administration's FY 2022 budget request for the EPA
totals $11.241 billion, including $5.130 billion for State and
Tribal Assistance Grants, $3.427 billion for Environmental
Programs and Management, and $1.533 billion for the Hazardous
Substance Superfund program. The FY 2022 budget request is
$1.968 billion more than the FY 2021 enacted budget for the
EPA.
Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \2\
(in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diff. of FY 2022
FY 2022 Pres. Budget and FY
Program FY 2021 FY 2022 Authorized President's 2021 Enacted
Enacted Budget --------------------
$ %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science and Technology................. $729.3 No Authorization......... $830.0 $100.6 13.8%
Environmental Programs and Management.. 2,761.6 No Authorization......... 3,427.5 665.9 24.1%
State and Tribal Assistance Grants..... 4,313.9 No Authorization......... 5,130.0 816.1 18.9%631
2
Clean Water SRF \1\.................. 1,638.8 No Authorization......... 1,870.7 231.9 14.1%
Drinking Water SRF \1\............... 1,126.1 No Authorization......... 1,357.9 231.8 20.6%660
4
Water Infrastructure Finance and 65.0 No Authorization......... 80.1 15.1 23.3%
Innovation Program (WIFIA) Account.
Hazardous Substance Superfund.......... 1,205.8 No Authorization......... 1,533.8 328.0 27.2%
EPA Office of Inspector General........ 43.5 No Authorization......... 54.3 10.8 24.9%
Other \2\.............................. 154.1 No Authorization......... 185.5 31.5 20.4%
------------ ---------------------------------
Total................................ $9,273.1 $11,241.3 $1,968.2 21.2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) program includes several grant programs other than the SRFs.
\2\ This number is the sum of the following EPA line items:
Building and Facilities (B&F)--$33.8 million (FY21 enacted) to $62.8 million (FY22 request);
Inland Oil Spill Program--$20.1 million (FY21 enacted) to $22.4 million (FY22 request);
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST)--$92.2 million (FY21 enacted) to $92.4 million (FY22
request); and
E-Manifest--$8.0 million (FY21 enacted) & (FY22 request).
CLEAN\\ WATER
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-05/
documents/fy-2022-epa-bib.pdf; see also https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2021-05/documents/fy-2022-congressional-justification-
all-tabs.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has
jurisdiction over programs aimed at protecting the nation's
water quality. The EPA, through its own programs and in
partnership with states and tribes, seeks to improve water
quality in rivers, lakes, and coastal waters through investment
in wastewater infrastructure, water quality standards,
permitting programs, water quality monitoring, wetlands
protection, and research, among other activities. The EPA's
Office of Water operates the EPA's water quality protection
programs.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund: The FY 2022 budget
request proposes $1.870 billion in federal capitalization
grants for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Clean Water
SRF), which is $231.9 million more than the FY 2021 enacted
level. The Clean Water SRF is the primary federal program for
funding wastewater infrastructure projects and activities
throughout the nation. Clean Water SRF funds are used for
capitalization grants for state clean water infrastructure
programs, which, in turn, fund locally developed wastewater
infrastructure projects and activities.
In previous Congresses and the current Congress, the
subcommittee held numerous hearings on financing water
infrastructure projects. These hearings examined the growing
funding gap that now exists between wastewater infrastructure
needs and current levels of spending, the challenges facing
low-income and rural communities in affording wastewater
infrastructure investment, and the resiliency needs of our
nation's water infrastructure. In June 2021, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure ordered H.R. 1915, the
bipartisan Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of
2021, as amended, favorably reported to the House of
Representatives by a vote of 42-25, and this legislation was
incorporated as Division H of H.R. 3684, the INVEST in America
Act and approved by the House on July 1, 2021 by a vote of 221-
201. This legislation would reauthorize the Clean Water SRF and
other wastewater infrastructure grant programs for an
additional five years.
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program
(WIFIA): Authorized by the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA, P.L. 113-121), the WIFIA
program provides low-interest federal loans or loan guarantees
to eligible entities for a wide range of nationally and
regionally significant water and wastewater projects. The most
recent authorization level (FY 2021) for the WIFIA program was
$50 million; however, the WIFIA program is not authorized for
FY 2022. The President's budget request for FY 2022 is $80.1
million for the WIFIA program, while the FY 2021 appropriated
level was $65 million.
Environmental Programs and Management: (EPM): This account
provides funds for internal programmatic activities. The
President's budget request would increase funding for the EPM
account by $665.9 million (24.1 percent) from the FY 2021
appropriated level of $2.761 billion to $3.4 billion.
Geographic (Regional) Programs: The EPA's regional programs
provide an opportunity to target regionally specific
environmental problems and to work closely with state and local
partners. The FY 2022 budget request increases funding for the
EPA's Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) to $340 million
(+$10 million), the Chesapeake Bay Program to $90.5 million
(+$3 million), Gulf of Mexico to $22.4 million (+$2.4 million),
Lake Champlain to $20 million ($+5 million), San Francisco Bay
to $12 million (+$3 million), Long Island Sound to $40 million
($9.6 million), Puget Sound to $35 million (+$1.25 million),
and Lake Pontchartrain programs to $1.73 million (+$295,000).
Additionally, the administration proposes a $141,000
funding increase for the National Estuaries Program from the FY
2021 enacted level of $31.82 million (section 320 of the Clean
Water Act) to $31.9 million.
[NOTE: On June 15, 2021, the House of Representatives
passed under suspension three Clean Water regional program
bills from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
including legislation to authorize federal appropriations for
the Puget Sound (H.R. 1144), the San Francisco Bay (H.R. 610),
and the Lake Pontchartrain Basin (H.R. 1921) programs. The EPA
regional programs are funded from the EPA's EPM account.]
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG): This account
provides categorical grants to states and tribes as part of the
cooperative partnership between federal government, states, and
tribes. The President's budget request would increase funding
for the State and Tribal Assistance Grants account from the FY
2021 appropriated level of $4.313 billion by $816.1 million
(18.9 percent) to $5.1 billion. [NOTE: On June 15, 2021, the
House of Representatives passed under suspension H.R. 2008 to
reauthorize federal appropriations for EPA's non-point source
pollution grant program (section 319), which is funded from the
STAG account.]
The President's FY 2022 budget request would provide $234.6
million in grants to states to establish and maintain state
water pollution control programs under section 106 of the Clean
Water Act. This is a $4.6 million increase from the FY 2021
appropriated level of $230 million. Section 106 funding is used
by individual states to carry out state clean water programs,
including Clean Water Act permitting, monitoring, and
enforcement.
SUPERFUND AND BROWNFIELDS
Superfund Program: The Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, P.L. 96-510)
established the Superfund program in 1980. The EPA's Office of
Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) runs the Superfund
program. Superfund is the federal program established to clean
up the nation's uncontrolled and/or abandoned hazardous waste
sites. The law makes designated responsible parties pay for the
hazardous waste cleanups wherever possible and provides for a
hazardous substances trust fund, commonly referred to as the
Superfund, to pay for remedial cleanups in cases where
responsible parties cannot be found or otherwise be held
accountable. Superfund is also available for responding to
emergency situations involving the release of hazardous
substances. The EPA addresses the highest priority sites by
listing them on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL).
The administration's FY 2022 budget request provides $1,533.8
billion for the Superfund program, a $328 million increase from
the FY 2021 appropriated level of $1.205 billion.
Brownfields: Brownfields consist of properties for which
the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be complicated by
the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance,
pollutant, or contaminant. These sites can consist, for
example, of former industrial properties, gas stations, or dry
cleaners. The EPA established the Brownfields Initiative in
1995 to better enable the federal government, states, and
communities to work together to address, cleanup, and reuse
brownfields sites. The Small Business Liability Relief and
Brownfields Revitalization Act (P. L. 107-118) authorized
funding for the EPA to award brownfields assessment, cleanup,
and revolving loan fund grants, as well as provided limited
Superfund liability protections for certain innocent landowners
and bona fide prospective purchasers. The EPA's OLEM manages
the Brownfields program.
The President's FY 2022 budget request would provide
$201.374 million for the EPA's brownfields program, including
$130.982 million in site assessment and cleanup grants (STAG
account); $46.195 million for authorized state brownfields
programs (STAG account); and $24.197 million for the EPA's
management of the Brownfields program (EPM account). Of all the
brownfields-related activity included in the President's
budget, the account that funds actual, on-the-ground,
brownfields site assessment and remediation activities proposes
funding at $130.9 million, which would be a $40.0 million
increase from the FY 2021 level. In the 115th Congress, the
Brownfields Utilization, Investment, and Local Development Act
(P. L. 115-141) included an authorization of $200 million for
FY 2022 for this specific purpose.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (CORPS)
The Corps studies, constructs, operates, and maintains
water resources development projects for the nation, usually
through cost-shared partnerships with non-federal sponsors.
Authorized mission activities include navigation, flood
control, shoreline protection, hydropower, dam safety, water
supply, recreation, environmental restoration and protection,
and disaster response and recovery.
Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \3\
(in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diff. of FY 2022
FY 2022 Pres. Budget and FY
Program FY 2021 FY 2022 Authorized President's 2021 Enacted
Enacted Budget --------------------
$ %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigations......................... $153.0 No Authorization......... $105.8 -$47.2 -30.8%
Construction........................... 2,692.6 No Authorization......... 1,792.4 -900.3 -33.4%
Operation and Maintenance.............. 3,849.7 No Authorization......... 2,502.9 -1,346.8 -35.0%
[Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund] \1\.... n/a No Authorization......... $1,625.9 - -
Regulatory............................. 210.0 No Authorization......... 204.4 -5.6 -2.6%
Expenses............................... 206.0 No Authorization......... 199.3 -6.7 -3.3%
Office of the Assistant Secretary of 5.0 No Authorization......... 5.0 0.0 0.0%
the Army.
Mississippi River and Tributaries (MRT) 380.0 No Authorization......... $269.7 -110.3 -29.0%
Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF)..... 113.0 No Authorization......... 52.15 -60.85 -53.8%
FUSRAP................................. 250.0 No Authorization......... [250.0] \2\ - -
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies 35.0 No Authorization......... 35.0 0.0 0.0%
(FCCE).
------------ ---------------------------------
Total................................ $7,894.3 $6,792.5 \3 -1,101.8 -13.9%
\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The President's budget distinguishes between Operation and Maintenance expenditures for non-navigation
projects and O&M expenditures utilizing Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund expenditures. When compared with the FY
2021 appropriated levels for O&M activities ($3.849 billion), the FY 2022 President's budget allocates a total
of $4.295 billion for O&M activities, for an increase of $446 million (or 11.58 percent).
\2\ Funds for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) program are included in the FY22
budget request under the Department of Energy's Office of Legacy Management, but would still be performed by
the Corps). If such funds were included in the FY22 budget request for the Corps, the total request would be
$7.042 billion, which would be a decrease of $875 million (-10.8%) from the FY21 enacted level.
The\\ water resources development projects and programs of
the Corps support vital economic and environmental needs of
this nation. These projects provide for continued economic
growth, job creation, and economic stability while protecting
human lives and property, ensuring reliable waterborne
transportation of goods, and restoring valuable natural
resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Fiscal Year 2022, Civil Works Budget of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, accessed at https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/
collection/p16021coll6/id/42
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The administration's FY 2022 request for the Corps of
$6.793 billion would be a reduction of $1.101 billion from the
FY 2021 enacted level for the agency.
Sources of Appropriations for FY 2022:
General Fund.............................. $5.067 billion
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund............. $1.625 billion
Special Recreation User Fees.............. $47 million
Inland Waterways Trust Fund............... $52.15 million
Investigations: The President's budget request would
provide a total of $113 million for the Investigations program,
consisting of $105.8 million from the Investigations account
and $7.1 million from the Mississippi River and Tributaries
account. This program funds studies to determine the need,
feasibility, and economic and environmental benefits of
potential water resources projects. The investigations account
is used to fund the study of potential projects related to
river and harbor navigation, flood control, shore protection,
environmental restoration, and related purposes. This account
also funds the restudy of authorized projects, miscellaneous
investigations, and plans and specifications of projects prior
to construction.
The budget focuses on ongoing work and on promoting efforts
to provide local communities with technical and planning
assistance to enable them to reduce their flood risk, with
emphasis on non-structural approaches. The budget would include
$29 million for technical and planning assistance programs that
will help local communities identify and address their risks
associated with climate change, $17 million for research and
development, $4 million to complete dredged material management
plans necessary to enable the disposal of dredged material from
seven Great Lakes projects and two Mississippi River projects
over the next 20-25 years, and $1 million to incorporate
climate resilience into planning and policy guidance for how
the Corps formulates future projects.
The budget requests funding to initiate seven new studies:
Central and Southern Florida Flood Resiliency Study, FL (flood
and storm damage reduction); Boise River, Garden City, Ada
County, ID (flood and storm damage reduction); Great Lakes
Coastal Resiliency Study, IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, PA, NY, & WI
(flood and storm damage reduction); Spring Creek South, Jamaica
Bay (Howard Beach), Queens, NY (aquatic ecosystem restoration);
Little Narragansett Bay, RI (navigation); Waccamaw River, Horry
County, SC (flood and storm damage reduction); and Little Goose
Creek, Sheridan, WY (aquatic ecosystem restoration).\4\ The
budget also requests funding to complete 15 ongoing studies.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See id.
\5\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction: The Construction account would provide $1.889
billion for the construction of Corps projects, consisting of
$1.792 from the Construction Account, $63.7 million from the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF), and $32.6 million from
the Mississippi River and Tributaries account. The budget
includes requests for four construction new starts, including:
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, Three Rivers,
AR (navigation); West Sacramento, CA (flood and storm damage
reduction); Anacostia Watershed Restoration, Prince George's
County, MD (aquatic ecosystem restoration); and Norfolk Harbor
and Channels, VA (Deepening) (navigation).\6\ The budget also
proposes sufficient funding to complete construction of four
ongoing projects.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See id.
\7\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2022 budget would include $350 million for the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration (SFER) (Everglades) program, a
$100 million increase, or forty percent, from the 2021 enacted
level. SFER funding was also included in the administration's
infrastructure proposal, the American Jobs Plan.\8\ Taken
together, a robust amount of funding is proposed for SFER,
enabling significant progress on ecosystem restoration. In an
effort to improve the resilience of the nation's ports and
waterways, the plan would also include $2 billion over five
years to cover the federal share of coastal navigation
construction projects and $780 million to cover 65 percent of
the cost to complete construction of on-going capital
improvement projects and major rehabilitation of existing
inland navigation construction projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/
2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The budget proposes modifying the performance criteria for
projects funded on the basis of their economic return to the
nation, by lowering the threshold benefit-to-cost ratio (BCR)
(previously at 2.5 to 1) to 2.0 to 1 or greater at a seven
percent discount rate.
Operation and Maintenance (O&M): The President's budget
would provide a total of $4.295 billion for the O&M program,
consisting of $2.503 billion from the O&M account, $1,557
billion from the HMTF, and $235.3 million from the Mississippi
River and Tributaries Account.
The budget would provide $75 million to advance near-term
climate resilience efforts by specifically targeting operation
and maintenance activities that are focused on improving
climate resilience and/or sustainability at existing Corps-
owned projects, $60 million for work needed to mitigate for
adverse impacts from existing Corps-owned projects, $20 million
to improve cybersecurity at existing Corps-owned projects, and
$13 million to complete major rehabilitation studies at six
inland waterway locks and dams projects. These funds will be
used in addition to the $2 billion over five years proposed in
the American Jobs Plan for the maintenance and repair of
existing navigation channels and navigation locks and dams on
the nation's inland waterways that support commercial
navigation.
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF): The President's
budget proposes to spend $1.626 billion from the HMTF for
eligible projects and activities with an emphasis on operation
and maintenance, including dredging, of completed projects, the
highest amount ever proposed in a President's budget since
enactment of the HMTF in 1986. The budget requests $787 million
to address the top 50 U.S. coastal ports across the nation,
which handle around 90 percent of the waterborne cargo that is
shipped to or from the United States. The budget also requests
$252 million for operation and maintenance of Great Lakes-
projects, $58 million for projects that support access by
Native American tribes to their legally recognized historic
fishing areas, and $63 million for five construction projects
that will accommodate disposal of material dredged from coastal
navigation projects. The budget also highlights funding in the
American Jobs Plan that proposes an additional investment of
$2.8 billion over five years for activities in coastal ports
that are HMTF eligible.
Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T): The President's
budget request includes a total of $275 million, consisting of
$269.688 million from the Mississippi River and Tributaries
account and $5.312 million from the HMTF, for ongoing work in
the lower Mississippi River and its tributaries, with emphasis
on the 1,600 miles of levees and related features on the main
stem of the lower Mississippi River and in the Atchafalaya
Basin.
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE): The
President's budget request includes $35 million for
preparedness and training for floods, hurricanes, and other
natural disasters.
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP):
The President's budget request proposes to transfer financial
responsibility for FUSRAP sites back to the Department of
Energy. NOTE: The Department of Energy budget request includes
$250 million for management of the FUSRAP program.
Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF): The President's budget
request proposes to spend $52.150 million from the IWTF to
begin construction on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River
navigation system, Three Rivers, AR project, which will reduce
the risk of a breach between Arkansas and White Rivers during
high water that would likely result in a loss of navigation on
the Mississippi River. The budget also includes $420 million in
funding proposed in the American Jobs Plan over the next five
years to cover 35 percent of the cost to complete construction
of on-going capital improvement projects and major
rehabilitation of existing inland navigation construction
projects.
Veteran's Curation Program and Collections Management: The
President's budget proposal includes $6.5 million for the
Veteran's Curation Program, which provides rehabilitation and
training for veterans using the archaeological collections of
the Corps.
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS)
Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \9\
(in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diff. of FY 2022
FY 2021 FY 2022 Pres. Budget and FY
Program Enacted FY 2022 President's 2021 Enacted
Authorized Budget --------------------
$ %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations......... $175.0 Such Sums as May $175.0 0.0 0.0
be Necessary.
Watershed Rehabilitation Program.................. 10.0 No Authorization. 10.0 0.0 0.0
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program. 50.0 $50.0 $50.0 0.0 0.0
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... $235.0 $50 $235.0 0.0 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The\\ NRCS authorized to give technical and financial help
to local organizations planning and carrying out watershed
projects for flood protection, agricultural water management,
recreation, municipal and industrial water supply, and wildlife
enhancement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-budget-
summary.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President's budget proposes $50 million in mandatory
funding for the Watershed Protection and Flood Program, which
was created in the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L.
115-334) through amendments to the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act (P.L. 83-566).
In addition, the budget proposes level funding of $175
million for Watershed and Flood Prevention activities
authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534) and
the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (P.L.
83-566). This program directs NRCS to work with localities to
plan and install flood prevention improvements and share the
cost for improvements in flood prevention, agricultural water
management, recreation, and fish and wildlife development.
Further, the FY 2022 budget proposes an increase of $10 million
in funding under this program for small watershed operations
authorized under P.L. 83-566. This program provides federal
resources to small watersheds of 250,000 acres or less for both
for technical and financial assistance of flood prevention and
watershed projects on private land for the conservation,
development, utilization, and disposal of water, and for the
reduction of sediment and erosion damages.
The President's budget highlights a proposal to increase
funding for the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
program by $100 million per year (totaling $1 billion over ten
years).
Lastly, the President's budget proposes level funding for
the Watershed Rehabilitation Program at $10 million for FY
2022. This program provides financial and technical assistance
to communities for planning and financing the rehabilitation of
federally constructed flood prevention dams that have reached
the end of their design lives. The program is authorized under
Section 14 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act
(16 U.S.C. 1012), as amended.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)
Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \10\
(in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diff. of FY 2022
FY 2022 Pres. Budget and FY
Appropriations Account FY 2021 President's 2021 Enacted
Enacted Budget --------------------
$ %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Ocean Service (NOS)...................................... $628.2 $862.4 $234.2 37.2%
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OOAR)................. 614.1 815.7 201.6 32.8%
---------------------------------------------
Total \1,2\..................................................... $1,242.3 $1,678.1 $435.8 35.1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table totals the discretionary funding for NOS and OOAR, and does not highlight accounts outside the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
\2\ Total includes funding for both operations, research, and facilities, and procurement, acquisitions, and
construction accounts.
The\\ Subcommittee has jurisdiction over various NOAA
programs and activities, including responsibilities under the
Clean Water Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act
Reauthorization Amendments (P.L. 101-508), the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (P.L. 100-688),
Superfund (P.L. 99-499), the Oil Pollution Act (P.L. 101-380),
the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act
(P.L. 104-332), the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research
and Control Act (P.L. 105-383), and the Estuary Habitat
Restoration and Partnership Act of 2000 (P.L. 105-457). The
Subcommittee's jurisdictional interest in the NOS includes
coastal water pollution and natural resource damages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/
NOAA%20FY22%20CJ.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President's FY 2022 budget requests $815.67 million for
discretionary funding for the OOAR, $201.58 million more than
the FY 2021 enacted level of $614.09 million.
The President's FY 2022 budget requests $862.4 million for
discretionary funding for the NOS, $234.2 million more than the
FY 2021 enacted level of $628.2 million. The National Coastal
Zone Management (CZM) Program is part of the NOS.The FY 2022
request includes level the following:
LCoastal Zone Management Grants ($108.5 million)
within the CZM Program. These grants support actions of states
and other grantees authorized under the Coastal Zone Management
Act (CZMA). Some of this work supports section 6217 of the
Coastal Zone Reauthorization Amendments Act for controlling
coastal non-point pollution. The CZM Program is a voluntary
partnership between the federal government and coastal states,
Great Lakes states, and territories to address coastal issues.
This is a $30 million increase over the FY 2021 enacted level.
LNational Centers for Coastal Ocean Science
(NCCOS) Competitive Research Funding Support for Ecological
Threats ($22 million). The NCCOS competitive research program
provides grants to academic institutions to conduct ecological
research that advances NOAA's missions--including for algal
blooms.
LNational Sea Grant Program ($130 M). This program
funds a network of 34 Sea Grant programs located in coastal
states and territories, as well as more than 3,000 scientists,
researchers, students, and outreach experts from more than 300
institutions. This funding number includes the total of funds
from the National Sea Grant College Program and Marine
Aquaculture program.
The President's FY 2022 budget proposes to increase funding
for Coral Reef Restoration and Threat Abatement Initiatives by
$10 million to $43 million. This program funds efforts to
protect and restore coral reefs, diagnose and treat coral
reefs, and partners with USGS in support of research and
epidemiology of coral disease.
GREAT LAKES ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (GLS)
Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \11\
(in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diff. of FY 2022
FY 2022 Pres. Budget and FY
Program FY 2021 FY 2022 Authorized President's 2021 Enacted
Enacted Budget --------------------
$ %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................. $38.0 No Authorization......... $37.7 -$0.3 -0.8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The\\ St. Lawrence Seaway is a 328 nautical-mile deep-draft
waterway between the Port of Montreal and Lake Erie. It
connects the Great Lakes with the Atlantic Ocean via the lower
St. Lawrence River. The Seaway includes a network of 15 locks
and connecting channels located in Canada and the United
States. Thirteen of the locks belong to Canada and the
remaining two locks, located in Massena, New York, belong to
the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2021-05/
GLS-FY-2022-President-Budget-Request.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. portion of the Seaway was authorized in 1954, and
is operated by the GLS, an agency within the DOT. The Canadian
portion of the Seaway is operated by the Great Lakes St.
Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, a private corporation
established in the 1990s and owned by the nine largest Canadian
users of the Seaway.
The President's budget request for the GLS from the HMTF is
$37.7 million. This would fund the daily operations and
maintenance of the U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway
($23.2 million) and Seaway infrastructure investment ($14.5
million).
Operational, maintenance, and capital asset renewal needs
for the U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway are derived
from appropriations from the HMTF and revenues from other
sources.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA)
SUMMARY OF FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See https://www.tva.com/docs/default-source/1-float/
_tva_annual_performance_
report__final_05.21.21853293c8-12c6-43e3-96e6-
5058b2d21607.pdf?sfvrsn=fb9f903_3; see also https://www.whitehouse.gov/
wp-content/uploads/2021/05/oia_fy22.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TVA is the nation's largest government-owned wholesale
power producer established by the Tennessee Valley Authority
Act (16 U.S.C. 831) in 1933. TVA supplies power to nearly ten
million people over an 80,000 square mile service area covering
Tennessee, and parts of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North
Carolina, Virginia, and Kentucky. In addition, TVA's non-power
program responsibilities include the multi-purpose management
of land and water resources throughout the Tennessee Valley.
Initially, federal appropriations funded all TVA
operations. Direct federal funding for the TVA power program
ended in 1959, and appropriations for TVA's environmental
stewardship and economic development activities were phased out
by 1999. TVA currently receives no federal appropriations but
operates and maintains its assets through commercial and
residential rates, and the authority to issue federally secured
bonds.
UNITED STATES SECTOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION
(IBWC)
Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \13\
(in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diff. of FY 2022
FY 2022 Pres. Budget and FY
Appropriations Account FY 2021 President's 2021
Enacted Budget --------------------
$ %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Expenses............................................. $49.8 $52.0 2.2 4.4%
Construction...................................................... $49.0 $46.8 -2.2 -4.4%
---------------------------------------------
Total........................................................... $98.8 $98.8 0.0 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First\\ established in 1889, the IBWC has responsibility
for implementing the boundary and water treaties between the
United States and Mexico and settling issues that may arise
along the 1,952-mile common border. The IBWC is an
international body, composed of a United States sector and
Mexico sector, each headed by an Engineer-Commissioner
appointed by the respective President. The United States sector
of the IBWC receives its policy guidance from the U.S.
Department of State and the Mexico sector of the IBWC receives
its policy guidance from Mexico's Secretariat of Foreign
Relations. The U.S. IBWC is headquartered in El Paso, Texas,
and the Mexico IBWC has its headquarters in Ciudad Juarez,
Chihuahua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/FY-2022-
State_USAID-Congressional-Budget-Justification.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President's budget request for U.S. IBWC Salaries and
Expenses is $51.97 million, which is an increase of $2.2
million over the FY 2021 enacted amount. The budget request for
U.S. IBWC construction activities is $46.8 million, which is a
decrease of $2.2 million from FY 2021 levels.
AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY (ATSDR)
Summary of FY 2022 Budget Request \14\
(in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diff. of FY 2022
FY 2022 Pres. Budget and FY
Appropriations Account FY 2021 President's 2021
Enacted Budget --------------------
$ %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................................. $78.0 $81.8 $3.6 4.8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The\\ ATSDR is the nation's public health agency for
chemical safety. The agency's mission is to use the best
science, take responsive action, and provide trustworthy health
information to prevent and mitigate harmful exposures and
related disease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ https://www.cdc.gov/budget/documents/fy2022/FY-2022-CDC-
congressional-justification.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATSDR was created by the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980
(P.L. 96-510), more commonly known as the Superfund law, and
was formally organized in 1985.
Under its CERCLA mandate, the agency's work falls into four
functional areas: (1) protecting the public from hazardous
exposures; (2) increasing knowledge about toxic substances; (3)
educating health care providers and the public about toxic
chemicals; and (4) maintaining health registries. In recent
years, ATSDR has focused on pathways of potential exposure to
toxic chemicals, including food, water, air, and consumer
goods.
The administration's FY 2022 budget request for ATSDR is
$81.75 million, which is $3.75 million more than the FY 2021
appropriations for the agency.
WITNESSES (Part II)
LThe Honorable Radhika Fox, Assistant
Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
LMs. Nicole R. LeBoeuf, Acting Assistant
Administrator, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
LMr. Terry Cosby, Chief, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, United Stated Department of Agriculture
LDr. Patrick Breysse, Director, Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry
LMr. Craig H. Middlebrook, Deputy Administrator,
Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Mrs. Napolitano. Good morning, everybody. I call this
hearing to order. All my witnesses are here. I am glad to see
you all. Thank you very much.
This hearing will focus on President Biden's fiscal year
2022 budget request and his administration's priorities for the
upcoming year, especially the drought.
This hearing is the second of two hearings on these topics
in order to hear from multiple agencies in this subcommittee's
jurisdiction.
Let me begin by asking unanimous consent that the chair be
authorized to declare a recess at any time during today's
hearing.
And, without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions.
Without objection, so ordered.
It is the responsibility of each Member seeking recognition
to unmute their microphone prior to speaking and to mute it
when finished. To avoid any inadvertent background noise, I
request that every Member keep their microphone muted when not
seeking recognition to speak. Should I hear any inadvertent
noise in the background, I will request that the Member please
mute their microphone.
And, finally, to insert a document into the record, please
have your staff email it to [email protected].
Today we will hold our second hearing on the President's
fiscal year 2022 budget request and the policy goals and
objectives of the Biden administration.
Let me begin by commending the Biden administration for
restoring critical funding and respect to the agencies under
the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, particularly EPA,
Environmental Protection Agency, and NOAA, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
Each of the agencies here today play a critical role in
management and stewardship of our water resources. Whether
through regulatory efforts, conservation programs, or treatment
and research of water contaminants and impacts on human health,
your work is more important than ever as we face increasing
threats from climate change, extreme drought, and emerging
pollutants.
This budget will help leverage additional funding from the
State, local, and nonprofit partners as well as make Federal
knowledge and expertise more accessible to communities. Many of
the programs provided by your agencies assist State and our
local governments by providing technical assistance and expert-
level knowledge for conserving land, managing water systems,
mapping sea level rise, and creating easy-to-use public
websites to widely share your data. It is important that these
agencies work together and communicate their work effectively.
I am very pleased to see that President Biden has proposed
to reverse the destructive funding cuts and undo the damaging
regulatory rollbacks of the previous administration. Robust
funding for these agencies and their programs is important to
the delivery of clean water, to understanding the potential
health impacts of emerging contaminants, the conservation and
the preservation of wetlands and aquatic ecosystems, and the
movement of goods and economic competitiveness of our regions.
Additionally, across the country, our communities and
environment are under unprecedented strain as we deal with the
effects of climate change. Much of the West is facing extreme
heat and drought. These are dangerous conditions for humans and
our whole planet. I am extremely interested in hearing from
these witnesses how we can better manage our resources today
and understand and prepare for future needs and challenges. We
must take swift action to mitigate ongoing and future harm to
all of our environment.
Most critically, I fervently hope the administration moves
quickly to replace the Trump ``dirty water rule,'' which was
the greatest undermining of the Clean Water Act in its history,
and I urge its complete and immediate repeal. The longer this
harmful regulation stays on the books, the more we will forever
degrade and destroy our rivers and wetlands.
I am also very pleased that the Biden administration is
already taking action to make environmental justice a core part
of every Federal agency's mission. For too long, minority and
economically disadvantaged communities, the poor communities,
have borne a disproportionate share of the burden of
industrialization and pollution and have also been overlooked
for necessary public health and environmental investment--a
situation even made worse by the impacts of climate change.
Addressing this disparity will improve public health, spur
economic development in these communities, and create a more
equitable society.
Today, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on your
budget priorities and learning how you are planning to restore
your offices to their sworn duties and mission areas that were
so neglected over the past 4 years.
[Mrs. Napolitano's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, and Chair, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment
Today, we will hold our second hearing on the president's fiscal
year 2022 budget request and other policy goals and objectives of the
Biden administration.
Let me start by commending the Biden administration for restoring
critical funding and respect for the agencies under the jurisdiction of
this Subcommittee, particularly the Environmental Protection Agency and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Each of the agencies here today play a critical role in the
management and stewardship of our water resources. Whether through
regulatory efforts, conservation programs, or the treatment and
research of water contaminants and impacts on human health, your work
is more important than ever as we face increasing threats from climate
change, extreme drought, and emerging pollutants.
This budget will help leverage additional funding from state,
local, and non-profit partners, as well as make federal knowledge and
expertise more accessible to communities.
Many of the programs provided by these agencies assist state and
local governments by providing technical assistance and expert level
knowledge for conserving land, managing water systems, mapping sea-
level rise, and creating easy to use public websites to widely share
data. It is important that these agencies work together and communicate
their work effectively.
I am pleased to see that President Biden has proposed to reverse
the destructive funding cuts and undo the damaging regulatory rollbacks
of the previous administration.
Robust funding for these agencies and their programs is important
to the delivery of clean water, understanding the potential health
impacts of emerging contaminants, the conservation and preservation of
wetlands and aquatic ecosystems, and the movement of goods and economic
competitiveness of regions.
Additionally, across the country, our communities and environment
are under unprecedented strain as we deal with the effects of climate
change. Much of the west is facing extreme heat and drought. These are
dangerous conditions for humans and our planet. I am interested in
hearing from these witnesses on how we can better manage our resources
today and understand and prepare for future needs and challenges.
We must take swift action to mitigate ongoing and future harm to
our environment. Most critically, I hope the Administration moves
quickly to replace the Trump Dirty Water Rule--which was the greatest
undermining of the Clean Water Act in its history--and I urge its
complete and immediate repeal. The longer this harmful regulation stays
on the books, the more we will forever degrade and destroy our rivers
and wetlands.
I am also pleased that the Biden administration has already taken
action to make environmental justice a core part of every federal
agency's mission. For too long, minority and economically-disadvantaged
communities have borne a disproportionate share of the burden of
industrialization and pollution, and have been overlooked for necessary
public health and environmental investment--a situation made even worse
by the impacts of climate change. Addressing this disparity will
improve public health, spur economic development in these communities,
and create a more equitable society.
Today, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on your budget
priorities and learning how you are planning to restore your offices to
their sworn duties and mission areas that were so neglected over the
past four years.
Mrs. Napolitano. I ask unanimous consent to include in the
record the statement of Chairman DeFazio.
And, without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding today's hearing.
Today's hearing is another important opportunity to examine
President Biden's budget request and administration priorities. I am
pleased to be discussing a budget that finally demonstrates a federal
commitment to protecting our nation's waters and environment, investing
in science and research, and maintaining our water infrastructure. It
is a budget that recognizes the critical role that the federal
government plays in sustaining our economy, our environment, and our
quality of life.
First and foremost, I am glad to see across-the-board increases to
programs under the Environmental Protection Agency--a total increase of
21.2 percent over the previous enacted levels. The last administration
acted with particular malice towards our environment, consistently
under-funding critical EPA programs and personnel and working to
dismantle or weaken over 100 environmental laws. It is time to finally
reverse that pattern.
Increased funding to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program,
which the House recently reauthorized through the INVEST in America
Act, will allow municipalities to upgrade and maintain their wastewater
infrastructure. In fact, I would argue that wastewater investment needs
are still greater than the amount included in this request.
The EPA also receives increased funds for both regulatory and non-
regulatory programs, which work to protect our natural resources and
improve our water quality across the nation. The EPA has a lot of work
to do to restore its core mission areas, and these dollars will be
necessary for that pursuit.
One of the largest single-program increases is to the Superfund and
Brownfields program; I hope to hear from the EPA's Office of Land and
Emergency Management later this year on how the additional funds will
be spent and directed towards addressing environmental injustices.
Other agencies before us today are also well-supported in this
budget. In many cases, these programs have significant community-level
impacts, such as watershed restoration, flood prevention, coastal
protection, and measures to increase community resiliency to climate
change. Additionally, investment in critical research and innovation
programs will help prepare us for climate change impacts and inform
decisions on water contaminants and their prevention. Properly funding
these programs will restore and protect our waterways, will allow our
local and national economies to thrive, and will help us to meet the
complex challenges of the 21st century.
Aside from the specifics of the budget request, I hope to hear from
the agency officials before us today about their priorities and policy
objectives for the new administration.
The Trump administration spent four years trying to make the
critical missions of the federal government significantly harder or
impossible to execute.
This included attacks on bedrock water protections to benefit
corporations, dismantling climate policies, and weakening other
environmental laws to the point of obsolescence. Fortunately, the Biden
administration immediately paused several such rulemakings, but there
is still work to be done to reverse the worst of them and ensure they
are not allowed to devastate our natural resources and communities.
One of the most important, at least for this committee, will be the
rewrite of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, known as the Trump
Dirty Water Rule. This rule has removed Clean Water Act protections
from up to 71 percent of streams, and more than 50 percent of wetlands.
That is simply unconscionable.
I was pleased to hear the announcement that the Biden
administration will overturn the Dirty Water Rule; however, I believe
this rule must be immediately repealed and then replaced.
EPA Administrator Regan stated that the Trump Dirty Water Rule ``is
leading to significant environmental degradation,'' and I agree.
Every day that the Dirty Water Rule remains in place, countless
waters and wetlands are polluted, degraded, or destroyed, and American
families will pay the cost of this destruction through more polluted
waters, less protected drinking water sources, greater flood risk, and
a degraded environment.
This is too high a cost to pay for inaction and I will continue to
push the president and the administrator for the immediate repeal of
the Dirty Water Rule.
I am also deeply concerned with coal-fired power plant regulation
reversals of the last administration, namely the rollback of pollution
discharge requirements and the storage of coal-combustion waste. There
is no such thing as ``clean coal;'' these power plants produce waste
that includes arsenic, lithium, mercury, and selenium. We know each one
is detrimental to the health of our waterways and should be prevented
from entering it either directly or through seeping coal ash ponds into
our groundwater.
Madam Chair, one other issue that was uniquely missing from the
last administration was ensuring agency actions were developed with
significant community engagement. This means meaningful involvement and
consultation with tribes, rural communities, economically-disadvantaged
communities, and minority communities.
Addressing environmental justice considerations and community
engagement needs to become the norm again as we address how our
environmental laws are developed and applied, and how our federal
agencies communicate and discuss potential impacts of federal actions
on local communities.
As we look forward to real federal investment and implementation of
the policy goals of the Biden administration, I hope to see continued
support for the protection of our communities and our environment. We
must be determined in restoring and renewing our federal commitments to
our vital natural resources, the health of our communities, and
protection of our waters.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. At this time, I am pleased to yield to my
colleague, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Rouzer,
for any thoughts he may have. Mr. Rouzer, you are recognized.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you so much, Chair Napolitano. I
appreciate your holding this hearing.
And I would also like to thank our witnesses for being here
today.
As noted, today's hearing will focus on the President's
fiscal year 2022 budget proposal for the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry at the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, as well as the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
I would first like to focus my comments on actions
involving the EPA. I am appreciative--I am, in fact, very
appreciative that we have high-level representation from the
Agency's political leadership here at our hearing. Thank you
for joining us today, Ms. Fox, and congratulations again on
your recent Senate confirmation. And I want to share that I
certainly very much enjoyed our recent visit.
I am, however, growing increasingly concerned that this
administration is reversing reasonable policies put in place by
the previous administration. Now, I certainly understand that
different administrations will have different policy priorities
and approaches. That is to be expected. However, it seems as
though some of these actions have very little merit,
considering most stakeholders have been very happy with the
commonsense policy clarifications that were made under the
Trump administration.
A few examples include the reversal of the Clean Water Act
section 401 certification rule and the unprecedented--I might
add--mass firing of all members of two advisory panels. I am
not going to go into all the details of that, but I did make
note of it.
And then, of course, there is the announced effort underway
to rewrite the Trump administration's rule defining ``waters of
the United States,'' or WOTUS, as we call it around here, for
purposes of the Clean Water Act.
Three weeks ago, this subcommittee hosted Jaime Pinkham,
Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. And I
will say again today what I said about WOTUS when he was here,
as I certainly think that it bears repeating. While not a
surprise to hear that the Biden administration is proposing to
take this action on WOTUS, it is no less a disappointment.
The system we have in place now, in our opinion, works very
well. It is fair to our Nation's farmers, ranchers, businesses
of all types, city planners, et cetera. A return to anything
close to the 2015 WOTUS rule would be a failure, and the
regulatory burden placed on average Americans and the effect on
the economy would be highly detrimental.
As I said when this rewrite was announced, no bureaucrat in
Washington should be able to dictate what our farm families,
small businesses, local governments, and citizens do on their
property after a significant rainfall. So, outreach to solicit,
truly listen to, and meaningfully address stakeholder concerns
is obviously going to be of paramount importance.
And so, while I certainly appreciated Mr. Pinkham's
appearance here, I still have a few questions. After that
hearing, in fact, I wrote a letter to him and to you, Ms. Fox,
pointing out the concerns many Members of Congress still have
on this particular issue. I was joined by 125 of my colleagues
here in the House on that letter.
Now, I know you believe stakeholder outreach is important,
and I think we would all like to hear whatever specifics you
may be able to provide regarding that timeline and other
details as to how stakeholder engagement will be achieved.
On another topic, I would like to highlight an issue very
important to me as well as many others in my home State of
North Carolina and other States too, which is PFAS. We need a
rational, scientifically informed approach to address this
issue. And under the chemical safety laws passed by Congress,
this responsibility rests with the EPA.
I understand that EPA is actively moving forward with
developing important scientific information as part of
implementing a PFAS action plan. Implementing this plan and
establishing a safe consumption standard is a difficult, time-
consuming, and expensive process. I look forward to getting a
progress report on these activities and hearing how this is
coming along under the guidelines of EPA's scientists and
chemical safety experts.
In addition to the EPA, we also have folks here from four
other important agencies, as I mentioned before. Between them,
these agencies have a diverse set of missions, including
maintaining one of North America's most important waterways,
helping farmers and ranchers with their conservation needs,
protecting our country's coastal zones, and completing the
nexus between public health and chemical safety. I look forward
to hearing how they complete their objectives and what
challenges they face in carrying out those respective duties.
Again, thank you to our witnesses.
[Mr. Rouzer's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. David Rouzer, a Representative in Congress
from the State of North Carolina, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment
Thank you, Chair Napolitano. I appreciate your holding this
hearing, and I would also like to thank our witnesses for being here
today. As noted, today's hearing will focus on the President's Fiscal
Year 2022 budget proposal for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
(GLS), the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) at the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA).
I would like to first discuss actions involving the EPA. I am
appreciative that we have high-level representation from the Agency's
political leadership at our hearing. Thank you for joining us today,
Ms. Fox, and congratulations again on your recent Senate confirmation.
I enjoyed our visit yesterday.
I am however growing increasingly concerned that this
administration is reversing reasonable policies put in place by the
previous administration.
Now, I certainly understand that different administrations will
have different policy priorities and approaches. However, it seems as
though some of these actions have very little merit considering most
stakeholders have been very happy with the commonsense policy
clarifications that were made under the Trump Administration.
A few examples include the reversal of the Clean Water Act Section
401 Certification Rule and the unprecedented mass firing of all members
of two advisory panels.
And then, of course, there is the announced effort underway to
rewrite the Trump Administration's rule defining ``Waters of the United
States'' (or ``WOTUS'') for purposes of the Clean Water Act.
Three weeks ago, this subcommittee hosted Jaime Pinkham, Acting
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, and I'll say again
today what I said about WOTUS when he was here, as I certainly think it
bears repeating.
While not a surprise to hear that the Biden Administration is
proposing to take this action on WOTUS, it is no less a disappointment.
The system we have in place now works. It is fair to our nation's
farmers, ranchers, construction businesses, city planners, and everyone
else. A return to anything close to the 2015 WOTUS rule would be a
failure, and the regulatory burden placed on average Americans and the
effect on the economy would be highly detrimental.
As I said when this re-write was announced, no bureaucrat in
Washington should be able to dictate what our farm families, small
businesses, local governments, and citizens do on their property after
a significant rainfall. So, outreach to solicit, truly listen to, and
meaningfully address stakeholder concerns is going to be of paramount
importance.
While I certainly appreciated Mr. Pinkham's appearance here, I
still have questions. This is why shortly after that hearing I led a
letter to him and to you, Ms. Fox, pointing out the concerns many
members of Congress still have on this issue [https://republicans-
transportation.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=479416-
71706684]. I was joined by 125 of my colleagues here in the House on
that letter.
I know you believe stakeholder outreach is important, and I think
we would all like to hear whatever specifics you may be able to provide
regarding that timeline and other details as to how stakeholder
engagement will be achieved.
On another topic, I would like to highlight an issue very important
to me as well as many others in my home state of North Carolina and
other states too, which is PFAS. We need a rational, scientifically
informed approach to address this, and under the chemical safety laws
passed by Congress, this responsibility rests with EPA. I understand
that EPA is actively moving forward with developing important
scientific information as part of implementing a ``PFAS Action Plan.''
Implementing this plan and establishing a safe consumption standard is
a difficult, time consuming, and expensive process. I look forward to
getting a progress report on these activities and hearing how this is
coming along under EPA scientists and chemical safety experts.
In addition to the EPA, we also have folks here from four other
important agencies, as I mentioned before. Between them, these agencies
have a diverse set of missions, including maintaining one of North
America's most important waterways, helping farmers and ranchers with
their conservation needs, protecting our country's coastal zones, and
completing the nexus between public health and chemical safety. I look
forward to hearing how they complete their objectives and what
challenges they face in carrying out their respective duties.
Mr. Rouzer. And, Madam Chair, I would like to ask unanimous
consent to include for the record a copy of the letter that I
and 126 other Members sent to Michael Regan and Mr. Jaime
Pinkham with regard to the WOTUS rule.
Mrs. Napolitano. So ordered.
[The information follows:]
Letter of June 25, 2021, to Hon. Michael Regan, Administrator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and Jaime Pinkham, Acting Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. David Rouzer
June 25, 2021.
The Honorable Michael Regan,
Administrator,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Mr. Jaime Pinkham,
Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works,
108 Army Pentagon, Room 3E446, Washington, DC 20310-0108.
Dear Administrator Regan and Acting Assistant Secretary Pinkham:
We are writing to you in response to the June 9, 2021 announcement
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (collectively, the ``Agencies'') regarding the Agencies'
intent to revise the definition of the ``waters of the United States''
(WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act.\1\ This could negatively impact the
Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which the Trump Administration issued
to provide long-awaited clarity on the extent of waters covered by the
Clean Water Act for farmers, homeowners, private property owners,
manufacturers, small businesses, water districts, and local governments
while maintaining the United States' world-renowned standards of
environmental protection.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Press Release, EPA, Army Announce Intent to Revise Definition
of WOTUS, June 9, 2021, available at https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/
epa-army-announce-intent-revise-definition-wotus; see, e.g., 33 CFR
Sec. 328.3; 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq.
\2\ The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of ``Waters of
the United States,'' Final Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. 22250 (Apr. 21, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are concerned that the approach the Agencies intend to take in
revising this important regulation will regress from the clarity
provided by the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, and will reimpose a
vastly overbroad interpretation of Federal jurisdiction over waters
around the Nation. We are also concerned that, rather than soliciting
and genuinely listening to input from the general public, small
businesses, regulated community, and Federal and state resource
agencies regarding the appropriate scope of Clean Water Act
jurisdiction and the range of issues to be covered by those
regulations, the Agencies intend to proceed with a rulemaking that will
once again confuse regulated parties and lead to the same
misinterpretations of legal standards as the Obama Administration's
WOTUS rule.\3\ We are gravely concerned that the Agencies will let the
flawed Obama WOTUS rule dictate the scope and content of any new rule
the Agencies might now promulgate. The Agencies must not let
institutional capture predetermine the outcome of a rulemaking, which
we fear is going to happen here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Clean Water Rule: Definition of ``Waters of the United
States,'' Final Rule, 80 FR 37054 (June 29, 2015) (Obama Administration
WOTUS rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public input from those stakeholders who will be most affected by a
new regulation is crucial to any transparent rulemaking process. It is
essential that, before the Agencies begin drafting any new rule, they
first issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit
input from the general public, regulated community, and resource
agencies on the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction and the range of
issues to be covered by the regulations, to support any revisions to
the definition of ``waters of the United States.'' \4\ If the Agencies
decide to move forward with a rulemaking after the ANPRM, we expect
they will undertake a robust economic analysis, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for whatever proposed rule might be developed. This
economic analysis must include an accurate quantification and
monetization of the consequences anticipated from the proposed rule.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553.
\5\ See OMB Circular A-4, Executive Order 12866, and Executive
Order 13563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the Agencies
to assess the impact of this proposed regulation on ``small entities,''
which are defined as including small businesses, small governmental
jurisdictions, and certain small not-for-profit organizations.\6\
Because of the scope of this rule and the way in which ``waters of the
U.S.'' has previously been expanded, we expect to see a thorough
regulatory flexibility analysis of the economic impact on small
entities. Finally, because of the EPA's role in this rulemaking, we
expect that the Agencies will convene an ``advocacy review panel''
pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act's
requirement to hear from representatives of small entities affected by
the proposed rule.\7\ We are hopeful that the Agencies will not again
fail to calculate the significant impact of this rule like they did in
2014, leading to a failure to hold a small business advocacy review
panel in the future.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 601-612.
\7\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. 609(b).
\8\ SBA Office of Advocacy letter to Administrator McCarthy (Oct.
1, 2014), available at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/
Final_WOTUS%20Comment%20Letter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Obama Administration's overreaching WOTUS rule had a disastrous
effect on farmers, businesses, and families.\9\ That rule drew
substantial opposition from states, local governments, and citizens
across the Nation challenging the overbreadth of the definitions
included.\10\ The regulatory burden placed on average Americans and the
effect on the economy would be detrimental if the Agencies were to
remove the definitions included in the Navigable Waters Protection
Rule, especially as we look to restart the economy after the COVID-19
pandemic. If we want to help get Americans back to work, the
Administration cannot continue to propose partisan executive and
legislative actions which will only slow down or reverse the economic
recovery. Instead, we must have reasonable regulation to enable
Americans to thrive and to grow our Nation's economy, including in
rural and other underserved parts of the country. To do this, the
Agencies must keep in mind the multitude of concerns and issues
previously raised about the Obama Administration's WOTUS rule and
maintain the updated definitions of the Navigable Waters Protection
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ American Farm Bureau Federation ``Clean Water Act, WOTUS,''
available at https://www.fb.org/issues/regulatory-reform/clean-water-
act/.
\10\ Snider, Annie, ``9 more states sue Obama admin over hot-button
rule,'' Greenwire, June 30, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation of the Nation's waters must be done in a manner that
responsibly protects the environment without unnecessary and costly
expansion of the Federal government in order to prevent unreasonable
and burdensome regulations and to protect small businesses, farmers,
and families. Consequently, it is critical that the Agencies take the
proper steps to ensure that any new regulations provide an appropriate
and clear definition of ``waters of the United States,'' and be
consistent with the Clean Water Act and the governing U.S. Supreme
Court decisions in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and Rapanos v. United States concerning the
extent of waters covered by the Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001); Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S.
715 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will be closely monitoring the process as a new rulemaking is
initiated. We are aware this is a significant rulemaking and we
strongly urge the Agencies to maintain the positive changes that were
put into place under the Trump Administration's Navigable Waters
Protection Rule. This Administration must cast aside ideological biases
and carefully consider how this regulatory action will impact those who
must live and work under this rule. With all the other crises
confronting our nation, it makes little sense to unravel a final rule
that has taken decades of Agency action, litigation, and legislation to
settle. Instead, we encourage the Administration to focus its attention
and resources on the more pressing economic and international issues
confronting our nation such as inflation, the border crisis, the safety
of our communities, reopening schools, and protecting America from our
adversaries who seek to do us harm.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Sam Graves,
Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
David Rouzer,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
GT Thompson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Agriculture.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Bruce Westerman,
Ranking Member, Committee on Natural Resources.
Blaine Luetkemeyer,
Ranking Member, Committee on Small Business.
Kevin McCarthy,
Republican Leader.
Steve Scalise,
Republican Whip.
Elise Stefanik,
Republican Conference Chair.
Tom McClintock,
Member of Congress.
Louie Gohmert,
Member of Congress.
Doug Lamborn,
Member of Congress.
Dan Newhouse,
Member of Congress.
Kat Cammack,
Member of Congress.
Clay Higgins,
Member of Congress.
Mike Rogers,
Member of Congress.
Tim Burchett,
Member of Congress.
August Pfluger,
Member of Congress.
Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
Member of Congress.
Scott Perry,
Member of Congress.
Bob Gibbs,
Member of Congress.
Dusty Johnson,
Member of Congress.
Steve Chabot,
Member of Congress.
Pete Stauber,
Member of Congress.
Mike Bost,
Member of Congress.
Tom Rice,
Member of Congress.
Beth Van Duyne,
Member of Congress.
Ann Wagner,
Member of Congress.
Michael C. Burgess, M.D.,
Member of Congress.
Jay Obernolte,
Member of Congress.
Michelle Steel,
Member of Congress.
Paul Gosar,
Member of Congress.
Ben Cline,
Member of Congress.
Rick Allen,
Member of Congress.
Russ Fulcher,
Member of Congress.
Troy Nehls,
Member of Congress.
Chris Stewart,
Member of Congress.
Ashley Hinson,
Member of Congress.
Greg Pence,
Member of Congress.
Doug LaMalfa,
Member of Congress.
Barry Loudermilk,
Member of Congress.
Don Young,
Member of Congress.
Jackie Walorski,
Member of Congress.
Rob Wittman,
Member of Congress.
Ted Budd,
Member of Congress.
James R. Baird,
Member of Congress.
Michael T. McCaul,
Member of Congress.
Austin Scott,
Member of Congress.
Liz Cheney,
Member of Congress.
Jake LaTurner,
Member of Congress.
John Joyce,
Member of Congress.
Rodney Davis,
Member of Congress.
Jodey C. Arrington,
Member of Congress.
Tom Emmer,
Member of Congress.
Scott Franklin,
Member of Congress.
David Kustoff,
Member of Congress.
Kevin Hern,
Member of Congress.
Chris Jacobs,
Member of Congress.
Diana Harshbarger,
Member of Congress.
Kevin Brady,
Member of Congress.
Richard Hudson,
Member of Congress.
Ken Calvert,
Member of Congress.
Robert Latta,
Member of Congress.
Daniel Webster,
Member of Congress.
Pete Sessions,
Member of Congress.
Tom Cole,
Member of Congress.
Troy Balderson,
Member of Congress.
Jeff Duncan,
Member of Congress.
Mo Brooks,
Member of Congress.
Buddy Carter,
Member of Congress.
Lauren Boebert,
Member of Congress.
Matthew Rosendale,
Member of Congress.
Michael Cloud,
Member of Congress.
Tracey Mann,
Member of Congress.
Mike Kelly,
Member of Congress.
Jerry Carl,
Member of Congress.
Guy Reschenthaler,
Member of Congress.
James Comer,
Member of Congress.
Tom Tiffany,
Member of Congress.
Julia Letlow,
Member of Congress.
Mariannette Miller-Meeks,
Member of Congress.
Vicky Hartzler,
Member of Congress.
Michelle Fischbach,
Member of Congress.
Brian Babin,
Member of Congress.
Cliff Bentz,
Member of Congress.
Blake Moore,
Member of Congress.
James Comer,
Member of Congress.
Glenn Grothman,
Member of Congress.
Darin LaHood,
Member of Congress.
Robert Aderholt,
Member of Congress.
Bill Johnson,
Member of Congress.
Marjorie Taylor Greene,
Member of Congress.
Mark Amodei,
Member of Congress.
Michael Guest,
Member of Congress.
Jim Hagedorn,
Member of Congress.
Randy Feenstra,
Member of Congress.
Gus Bilirakis,
Member of Congress.
Randy Weber,
Member of Congress.
Barry Moore,
Member of Congress.
Debbie Lesko,
Member of Congress.
Jack Bergman,
Member of Congress.
Adam Kinzinger,
Member of Congress.
Frank Lucas,
Member of Congress.
Garret Graves,
Member of Congress.
Darrell Issa,
Member of Congress.
William Timmons,
Member of Congress.
Burgess Owens,
Member of Congress.
David G. Valadao,
Member of Congress.
Adrian Smith,
Member of Congress.
Stephanie Bice,
Member of Congress.
Mike Gallagher,
Member of Congress.
David McKinley,
Member of Congress.
Tim Walberg,
Member of Congress.
Claudia Tenney,
Member of Congress.
Thomas Massie,
Member of Congress.
Mark Green,
Member of Congress.
Bill Posey,
Member of Congress.
Steve Womack,
Member of Congress.
Lisa McClain,
Member of Congress.
Young Kim,
Member of Congress.
Dan Bishop,
Member of Congress.
Jim Banks,
Member of Congress.
Jason Smith,
Member of Congress.
Chuck Fleischmann,
Member of Congress.
Andrew Garbarino,
Member of Congress.
Ralph Norman,
Member of Congress.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Rouzer.
And while I agree on some of the points you make, I think
that the ``dirty water rule'' also affects people, and that is
my biggest concern. So thank you for your opening statement.
And now we will proceed to hear from our witnesses who will
testify here today. Thank you all for being here and welcome.
On today's panel, we have Assistant Administrator Radhika
Fox, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, who
just was named officially Assistant Administrator.
Congratulations, Ms. Radhika Fox.
We also have Acting Assistant Administrator Nicole LeBoeuf
of the National Ocean Service at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
Also, Mr. Terry Cosby, Chief of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
Next, we have Dr. Patrick Breysse, Director of the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
Then our final witness--but not the least--Deputy
Administrator Craig Middlebrook of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence
Seaway Development Corporation.
Without objection, your prepared statements will be entered
into the record, and all witnesses are asked to limit their
remarks to 5 minutes.
Ms. Fox, congratulations again. Welcome, and you may
proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. RADHIKA FOX, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE
OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; NICOLE R.
LeBOEUF, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEAN
SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION; TERRY
J. COSBY, CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; PATRICK N. BREYSSE, Ph.D., CIH,
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND AGENCY
FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY, CENTERS FOR DISEASE
CONTROL AND PREVENTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES; AND CRAIG H. MIDDLEBROOK, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, GREAT
LAKES ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Fox. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking
Member Rouzer, and members of the Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment.
I am Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator for Water at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and I am so grateful for
the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss EPA's
$5.2 billion budget request for our national water program.
This fiscal year 2022 budget request supports key areas of
investment that will provide safe drinking water and reliable
wastewater service to support the environment, protect public
health, and power our great U.S. economy. The budget request
would give EPA the tools that we need to revitalize our
Nation's water infrastructure and to support States, Tribes,
and local partners to achieve our shared goals.
I often say as I'm walking the halls of EPA, this is
water's moment, and that is because I truly believe that smart
and equitable investment in water is central to addressing the
key challenges facing our Nation: COVID-19, the need for
economic recovery, climate change, and the call for racial
justice.
And that is why the Biden-Harris administration is moving
quickly in our investments in water infrastructure. For
example, in the first 100 days of the administration, EPA
closed more than $1.3 billion in WIFIA loans in multiple
communities. These investments will generate nearly 9,000 jobs
and improve water quality for 4 million Americans.
Additionally, EPA announced the availability of $2.7
billion for our well-worn, well-run State revolving funds. And
what is so exciting is that the President's budget request
would really build on these successes, build on this track
record. The budget includes $80 million for the WIFIA program,
$3.3 billion for the SRFs, and $600 million in grants that
would address the pressing water needs in the diverse
communities across America.
With these resources, I believe that EPA could make
tremendous progress in our mission to protect public health,
the environment, reduce exposure to harmful contaminants like
lead and PFAS, while also creating jobs and setting the stage
for long-term economic development.
And the potential benefits to communities could be even
greater with the proposed bipartisan infrastructure framework,
which proposes a historic $55 billion to enhance EPA's existing
and successful water infrastructure programs. For example, this
funding could put plumbers and pipefitters to work, replacing
100 percent of the Nation's lead service lines so that every
American can have safe drinking water.
I can assure you that the Office of Water will do our work
in a way that recognizes that it is low-income people, rural
communities, Tribal communities, and communities of color that
have been disproportionately impacted by water-related
challenges, whether that is contamination, flooding,
affordability, or climate stress. We believe we must do right
by these communities, and that is our focus.
In terms of tackling the climate crisis, President Biden is
taking a whole-of-Government approach, and EPA's Office of
Water is proud to be a part of it. We are working closely with
our water sector partners to ensure that infrastructure
investments keep climate and resilience at the forefront while
also undertaking mitigation efforts that reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
And we are doing all of our work in a way to ensure that
our regulatory efforts are practical, implementable, durable,
and informed by the lived experience of all stakeholders who
are impacted by the decisions that we make at the Office of
Water.
Under Administrator Regan's direction, this is an EPA that
is utilizing sound science, following the rule of law, and
undertaking rulemaking in close partnership with our State and
Tribal co-regulators and informed by robust stakeholder
engagement.
We are truly an EPA that is about partnership and
collaboration. For example, none of our shared goals would be
possible without strong collaboration between the executive and
the legislative branches, and that is why I am so honored to
join you today.
Once again, Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member Rouzer
and members of the subcommittee, thank you. Thank you very much
for the opportunity to join you today, and I very much look
forward to your questions and the discussion.
[Ms. Fox's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator, Office
of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Thank you, Chairman Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer, and members
of the Subcommittee.
I am Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Water. I am
grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
EPA's budget request for water programs for Fiscal Year 2022. The
National Water Program's FY 2022 President's Budget is $5.2 billion of
EPA's total $11.2 billion request. This budget request supports key
areas of investment that will help provide safe water for drinking,
reliable wastewater service, and power our great economy by giving EPA
the tools necessary to revitalize our nation's water infrastructure, to
work with states, Tribes, and local partners, and to ground equity and
climate into all of our work. Water is central to addressing the key
challenges facing our nation--from COVID-19 to economic recovery,
climate change, and equity.
The Biden-Harris Administration is moving quickly to support our
state and local partners and to invest in needed water infrastructure.
In the first 100 days of the Administration, EPA closed more than $1.3
billion in job-creating Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
(WIFIA) loans to multiple communities, which will support total project
investments of over $2.6 billion. These investments will generate
nearly 9,000 jobs and improve water quality for nearly 4 million
people. Additionally, in April of this year EPA announced the
availability of a further $6.5 billion in water infrastructure funding
under the WIFIA and state infrastructure financing authority WIFIA
(SWIFIA) program, which is estimated to create an additional 40,000
jobs. In March 2021, EPA announced the availability of $2.7 billion for
State Revolving Funds (SRFs) to assist states, Tribes, and territories
with infrastructure projects that help provide safe drinking water and
protect surface waters in communities across the United States. The FY
2022 President's Budget requests $3.3 billion for State Revolving Funds
(SRFs) to assists states, Tribes, and territories. The FY 2022
President's Budget requests $80 million for the WIFIA program to unlock
more affordable credit to communities and create jobs by rebuilding and
repairing our nation's water infrastructure. The FY 2022 President's
Budget also requests $600 million for drinking water and wastewater
grants including the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation
Act (WIIN Act) grant programs and the Innovative Water Infrastructure
Workforce Development grant program.
In collaboration with its state and local partners, EPA has
demonstrated that investing in water infrastructure provides multiple
benefits to communities. Through water infrastructure, we can improve
public health and environmental protection by reducing exposure to
harmful contaminants like lead and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS), while creating jobs and setting the stage for long-term
economic development. With strategic partnerships and community
leadership, water infrastructure can address key challenges facing
communities.
This experience underscores the community benefits that can be
created by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework, which represents
the largest water infrastructure investment in American history. The
proposed $55 billion would be used to enhance EPA's existing and
successful water infrastructure programs to meet significant water
infrastructure investment needs. For example, the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Framework would invest in needed water infrastructure
upgrades across the country to support our wastewater systems, reduce
pollution that affects the environment and public health, bolster
climate resiliency, and address contaminants such as PFAS. This funding
will also put plumbers and pipefitters to work, replacing 100 percent
of the nation's lead pipes and service lines so every American can turn
on a faucet or a fountain and drink clean water.
Under the Biden-Harris Administration and Administrator Regan's
leadership, the Agency is embedding equity into everything it does. We
must ground our actions in the understanding that low-income people,
Tribes, rural communities, and communities of color are
disproportionately impacted by water related challenges--from
contaminated water resources to flooding to climate stress. For the
first time in FY 2021, funding for our WIFIA program will prioritize
projects that benefit disadvantaged communities. This priority shows
EPA's commitment to public health, equity, and affordability for our
highly successful WIFIA program. Affordability is another challenge the
water sector must navigate, and EPA is currently assisting the
Department of Health and Human Services in the design of a $600 million
water rate assistance program for low-income communities.
Embedding equity into our investments and rulemaking is also
essential to our response to the climate crisis. Communities of color,
Tribes, rural communities, and low-income people disproportionately
feel climate stress in the form of drought, flooding, heat islands,
invasive species, and sea level rise. President Biden is committed to
making progress on climate through whole-of-government solutions. He
called for cutting greenhouse gases and highlighted how critical
infrastructure investments can create more resilient water systems,
generate jobs, and produce innovative clean technology. The Office of
Water will work with the water sector to ensure that infrastructure
investments keep climate and resiliency at the forefront, play a key
role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and mitigate the impact of
climate change on communities. This call to action is essential and
long overdue and will help protect our communities from the worst
threats of climate change including unprecedented super storms, floods,
and droughts. In 2020 alone, we saw how damaging climate disasters can
be with 22 separate weather events that cost $95 billion in damaged
homes, businesses, and infrastructure. Investments in water
infrastructure can help to reduce the impacts of severe climate
disasters and ensure our systems are resilient to the challenges these
events present. Making our infrastructure more robust is key to
securing better opportunities and outcomes for our nation.
We are also working to ensure that our regulatory efforts protect
the health of the American people. In order to achieve this goal, the
Agency will utilize sound science, follow the rule of law, and
undertake our regulatory rulemaking in a manner that is transparent,
grounded in partnership with our co-regulators in the states and
Tribes, and informed by robust stakeholder engagement. We intend to do
this with the goal of developing durable policies across the Office of
Water, including the Lead and Copper Rule, definition of Waters of the
United States, Clean Water Act section 401, and actions on PFAS.
Our ability to achieve these bold goals will be determined by the
strength of our partnerships. None of these goals will be possible
without strong collaboration between the Executive and Legislative
branches. That is why I am so honored to join you today. Once again,
Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the FY 2022
President's Budget for the EPA's National Water Program. I look forward
to answering any questions you may have.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Ms. Fox. That was
tremendous.
Mr. LeBoeuf [sic], you are next. You may proceed.
Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking
Member Rouzer, and members of the subcommittee, for this
opportunity to testify today.
I am Nicole LeBoeuf, NOAA's Assistant Administrator for
Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management. My statement will
offer highlights of NOAA's fiscal year 2022 proposed budget,
illustrating that investing in NOAA is more important than ever
before as we turn our attention to the threat of climate
change.
NOAA's ability to understand and predict our changing
planet is essential to communities around the country that are
impacted by extreme events like hurricanes, floods, droughts,
and wildfires, as well as the chronic impacts of heat waves and
sea level rise.
In 2020 alone, there were 22 environmental disasters in the
United States, each with economic losses exceeding $1 billion.
So it is fitting that a subcommittee that resides within the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is requesting
today's hearing. NOAA's climate data tools and services are
fundamental to sustaining our Nation's transportation,
military, supply chain, and other built infrastructure
essential to our economic prosperity and our very way of life.
From the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun,
NOAA's mission, not just to understand our Earth systems but to
deliver services and decision support, makes NOAA uniquely
capable of helping our Nation build infrastructure that is
resilient to the impacts of a changing climate.
From safeguarding our coastal military installations from
the effects of sea level rise and utilizing nature-based
infrastructure in highway planning to assisting emergency
responders to create more disaster-resilient communities, the
American people need NOAA's data and tools more than ever.
Beyond infrastructure, NOAA is being increasingly called
upon by private industry and the public to provide a wide range
of fundamental climate services and decision support. Through
investments and research, observations and forecasting,
restoration and resilience, and equitable delivery of services,
in fiscal year 2022, NOAA will deliver new and improved climate
tools, products, and services to decisionmakers, communities,
businesses, and the public.
In fiscal year 2022, NOAA requests $1.5 billion over fiscal
year 2021 enacted levels, over half of which--$855 million--to
specifically expand climate research, support regional and
local decisionmaking, and help the most vulnerable communities
prepare for climate change.
NOAA is requesting an increase of $149.3 million to improve
our understanding of climate change on time scales from weeks
to several decades, enhancing our ability to predict
precipitation, drought, and the impacts of climate change on
fisheries, farms, protected species, and other living marine
resources.
In fiscal year 2022, NOAA's request includes an increase of
$368.2 million to upgrade our ocean and coastal observing
systems and to better integrate NOAA's marine navigation,
weather, and environmental information into public- and
private-sector decisionmaking.
Building on our world-class weather predictions, NOAA
proposes to build a seasonal forecast system to better inform
regional and local adaptation and planning for nature-based
infrastructure, food production, finance and national security.
NOAA seeks to improve short-term forecasts, to include fire
weather prediction and longer term modeling of climate
variability to better understand the interrelatedness between
wildfires, weather, and climate change.
Along the coast and in the ocean, where conditions are
changing rapidly, NOAA proposes to enhance core services, such
as measuring sea level rise, to help decisionmakers safeguard
the well-being of coastal communities.
NOAA seeks to expand longstanding programs, like the
National Sea Grant College Program and NOAA's Coastal Zone
Management Program, to help local communities by empowering
NOAA's partners with on-the-ground expertise.
NOAA is requesting an increase of $259.3 million for
ecological restoration and community resilience, including
through research on blue carbon sequestration, in places that
provide fish habitat, storm and erosion protection, and water
quality improvements.
Investments in the National Marine Sanctuaries and the
National Estuarine Research Reserve Systems, as well as the
National Coastal Resilience Fund, will engage communities,
provide employment, and generate a wide array of economic and
climate resilience cobenefits.
In pursuit of climate solutions and economic prosperity,
NOAA proposes an increase of $20.4 million to support offshore
wind development so that Americans may expand clean energy
usage while protecting marine resources, fisheries, and other
important ocean activities.
And NOAA is requesting $57.9 million to improve our
equitable delivery of climate services to help vulnerable
communities prepare for extreme weather and climate disasters.
Measuring and predicting climate change impacts are core to
NOAA's mission, as is delivering climate solutions to all
Americans. We welcome the opportunity to work with you so that
NOAA's delivery of climate science and services may be more
fully deployed to meet the needs of our Nation in preparing for
the impacts of climate change.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[Ms. LeBoeuf's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nicole R. LeBoeuf, Acting Assistant
Administrator, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the
President's FY 2022 budget request. The Department of Commerce's
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) appreciates the
continued support of Congress, the Administration, and our broad and
diverse base of stakeholders.
For FY 2022, NOAA proposes a budget of $6,983,329,000 in
discretionary appropriations, an increase of $1,543,531,000 from FY
2021 Enacted. This budget supports NOAA's goal of scaling up efforts to
research and mitigate impacts of the climate crisis through investments
in NOAA's data, tools, and services including research, observations
and forecasting, restoration and resilience, ecologically sound
offshore wind development, and equity at NOAA through programs that
touch everyday lives. It also includes additional investments in fleet
support and satellites to ensure the continuity of vital observations,
and space weather observations and prediction services to protect
critical infrastructure that provides the backbone of this country's
economic vitality and national security.
Climate
The atmosphere, ocean, water, and land ecosystems all show
indicators of a warming and changing climate. To persist and thrive in
this changing world, the Nation must make well-informed choices and
embrace solutions that pave the way for a viable economy and the
sustainable infrastructure to support it.
Communities around the country are struggling with the effects of
extreme events like hurricanes, floods, droughts, wildfires, heat
waves, and fisheries collapse. In 2020, there were 22 weather and
climate disaster events in the United States that each had losses
exceeding $1 billion.\1\ The 2020 wildfires in California--the worst in
the state's history--are a paramount example of the environmental and
socio-economic devastation that environmental events can wreak on
communities, businesses, and the environment. NOAA's FY 2022 budget
requests an additional $855.1 million over enacted levels to help meet
the Administration's climate science goals, including implementation of
Executive Order (EO) 14008 on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and
Abroad, by expanding investments in climate research, supporting
regional and local decision making with climate data, tools, and
services, and helping the most vulnerable communities improve
adaptation, mitigation, and resilience to climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, U.S. 2020
Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters, (2020), https://
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For over 50 years, NOAA has provided science, service and
stewardship to the nation. NOAA develops actionable climate science and
information needed to help solve the climate crisis. NOAA leverages
diverse authorities for climate, weather, fisheries, coasts, and the
ocean; huge stores of environmental data and observations; world-
renowned expertise; and networks of public, private, and academic
partnerships to co-develop and deliver the most up-to-date knowledge
and actionable products to meet the needs of decision makers. This
information is critical to resilience-building, national security, and
economic vitality; the protection of life and property; the sustainable
use of our resources; and the preservation and resilience of our
natural environment. From sun to sea, NOAA takes a comprehensive earth
system approach.
Through the following targeted investments to support an integrated
approach to the climate crisis, NOAA will be on track to develop and
deliver new and improved climate tools and products that provide useful
climate information and services to decision makers, communities,
businesses, and the public, including:
Research: NOAA will strengthen core research capabilities
Foundational research will improve products and services and will help
communities prepare for and adapt to impacts of extreme weather and
climate events that have become more frequent and costly in recent
decades.
Observations and Forecasting: NOAA will expand its delivery of
the best-available climate observations and information (physical,
biological, social, economic assessments, predictions and projections)
to understand, mitigate, prepare for, and adapt to future conditions,
especially in frontline and underserved communities that are
disproportionately vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
Restoration and Resilience: NOAA will invest in ecological
restoration and community resilience, and address an increasing demand
for NOAA's science and services needed to enhance natural and
socioeconomic resilience of our ocean and coasts through our expertise,
robust on-the-ground partnerships, and place-based conservation
activities. NOAA will support the Administration's goal to conserve at
least 30 percent of the Nation's lands and waters by 2030, collaborate
with the new Civilian Climate Corps, and coordinate with partners on
other related whole-of-government initiatives.
Offshore Wind: NOAA will further the Administration's goal to
deploy 30 gigawatts of offshore wind in the U.S. by 2030, while
protecting biodiversity and promoting ocean co-use.
Equity: NOAA will enhance its consideration of equity dimensions
across the organization, from management, to policies, to service
delivery. NOAA will cultivate a more diverse, climate-ready workforce
of the future that builds upon NOAA's long history of investments in
graduate and postgraduate training, fellowships, and extension
programs.
Collectively, these investments will support our efforts to build
resilient communities, economies, businesses, and ecosystems.
Research
NOAA science plays a critical role in informing the Nation and the
world about current and projected changes in the climate system.
Standing on the firm foundation of world-class earth system and climate
science, NOAA provides data, tools, and services that reach every
American every day.
To strengthen core research capabilities to respond to increasing
demand for the data, tools, and services that this research provides,
NOAA is requesting an increase of $149.3 million. We will improve
understanding of climate change on time scales from weeks, to decades,
to centuries. We will build on this understanding to improve
precipitation, fire weather, and sea level rise forecasts, and identify
impacts of climate change on fisheries, protected species, and living
marine resources to improve management. Of these funds, NOAA will
commit $40 million to the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Climate
(ARPA-C), harnessing NOAA's restoration and conservation efforts to
help sequester carbon while also protecting marine ecosystem diversity.
NOAA will research the ways in which our ocean influences, and is
influenced by, climate change. For example, the total amount of excess
heat absorbed by the ocean, or how the ocean's role as a sink for
anthropogenic carbon will change over time are still not fully
quantified. It is imperative that NOAA dedicates research towards
understanding and projecting coastal inundation from rising seas, high
lake levels, heavier precipitation, shrinking sea ice, and more
frequent extreme weather events associated with our warming climate.
NOAA will invest additional resources to improve predictions and
projections in a research environment. In particular, NOAA will improve
precipitation predictions across weather and climate timescales for
transition to operations through the Precipitation Prediction Grand
Challenge Initiative. This is a cross-NOAA effort to advance
subseasonal-to-seasonal and seasonal-to-decadal forecasts, and will be
conducted in collaboration with our academic research partners, and
will include more skillful precipitation forecasts using NOAA's Unified
Forecast System. In addition, NOAA will develop a global high-
resolution model to improve the understanding and prediction of extreme
events.
As we increase our understanding of the changing climate in the
short and long term, we will simultaneously research and develop new
and improved tools for decision makers to address extreme impacts such
as sea level rise, fire weather, and impacts on living marine
resources. NOAA will enhance our Effects of Sea Level Rise (ESLR)
extramural grant program in partnership with the Department of
Transportation, to support research that informs adaptation planning
and coastal management decisions in response to sea-level rise,
flooding, and inundation threats, including evaluation of nature-based
solutions for enhancing the resilience of coastal transportation
infrastructure. NOAA also proposes an increase to develop a
collaborative and integrated fire weather research program to enable
new research into the coupled modeling for both the short-term fire-
atmosphere and sub-seasonal to climate-scale modeling systems.
Our research will address the needs of sustaining a healthy ``blue
economy,'' which includes tourism, recreation, commercial fishing,
renewable energy, and more. Last year the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
in partnership with NOAA, released initial findings showing that the
U.S. marine economy contributed about $373 billion to the Nation's
gross domestic product in 2018 and grew faster than the nation's
economy as a whole.\2\ The NOAA Climate and Fisheries Initiative will
significantly increase fisheries surveys, sampling, and analysis
capabilities to deliver information on the changing distribution and
abundance of commercial and recreationally valuable species due to
climate change so that decision makers can determine best management
strategies. In addition, NOAA will build a national ocean/ecosystem
modeling and prediction system spanning U.S. coastal waters, the
Arctic, and the Great Lakes, leveraging its global climate modeling
system. This research will develop tools for decision makers to prepare
for changing conditions in the ocean and Great Lakes, reduce climate
impacts, and increase the resilience of all living marine and Great
Lakes resources and the communities that depend on them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Bureau of Economic Analysis and NOAA, Ocean Economy. (2020),
https://www.bea.gov/data/special-topics/ocean-economy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through the ARPA-C initiative, NOAA will pioneer research on blue
carbon, carbon stored in ocean and coastal ecosystems, and factors that
influence sequestration. This will lead to a better understanding of
the effectiveness of certain climate mitigation strategies, such as
different renewable energy choices and the role of coastal and ocean
ecosystems, including in National Marine Sanctuaries and National
Estuarine Research Reserves in carbon sequestration.
NOAA's data are critical for every Federal agency that seeks to
better understand the impacts of climate change on their specific
mission. To ensure these data are actionable, NOAA convenes and works
directly with other Federal agencies to produce climate science and to
support the agencies who need to use our science within their missions.
One of the primary interagency collaborations is through the U.S.
Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), under which NOAA co-leads the
quadrennial National Climate Assessment and multiple interagency
working groups focused on adaptation and resilience, international
collaboration, climate and human health, sustained assessments, and the
social sciences of climate and global change.
Observations and Forecasting
Measuring and predicting climate change impacts are core to NOAA's
mission. NOAA proposes a $368.2 million budget increase to enhance and
improve climate observationsand forecasting to assist the Nation to
become safer and more resilient under a changing climate.
NOAA provides timely, actionable access to global, national,
regional, and local environmental data from satellites, radar, surface
systems, atmospheric greenhouse gas sampling stations, ocean buoys,
uncrewed systems, aircraft, and ships. In FY 2022, NOAA will continue
to invest in these platforms to meet the increasing demand for
observations. We will continue tracking marine ecosystem conditions to
provide critical information for marine industries like fisheries,
shipping, and offshore wind. We will also continue to track local
environmental conditions that inform farming, forestry, building and
construction, resource planning, disaster preparedness, and more.
NOAA's local weather stations, climate monitoring stations, and
research facilities across the country will continue to maintain long-
standing climate records, such as temperature and rainfall
observations, taken by experts and community scientists. These records
are made publicly available and used to prepare, plan, and execute
critical decisions at the local level. NOAA uses these data to
establish a baseline normal state against which to compare new
environmental states over time.
NOAA's ocean observing system is the basis for forecasting both
natural climate variability, as well as the impacts of long-term
climate change on our ocean resources and on ocean patterns that, in
turn, drive our weather. The FY 2022 request will allow NOAA to begin
addressing gaps that can be filled to improve forecasts. NOAA provides
more than 50% of global in-situ ocean observing through our Argo and
Tropical Pacific Observing System, to help us monitor the changing
ocean environment. Enhancement and reconfiguration of the existing
Tropical Atmosphere Ocean (TAO) moored array, implementation of the
Tropical Pacific Observing System (TPOS) backbone observations, and
calibrations of the radiation sensors across the observing network are
essential to improving NOAA's climate forecast capabilities. These
observations, supported by uncrewed platforms like ocean gliders, are
also essential to describing the present state of the ocean, detecting
long-term changes, and providing necessary operational weather, marine,
and climate services worldwide.
The FY 2022 request will allow NOAA to support and maintain long-
term atmospheric observations, which serve as a baseline and record of
trends for the release and sequestration of carbon dioxide, methane,
other important greenhouse gases, and other atmospheric aerosols and
particles that affect climate, weather, and human health. NOAA will
invest in our fleet of aircraft to continue to monitor long-term
atmospheric and climate change trends. We will complete the acquisition
of the G-550, which improves hurricane forecasting approximately 15-
25%. We will also conduct critical maintenance on our two P-3 Hurricane
Hunter aircraft, which have unique airborne data collection tools.
One of the greatest forecasting challenges facing NOAA is the need
to improve precipitation forecasts across timescales from weather to
climate. Related, there is a critical need for improved projections of
how the climate will change on more granular, regional scales and over
the next several decades. Investments to fully develop a Seasonal
Forecast System will improve climate projections on these scales to
better inform regional and local adaptation and resiliency planning for
infrastructure, natural resource management, food production, finance,
national security, and other sectors. Wildfires are influenced by the
weather and climate, and the weather and climate are influenced by
wildfires. Of particular interest to NOAA in FY 2022 are the
opportunities to improve fire weather and smoke management forecasting.
NOAA will work to improve short-term forecasts to better predict fire
behavior and the longer-term modeling of interactions between climate
variability, climate change, and the likelihood of hazardous wildfire
conditions. Tools will be developed in concert with the U.S. Forest
Service, the Department of the Interior, and relevant Tribal
organizations.
Looking beyond the interior to the coast, investments in improved
precipitation forecasts, a modernization of water level and land height
observations, and a completion of the operational coastal oceanographic
modeling system will together provide real-time inundation alerts,
high-tide flooding outlooks, and long-term sea level trends. NOAA will
convey this information using a Next-Generation Coastal Inundation
Dashboard to allow coastal decision makers to evaluate flood risk at a
local level and varying timescales.
NOAA's weather and climate predictions and information must be
reliably delivered to users to impact decision making. The FY 2022
request includes a critical investment in the NWS Integrated
Dissemination Program plan to address reliability and capacity issues
necessary to ensure the provision of weather and climate forecasts and
warnings to the public, emergency management partners, and the U.S.
weather and climate enterprise. NOAA will invest in dissemination of
rapidly increasing open data with the establishment of a NOAA Cloud
Program to streamline and accelerate the transition of all NOAA mission
areas to the cloud. This, in conjunction with the evolution of NOAA's
Open Data Dissemination, will provide worldwide cloud access to NOAA
climate and earth system dynamics data crucial to improve climate
modeling. NOAA will work with data users to ensure they have access to
the data necessary to better understand and decrease climate risks.
NOAA must also invest in the transition of legacy telecommunications
infrastructure to the government-wide Enterprise Infrastructure
Solutions contract, which will adopt modern technologies and a service-
based approach. This modernization effort will support all of the
observing and forecasting efforts described above.
Restoration and Resilience
Forty percent of the U.S. population live and work in coastal
counties,\3\ making a disproportionate segment of our society and
economy at increasing risk from such hazards as hurricanes and coastal
inundation. Therefore, NOAA is requesting $259.3 million in FY 2022 for
investments in ecological restoration and community resilience that are
integral to NOAA's climate strategy. There is an increasing need for
NOAA to create and foster natural and economic resilience along our
coasts through direct financial support, expertise, robust, on-the-
ground partnerships, and place-based conservation activities. These
activities would also support the Administration's efforts to conserve
at least 30 percent of the Nation's lands and waters by 2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NOAA Office of Coastal Management and U.S. Census Bureau,
American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates. (2017), https://
coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/acs.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grants in the FY 2022 request will help states, Tribes, and other
landowners plan and implement habitat conservation and restoration
projects, including for candidate, proposed, and ESA-listed species,
increasing habitat acres restored by over 60 percent. Healthy coastal
habitats, such as marshes and coral reefs, protect ecosystems,
shorelines, and communities from waves, storms, and floods, and help to
prevent loss of life, property damage, and erosion. They also are a key
source of livelihoods, through tourism and fishing. In addition,
restoration activities and the construction of natural infrastructure
employs construction workers, engineers, ecologists, project managers,
and heavy-equipment operators, and generates a wide array of economic
co-benefits. A 2020 reexamination confirmed an initial assessment that
a $10 million investment in ecological restoration of Michigan's
Muskegon Lake in 2011, would power up the local economy by
approximately $60 million through increased home prices and
recreational visits.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Grand Valley State University, Muskegon Lake Area of Concern
Habitat Restoration Project: Socio-Economic Assessment Revisited,
(2020), https://www.glc.org/wp-content/uploads/Habitat-socioeconomic-
Study-July-2020.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOAA will work with partners to foster resilience of coastal
ecosystems and the communities that depend on them. NOAA requests funds
to expand the National Coastal Resilience Fund to help coastal
communities and ecosystems prepare for and recover from extreme weather
events, climate hazards, and changing ocean conditions. NOAA also will
enhance the National Coastal Zone Management Program for coastal states
and territories to support community adaptation efforts, including a
focus on underserved communities disproportionately vulnerable to
hazards. With funding requested in FY 2022, NOAA will remove marine
debris, increasing such removal by 60 percent, and foster public
awareness of the effects of marine debris. NOAA will continue to
partner with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation through the
Fishing for Energy program to provide funding support to commercial
fishermen to aid removal, disposal, and prevention of derelict fishing
gear and plastic found at sea and aid in economic recovery for this
sector.
NOAA will support endangered and threatened marine species through
the U.S. Marine Biodiversity Observation Network, to support ecosystem-
based management of commercially harvested species through advanced
biological observing, modeling, and other innovative tools to inform
adaptation strategies. NOAA will combat stony coral tissue loss
disease, an especially lethal disease first reported in 2014 that
spreads rapidly, causing high coral mortality. NOAA will build capacity
for disease detection, prevention, and response efforts, and engage
partners, coral reef managers, and regional fisheries managers.
NOAA's active engagement and partnerships with regional users and
climate service delivery providers facilitate the uptake and
application of NOAA's authoritative information. NOAA's National Sea
Grant College Program will increase coastal community understanding of
climate risk factors, develop key decision tools, and address critical
knowledge gaps for coastal communities. NOAA's Regional Integrated
Sciences and Assessments (RISA) program will work with communities to
co-produce and operationalize lasting and equitable climate resilience
plans in 50 cities around the Nation, prioritizing underserved
communities particularly vulnerable to a changing climate. NOAA will
improve response readiness in preparation for more emergency events
through an investment in our Office of Response and Restoration. This
will strengthen the national capacity to respond to emergency events by
addressing internal and external preparedness gaps, investing in more
efficient response equipment, and initiating a nationwide refresh of
the Environmental Sensitivity Index to ensure an accurate understanding
of the baseline for timely decisions during a disaster.
NOAA's FY 2022 request supports locally-driven management decisions
regarding NOAA trust resources through increased engagement with
partners, underrepresented communities, Tribes, and local indigenous
groups to strengthen conservation outcomes. For example, in National
Marine Sanctuaries, NOAA will double climate vulnerability assessments,
promote climate resilience, and enhance work with states and local
communities to achieve on-the-ground conservation goals. NOAA will also
provide enhanced technical support and increased capacity within the
National Estuarine Research Reserve System to further the benefits of
blue carbon, to monitor marsh resilience to sea level rise, and to
identify conservation corridors and habitat gaps for conservation and
restoration planning. NOAA will convene technical experts, decision
makers, and stakeholders to ensure that coastal adaptation investments
are science-based, community-driven, and offer equitable solutions,
making communities and the environment more resilient to climate
impacts.
Offshore Wind
Offshore wind development is rapidly expanding in the United
States, particularly in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, and is being
considered along the Gulf and West Coasts as well. This represents a
relatively new use of our marine waters and will require scientific and
regulatory review to balance energy production with protecting marine
resources and fisheries production. NOAA will continue to work closely
with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to minimize the
effects of offshore energy projects on protected resources, fisheries,
and important habitats in the region; avoid delays and minimize adverse
economic impacts to the fishing industry and related coastal
communities; and mitigate impacts to fisheries surveys in the Northeast
and Mid-Atlantic. NOAA is requesting a total of $20.4 million in four
complementary areas to enhance interagency engagement, siting, and
permitting of offshore energy projects to minimize impacts on our trust
resources and constituencies: 1) Offshore energy assessment and
scientific advice to support the regulatory process; 2) dedicated
resources for offshore energy assessment related to protected
resources; 3) increased support for environmental assessments and
consultations with BOEM; and 4) development of new fisheries survey
design and methods to address anticipated changes in habitats around
offshore wind developments. Working in partnership with BOEM and other
relevant agencies, these funds will support NOAA's role in achieving
the Administration's goal to deploy 30 GW of offshore wind in the U.S.
by 2030, while protecting biodiversity and promoting ocean co-use.
Equity
The Biden Administration policies, including those described in EO
13985 on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved
Communities Through the Federal Government, make it clear that agencies
will integrate equity dimensions into the DNA of their organizations--
from management, to policies, to service-delivery. Underserved
communities are especially vulnerable to weather, water, and climate
events, with large disasters posing public health and safety risks and
causing poverty rates to increase.\5\ In FY 2022, NOAA requests $57.9
million to develop a framework to lay the foundation for successfully
integrating equity considerations throughout the organization. This
will position NOAA to help vulnerable communities better prepare for
and respond to extreme weather and climate disasters. For example, in
many localities whose budgets have already been constrained by the
pandemic, major storms cause local revenues to fall by 6% to 7%, with
that figure two times greater for municipalities with a significant
racial minority population.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Hallegatte, S., Vogt-Schilb, A., Rozenberg, J., Bangalore, M.,
& Beaudet, C. (2020). From poverty to disaster and back: A review of
the literature. Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, 4(1), 223-
247.
\6\ Rhiannon Jerch & Matthew E. Kahn & Gary C. Lin, Local Public
Finance Dynamics and Hurricane Shocks, (NBER Working Papers 28050,
2020, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. 2020)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This effort includes investing in NOAA's internal capacity to
better respond to the needs of vulnerable populations, assessing key
services to identify and address barriers to access to all Americans,
funding targeted investments in historically underserved communities,
and enhancing NOAA's capabilities, such as the Drought Portal and the
Sea Level Rise Viewer. NOAA's concrete goals will be responsive to
promoting equitable delivery of government benefits and equitable
opportunities as outlined in EO 13985 and provide an action plan to
make service delivery more equitable. This includes delivering Spanish-
language translation of weather information from NWS offices and
enhancing Tribal consultation on substantive policy matters with at
least 30% of federally recognized Tribes in FY 2022. NOAA will also
establish a NOAA Climate Cooperative Science Center as part of the Jose
E. Serrano Educational Partnership Program with Minority Serving
Institutions (EPP/MSI) to train post-secondary students in climate
science. NOAA will modify award-winning Digital Coast tools and
products to make them more accessible and conduct more robust
engagement with underserved and vulnerable coastal communities. The
National Sea Grant College Program will also increase, in FY 2022, the
number of Sea Grant tools, products, and information services that are
used to advance environmental literacy and workforce development
services for underserved communities.
NOAA also seeks to strengthen equity efforts internally to
accelerate efforts to attract, retain, and develop talent, including
from diverse backgrounds. NOAA will enhance recruitment programs and
communication tools to support STEM recruitment efforts from
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other MSIs. NOAA will
also leverage these institutions through more tailored recruitment in
the NOAA Corps recruitment, and the IT Fellowship Program. NOAA will
accelerate implementation of the Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan
and training and outreach for staff, supervisors, and leaders. These
investments in supporting equity in our current and prospective
workforce will allow NOAA to leverage diversity to provide better
services to all Americans.
Fleet
The FY 2022 request includes significant investments for NOAA's
observational infrastructure, such as the NOAA fleet, a key component
of the NOAA mission. NOAA drives the Nation's economy, protects and
creates better opportunities for the American public, and responds to
climate-induced impacts with products and services firmly rooted in
data. These data depend on NOAA's fleet of 15 ships. The $5.4 trillion
and 31 million jobs that pass through our Nation's ports,\7\ the $244.1
billion in sales and 1.74 million jobs connected to the Nation's
fisheries,\8\ and resiliency and prosperity of coastal communities all
use data from NOAA ships. NOAA's detailed recapitalization plan and
transformational maintenance strategy is a targeted approach to provide
the Nation the most effective at-sea data. NOAA has made significant
advancements in reliability and capabilities and, in turn, increased
the days at sea available to support national requirements for data
collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Martin Associates for the American Association of Port
Authorities, 2018 National Economic Impact of the U.S. Coastal Port
System, Spring Conference 2019, http://www.aapa-ports.org.
\8\ NOAA, Fisheries Economics of the United States, Economic Impact
Trends, 2017, (2017) https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
sustainable-fisheries/fisheries-economics-united-states
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In FY 2022, NOAA requests $101 million to support mid-life
maintenance on the NOAA Ship Ronald H. Brown and to construct the
Southeast Marine Operations Hub to replace Pier Romeo in Charleston,
South Carolina, which is the homeport for the Brown and NOAA Ship Nancy
Foster. The Brown, NOAA's largest oceanographic research vessel,
collects oceanographic and atmospheric data worldwide in direct support
of NOAA's climate missions, including data from buoys that drive
accurate weather forecasts and climate models and ocean acidification
data that informs global carbon models. Upon completion of maintenance,
the Brown's expected life span will increase to provide 15 more years
of reliable and highly capable support for at-sea data collection.
Satellites
The FY 2022 request also includes significant investments for
NOAA's observational infrastructure, such as NOAA satellites, a key
component of the NOAA mission. NOAA is committed to a flat $2.0 billion
budget for the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information
Service (NESDIS) starting in FY 2022 with no outyear increases other
than government-wide inflation assumptions. The FY 2022 budget request
underscores NOAA's commitment to making crucial, time-sensitive
investments to ensure that the Nation's next-generation satellite
systems not only improve capabilities, but that they also expand
delivery of essential climate, weather, atmospheric, and oceanographic
information to meet the needs of the American public. In support of EO
14008, the FY 2022 budget will help NOAA better observe environmental
phenomena, including greenhouse gas measurement, connected to climate
change-related impacts and patterns, and deliver products, information,
and climate services to inform decision makers.
The value of NOAA's data is dependent on users' ability to access
and apply it. The FY 2022 budget supports much-needed improvements to
NOAA's data infrastructure that will ensure that the data collected are
preserved for the future and can be easily accessed in a cloud-based
environment. This includes funding to transition NOAA to cloud
computing for data ingest, processing, dissemination, and archiving,
which will expand the size and diversity of NOAA user communities and
data applications.
For decades, the U.S. government was alone in developing Earth
observing satellites on behalf of the Nation. Now the government is
joined by U.S. companies in the midst of another space race--a race to
deploy constellations of satellites for communications and
connectivity. The growth of the U.S. space industry has created new
opportunities for Federal agencies like NOAA. Plus, there are more
sophisticated commercial technologies and capabilities available than
ever before to advance NOAA's national mission. NOAA will initiate
development of the next generation of cutting-edge earth observing
instruments to continue leading the world in this critical science and
technology field, setting the global standards for such observations.
NOAA's current constellation has proven its worth and will continue
to do so for close to another decade. While robust, NOAA must invest in
the development of the next generation of environmental satellites with
the needs of all of our communities in mind. Today's funding for future
geostationary, low earth orbit, and space weather observations will
ensure critical data continuity from legacy systems, while providing
significant improvements in data and products that the U.S. requires to
meet complex societal and environmental needs. Our program investments
also allow us to immediately exploit the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA)'s research satellite observations for NOAA
requirements and to integrate critical research observations into
NOAA's operational mission.
With advances in technology, NOAA can build a more capable and
efficient observing system, one that supports our vision to create an
integrated, digital understanding of our Earth environment, that can
evolve quickly to help our communities adapt and thrive, and maintain a
stable and predictable budget path that avoids outyear cost growth
which creates risk to both NESDIS as well as other NOAA priorities.
This observing system, composed of satellites deployed by NOAA and our
partners in Earth observations, including NASA, the Department of
Defense (DOD), European Organization for the Exploitation of
Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT), and others, will provide
advanced, real-time data critical to saving lives and protecting
property. It will improve Earth and space weather forecasting and
expand capabilities for ocean, air quality, and climate observations.
It will also enable NOAA to continue long-term monitoring and
continuous services with no gaps in coverage of key climate parameters
essential to understanding our changing environment.
In the current world of increasing environmental changes and
disasters, NOAA must invest in the next generation of satellites,
products, and services to meet the demands for more accurate and
expanded environmental information and services for the American
public. Continuity of NOAA's current satellites and information
services, exploitation of partner research observations, and
implementation of NOAA's plans for enhanced observing capabilities of
future satellites and for fostering vital partnerships, will directly
support the entire weather enterprise and EO 14008.
Space Weather
This request also supports additional capacity for the forecasting
of space weather events, which can have far-reaching impacts on our
Nation's economy, communications, and national security. An extreme
space weather event can severely impact an entire hemisphere and the
globe. Impacts might include disruptions to satellite communications,
impacts to the terrestrial electric grid, and communication outages to
cross polar airline flights, yet current observations and prediction
services do not meet the needs of agencies and operators of critical
infrastructure to mitigate against these events. The Space Weather
Operations, Research, and Mitigation (SWORM) Interagency Working Group,
which includes 34 Federal departments and agencies, identified
research-to-operations and operations-to-research (R2O2R) as a critical
gap in our Nation's ability to improve existing space weather forecast
and warning services. To close the gap, the Promoting Research and
Observations of Space Weather to Improve the Forecasting of Tomorrow
Act (PROSWIFT) (Public Law 116-181) authorizes Federal agencies to
develop formal mechanisms to transition space weather research models
and capabilities to NOAA.
In FY 2022, NOAA requests $5 million to build towards a space
weather prediction capability that will ensure national and global
communities are ready for and responsive to space-weather events. For
NOAA's Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) to improve these model
forecasts, observations, and related watches and warnings, NOAA has
identified four goals: implement a formal inter-agency R2O2R Framework;
develop and sustain a Space Weather Prediction Testbed; transition new
capabilities onto NOAA's operational national infrastructure; and
establish two PROSWIFT directed community collaboration efforts, the
Space Weather Advisory Group and National Academies Roundtable on Space
Weather.
To address the R2O2R gap, NOAA will partner with NASA, National
Science Foundation (NSF), DOD, Department of Interior (DOI), and other
Federal agencies to implement a formal framework to accelerate space
weather research, observations, and model advances into NOAA
operations. As a vital component of this framework, NOAA will develop
and sustain the Space Weather Prediction Testbed (Testbed) that will
leverage the expertise of academia, agencies, and commercial enterprise
partners by fostering collaboration to validate, demonstrate, and
transition emerging science and technologies into operations. In the
Testbed, stakeholders participate in collaborative exercises and
experiments using new capabilities under quasi-operational conditions.
Following successful validation, the Testbed will demonstrate readiness
and then enable the implementation of matured capabilities into NOAA
operations.
NOAA will also support two community efforts: the National
Academies Roundtable and the Space Weather Advisory Group (SWAG). The
Roundtable will discuss approaches and constructs on implementing the
R2O2R framework and seek to identify ways to integrate relevant
research from across the entire U.S. science and technology enterprise.
SWAG will advise SWORM on methods to advance the space weather
enterprise of the Nation by improving the coordination and facilitation
of R2O2R.
Conclusion
NOAA is uniquely positioned to observe and predict the changing
climate and communicate the scientific information that underpins
necessary actions. NOAA's FY2022 budget request includes significant
investment in NOAA's capabilities to develop and deliver climate
information and services that enable society to understand, prepare
for, and adapt to the changes that we are already seeing and those that
are yet to come.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. LeBoeuf.
I am terribly sorry I said ``Mr.'' Thank you very much for
your testimony.
Mr. Cosby, you may proceed.
[Pause.]
Mrs. Napolitano. You have to unmute yourself, sir.
Mr. Cosby. Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member Rouzer
and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to provide testimony on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Natural Resources Conservation Service's watershed programs.
NRCS delivers voluntary programs and services that enable
producers, agriculture landowners, Tribal nations, and others
to enhance their land stewardship activities, improving the
viability of agriculture operations and the sustainability of
the Nation's soils, water, and related natural resources of
non-Federal lands. About 70 percent of the Nation's land is
privately owned, making stewardship by private landowners and
managers critical to the health of our agriculture lands and
economies.
NRCS provides science-based technical assistance to help
our customers better manage the natural resources of their
land. Financial assistance can help offset the cost to install
conservation practices that sustain and enhance natural
resources and habitats.
Although we administer a wide range of conservation
programs, today I will focus on NRCS watershed programs. NRCS
watershed programs include a small watershed program, a
watershed operations program, and a watershed rehabilitation
program. Through these programs, NRCS collaborates with State
and local agencies, Tribal governments, and other Federal
agencies to prevent damage caused by erosion, floodwater, and
sediment.
The vast majority of NRCS watershed projects have been
built pursuant to the small watershed program authority, PL-566
projects, under which NRCS works with local government sponsors
and individual landowners to solve natural resources and
related economic problems within watersheds.
These projects protect our communities, infrastructure, and
natural resources through flood prevention and damage
reduction, development of rural water supplies, erosion and
sediment control, fish and wildlife habitat enhancement and
wetland creation and restoration.
To date, NRCS has assisted in construction of 11,800
watershed dams and other work from improvements to mitigate
flooding downstream, enhance municipal and industrial water
supplies, provide recreational opportunities, and improve
irrigation water sources for our farmers and ranchers. These
watershed projects help protect more than 180,000 farms,
610,000 businesses, and positively impact more than 48 million
people each day.
In 2020, the agency received $175 million in discretionary
funding and $50 million in mandatory funding. Using these
funds, NRCS provided funding to 41 new and 12 backlogged
projects in 24 States. NRCS provides technical assistance and
cost-sharing for constructions. Local sponsors assume
responsibility for the operations and maintenance of structures
once completed.
The watershed rehabilitation program provides assistance
with the planning, design, and implementation needed to rehab
aging watershed dams. We prioritize dams that pose the greatest
risk to public safety. Our efforts can extend the service life
of dams, bringing them into compliance with applicable safety
and performance standards, or beginning steps to decommission
dams that pose a threat to life and property.
In fiscal year 2020, the watershed rehabilitation program
received $10 million in discretionary funding and $19.9 million
in mandatory funding, which helps repair aging infrastructure,
creates jobs and commerce, and protects homes and families.
NRCS continues to provide funding and promotes assessments
of high-hazard potential dams, monitors costs, and examines the
rehabilitation program to ensure equitable delivery in
economically disadvantaged areas.
We utilized $1.1 million to fund 50 dam assessments. These
assessments provided communities with technical information
about the condition of their dams and alternatives for
rehabilitation of dams that do not currently meet Federal dam
safety standards.
By December 2021, 5,948 watershed dams will have reached
the end of their original designed lifespan. This happens over
time because dam spillway pipes can deteriorate, reservoirs may
fill with sediment, and many former agricultural lands are now
covered by urban sprawl.
A dam failure could pose a serious threat to the health and
safety of those living downstream and to the communities that
depend on the reservoir. Dam failure also brings serious
adverse environmental impacts.
The fiscal year 2022 President's budget proposes
discretionary apportionment of $110 million to the small
watershed program, $65 million for the flood prevention
operations program, and $10 million for the watershed
rehabilitation program. It also includes a legislative proposal
for mandatory appropriations to increase funding for the
watershed and flood prevention operations to $100 million per
year.
In closing, NRCS watershed operations provide critical
infrastructure as we face ongoing extreme weather and natural
disasters. Farmers, ranchers, foresters, and other landowners
are on the front line of the climate crisis. NRCS stands ready
to support the implementation of conservation and
infrastructure solutions that respond to the severity of the
crisis.
I appreciate Congress' continued support for NRCS and our
work to ensure the safety and viability of our small watersheds
and voluntary conservation on working lands. Thank you for the
opportunity to be here with you today.
[Mr. Cosby's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Terry J. Cosby, Chief, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Subcommittee Chairwoman Napolitano, Subcommittee Ranking Member
Rouzer, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to provide testimony on U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural
Resources Conservation Service watershed programs.
NRCS Background
The mission of USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
is to deliver conservation solutions so agriculture producers can
protect natural resources and feed a growing world. NRCS provides
programs and services that enable people to enhance their land
stewardship activities to protect the viability of their agriculture
operations and the nation's soil, water, and related natural resources
on non-Federal lands. NRCS supports the rural economy by helping
private landowners and producers, who make day-to-day decisions about
natural resource use and management on non-Federal lands, implement
conservation measures through technical and financial assistance.
Technical assistance provided to farmers, ranchers, foresters and other
private landowners supplies the knowledge and tools they need to
conserve, maintain, and restore natural resources on the lands they
manage. Financial assistance partially offsets the cost to install
conservation practices necessary to sustain and enhance natural
resources and improve wildlife habitat. About 70 percent of the land in
the United States is privately owned, making stewardship by private
landowners and land managers critical to the health of our agricultural
economy. In addition to working directly with private landowners, NRCS
also works with tribal Nations, units of government, and other eligible
sponsors (like water authorities) to deliver technical and financial
assistance.
Conservation Technical Assistance: The ability of NRCS to provide
Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) to farmers, ranchers, foresters
and landowners across the country is core to our mission. Through CTA,
NRCS works with landowners and managers to develop conservation plans
that outline the specific conservation activities needed to improve
farm operations and enhance farm environmental sustainability. NRCS
partners with third-party private sector entities (known as Technical
Service Providers, or TSPs) to collaborate and provide technical
assistance for conservation planning and activities. Currently, there
are 1,250 individuals and more than 100 businesses serving as certified
TSPs that are available to help program participants apply conservation
efforts through programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentive
Program (EQIP), the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), the
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), the Agricultural
Management Assistance Program, Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), CTA,
and Watershed programs.
Conservation Programs: NRCS administers a wide range of
conservation programs to help private landowners, and most are
authorized by the Farm Bill, including EQIP, CSP, ACEP, and the
Regional Conservation Partnership Program. These financial assistance
programs make it possible to implement the conservation plans that
resulted from CTA work. Additionally, while CRP is administered by
USDA's Farm Service Agency, NRCS provides technical assistance,
conservation planning, and support for conservation practice
implementation and management. NRCS conservation programs are carried
out through local field offices that provide direct assistance to
individual farmers, ranchers, foresters, and other private landowners
to restore and improve our shared natural resources. Key priorities
about the implementation of these programs and practices are made at
the local level, with input from Local Working Groups and State
Technical Committees to ensure local needs, which vary greatly across
the country, are addressed through voluntary based NRCS programs.
NRCS Watershed Programs
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
Through the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO)
account, NRCS cooperates with State and local agencies, tribal
governments, and other Federal agencies to prevent damage caused by
erosion, floodwater, and sediment, to further the conservation,
development, utilization, and disposal of water, and advance the
conservation and utilization of the land. WFPO includes the Small
Watershed Program, the Flood Prevention Operations, and may include
activities under the Watershed Rehabilitation Program described in the
next section. The vast majority of NRCS watershed projects have been
built pursuant to the authority of P.L. 83-566 (PL-566 projects), under
which NRCS works with local government sponsors and helps participants
solve natural resource and related economic problems within watersheds.
Watershed projects are limited to 250,000 acres and cannot include any
single structure that provides more than 12,500 acre-feet of floodwater
retention capacity, or more than 25,000 acre-feet of total capacity.
Projects may include flood prevention and damage reduction, development
of rural water supply sources, erosion and sediment control, fish and
wildlife habitat enhancement, wetland creation and restoration, and
increased recreational opportunities. NRCS provides technical and
financial assistance to support plan development and project
implementation. NRCS can offer conservation practices to individual
landowners and work with local communities to create vital
infrastructure protecting and restoring natural resources. NRCS
financial and technical assistance for watershed projects includes dams
that not only offer flood control, but can also offer critical fish and
wildlife habitat, livestock water, recreation and in some cases
municipal water.
Additionally, Flood Prevention Operations includes eleven projects
that were specifically authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1944
(P.L. 78-534) and are much larger than PL-566 projects. The Flood
Control Act placed a primary focus on watershed protection by
preventing floodwater damage and stabilizing stream channels,
tributaries, and banks to reduce erosion and sediment transport. The
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act extended these
authorities to expand NRCS's ability for delivering additional
conservation investments beyond those focused solely on flood damages.
Through these programs, NRCS has assisted in the construction of 11,800
watershed dams that help mitigate flooding downstream, offer municipal
and industrial water supply, provide recreation opportunities, and
serve as a source of irrigation for our farmers and ranchers. These
dams help protect more than 180,000 farms, 610,000 businesses, and
positively impact more than 48,000,000 people each day.
In 2020, the Agency received $175 million in discretionary funding
and $50 million in mandatory funding for WFPO. NRCS provided funding to
41 new and 12 backlog projects in 24 States. In selecting projects for
funding, the agency balanced the needs of remedial, backlog, and new
projects. NRCS provided technical assistance and cost sharing for
construction. Local sponsors assumed responsibility for the operations
and maintenance of structures once completed. These dams protect our
communities, infrastructure, and natural resources with flood control.
Further, many provide the primary source of drinking water in an area
or offer recreation and wildlife benefits.
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
The Watershed Rehabilitation Program provides technical and
financial assistance for the planning, design, and implementation to
rehabilitate aging watershed dam projects in communities to extend the
service life of dams and bring them into compliance with applicable
safety and performance standards, or to decommission the dams so they
no longer pose a threat to life and property. While the Watershed
Rehabilitation Program is a separate account, its activities are
included as part of WFPO, and the 2018 Farm Bill authorized $50 million
in mandatory funding for WFPO and the Watershed Rehabilitation Program.
The Watershed Rehabilitation Program prioritizes dams that pose the
greatest risk to public safety. These dams are classified as high
hazard potential in the national dam safety classification system. All
high-hazard potential dam project requests from public sponsors will be
rehabilitated before dams classified as low or significant hazard
potential to public safety. The Watershed Rehabilitation Program
provides up to 65 percent of the total cost for dam rehabilitation
projects, including the acquisition of land, easements, rights-of-way,
project administration, non-Federal technical assistance, and
construction. NRCS provides technical assistance to conduct studies,
develop rehabilitation plans, develop environmental impact statements,
prepare the engineering designs, and provide construction management
services. Local sponsors are required to provide 35 percent of the
total project cost.
In fiscal year 2020, the Watershed Rehabilitation Program received
$10 million in discretionary funding and $19.9 million in mandatory
WFPO funding. This funding helps to repair aging infrastructure,
creates jobs and commerce, and protects homes and families. NRCS
continued to provide funding and promoted assessments of high-hazard
potential dams, monitored costs, and examined the rehabilitation
program to ensure equitable delivery in economically disadvantaged
areas. Additionally, we utilized $1.1 million to fund 50 dam
assessments. These assessments provided communities with technical
information about the condition of their dams, and alternatives for
rehabilitation of dams that do not currently meet Federal dam safety
standards.
From 2000 through 2020, 398 dams have been funded for planning. Of
those, 254 dams were reauthorized to receive Federal funding to design
and construction of rehabilitation measures in 25 States. There are 122
dams in the planning phase that remain subject to funding priorities.
Of the 254 dams that are already authorized for rehabilitation, 166
have been rehabilitated and 67 are in the design and construction
phase. Watershed Rehabilitation projects provide enormous benefits for
both agricultural and non-agricultural lands. For example, completed
projects resulted in an average of $9,383,748 in annual floodwater
damage reduction benefits and more than 1,000 farms and ranches
benefiting from program action.
The reality is that many of the communities protected by the
watershed dams that NRCS helped to establish are now vulnerable to
flooding. Many dams have reached, or will soon reach, the end of their
design life. Specifically, by December 2021, 5,947 watershed dams will
have reached the end of their original designed lifespan. By 2025, that
number will increase to nearly 6,800 watershed dams. This has happened
over time because dam spillway pipes have deteriorated, and reservoirs
have filled with sediment. Additionally, the area around many dams have
changed as homes and businesses have been constructed on what was once
agricultural land. A dam failure could pose a serious threat to the
health and safety of those living downstream and to the communities
that depend on the reservoir. Dam failure also could bring serious
adverse environmental impacts.
DamWatch: Dam safety is a critical concern as many of the
watershed dams NRCS assisted sponsors with constructing were built in
the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's. Of the 11,800 NRCS assisted dams, 2,423
are high-hazard, meaning the potential for a loss of life should a dam
failure occur. Many of these dams are in need of upgrades to meet
current public safety standards, and many more are in need of key
repairs to man-made components. NRCS has worked to help sponsors
mitigate risk with DamWatch. DamWatch is a web-based application
developed for NRCS to support watershed project sponsors with
monitoring and managing NRCS-assisted dams. DamWatch provides real-
time monitoring of rainfall, snowmelt, stream flow, and seismic events
that could pose potential threats to dam safety. The application is
able to alert essential personnel when dams experience potentially
hazardous monitored conditions, allowing for the coordinated deployment
of personnel and resources. NRCS and watershed project sponsors utilize
DamWatch to manage a proactive response through the application's
``one stop shop'' for accessing critical documents, databases,
monitoring devices, and geospatial information.
Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget Overview
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Budget proposes an overall increase of
$67 million in discretionary funds for NRCS from the FY 2021 enacted
appropriations funding level. This includes a $42.6 million increase
for Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA). Additionally, the budget
includes an overall mandatory increase of $140 million for NRCS.
Legislative proposals in the FY 2022 budget include: increased funding
for EQIP to address drought resilience; increased funding for RCPP for
net-zero agriculture technology initiatives; increased funding for the
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program; and increased
funding for the Healthy Forests Reserve Program as part of a net-zero
technology initiative to encourage land and species protection and
restoration. Of note, the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
program would increase by $100 million per year, totaling $1 billion
over ten years, to address repair needs. Additionally, the proposed
increase to EQIP funding would support the ability of producers to
adapt to the climate crisis through technological investments to
increase drought resilience. These investments would result in the
installation of conservation practices that include the incorporation
of new science, technology and research into NRCS conservation
practices in order to help producers with irrigation efficiencies,
alternative livestock watering systems, and the adoption of resource
conserving crop rotations.
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO)--FY 2022 Budget
The FY 2022 Budget proposes $175 million in discretionary funding
for WFPO. The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, commonly referred to
as the 2018 Farm Bill, permanently authorized $50 million in annual
mandatory funding to be used for WFPO and the Watershed Rehabilitation
Program. Within WFPO, the budget proposes $110,000,000 for the Small
Watershed Program (P.L. 83-566). The other $65,000,000 is for Flood
Prevention Operations, which includes projects that were specifically
authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534).
The budget proposes $10,000,000 for the Watershed Rehabilitation
Program. Dams installed through the Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act, Pilot Watershed Projects authorized by the Agriculture
Appropriation Act of 1953, and the Resource Conservation and
Development Program are eligible for rehabilitation assistance.
Conclusion
NRCS's Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program combines
the agency's technical, scientific, and financial resources to have the
greatest impact on our nation's resources. This program reflects our
commitment to local leadership on critical conservation issues and
targets the specific needs of communities across the country. NRCS's
financial and technical assistance on working lands are a critical
component of our nation's infrastructure. We are accustomed to viewing
infrastructure as part of our program delivery. However, some of our
other activities, such as water supply forecasting network, are also a
core aspect of the technology infrastructure that NRCS provides to the
nation.
Protecting our Nation's small watersheds is essential to protecting
lives, natural resources, and agriculture. As we work to respond to the
climate crisis, maintenance and upkeep of these dams and infrastructure
is more important than ever in the face of extreme weather and natural
disasters. We know that farmers, ranchers, foresters and other
landowners are on the frontlines of the climate crisis and NRCS stands
ready to support the implementation of conservation and infrastructure
solutions that respond to the severity of the crisis. I appreciate
Congress's continued support for NRCS and our work to ensure the safety
and functionality of our small watersheds and voluntary conservation on
working lands. Thank you for the opportunity to submit written
testimony.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir, for your testimony.
And now we may proceed to Dr. Breysse. You may proceed,
sir.
Mr. Breysse. Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer,
and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss how
investment in the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, also known as ATSDR, are working to protect
Americans' health now and in the future.
ATSDR protects communities from harmful effects of exposure
to hazardous agents by supporting and building capacity at
State, Tribal, Territorial and local health departments, by
monitoring and investigating environmental exposures in
communities, by preparing for and responding to emergencies,
and by developing critical science-based tools and resources.
While ATSDR is uniquely positioned to examine the health
impacts of environmental exposures, demand for ATSDR's
technical and scientific support exceeds the current capacity
of the Agency to respond. Over the past 10 years, ATSDR has
seen its purchasing power eroded by relatively flat funding
levels, despite increasing demand for our support.
Modest increases in funding in fiscal year 2020 and fiscal
year 2021, along with the supplemental COVID-19 funding, have
allowed ATSDR to provide marginal enhancements in its support
to State and local health departments, to expand its
environmental health education activities, to investigate the
health impacts of exposure to emerging contaminants, and to
develop tools to address environmental risks and aid in
emergency response.
The fiscal year 2022 President's budget looks to continue
this progress by requesting an additional $3.75 million to
expand geospatial public health analysis activities, which will
increase our environmental public health capacity.
In fiscal year 2020, ATSDR awarded approximately $35
million to 28 health departments, through its cooperative
agreement program. Five applicants were approved but unfunded
due to funding constraints.
ATSDR also manages a national network of Pediatric
Environmental Health Specialty Units to advise parents and
healthcare providers on protecting and caring for children
potentially exposed to harmful chemicals. Supplemental COVID-19
funding to these units and to 16 States' cooperative agreement
partners allowed them to provide information on safe practices
for disinfection of homes and education facilities during the
COVID-19 response.
ATSDR and its funded health grantees are investigating
exposure to and possible health effects associated with
emerging contaminants, such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances, also known as PFAS, and ethylene oxide.
ATSDR is conducting PFAS exposure assessments in 10
communities near current or former military bases. And it is
conducting a groundbreaking PFAS health study at eight sites
across the country.
ATSDR is also working with Pediatric Environmental Health
Specialty Units and the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine to provide clinicians with the
resources they need to best serve their patients with exposure
to PFAS concerns.
ATSDR is supporting several States to address ethylene
oxide exposure near medical device sterilization facilities,
including working in five communities near these facilities.
ATSDR is simultaneously exploring opportunities to study
ethylene oxide exposure on a national scale.
ATSDR staff and the geospatial program continue to provide
support for 90 sites across the U.S. that are experiencing
environmental health concerns. Additionally, the geospatial
program developed a COVID data tracker dashboard, addressing
data needs for the COVID-19 response. This one-stop source for
COVID-19 data allows health professionals to increase their
understanding of the novel coronavirus, to reduce the
disproportionate burden of the pandemic on communities of color
and other groups that have been marginalized, and to explore
the impact of recovery on healthcare systems.
ATSDR's geospatial team is currently working on an
environmental justice index that we will use to identify
communities that experience disproportionately high
environmental burdens in the U.S.
ATSDR has a unique mission and responsibility to advance
health through the conduction of studies, through the use of
innovative data sources, through support for local health
departments, the development of guidance for clinicians, and
through direct interaction with communities affected by
exposure to hazardous substances.
In fiscal year 2022, we will continue working toward our
goal of providing science-based evidence to inform actions that
protect people from environmental exposures and to improve
their health.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today and to
discuss the important work of ATSDR.
[Mr. Breysse's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patrick N. Breysse, Ph.D., CIH, Director,
National Center for Environmental Health and Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer, and Distinguished
Members of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, I am Patrick Breysse,
the Director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Director of the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It is an
honor to appear before you today to discuss how investments in ATSDR
are protecting Americans' health, now and in the future.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
In 1980, Congress created ATSDR to implement the health-related
sections of laws that protect the public from hazardous wastes and
spills of hazardous substances. Congress established ATSDR in the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA) and charged the agency with assessing the presence and
nature of health hazards at specific Superfund sites, preventing and
reducing further exposure and the illnesses that result from such
exposures, and expanding the knowledge-base about health effects from
exposure to hazardous substances. Amendments to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) broadened ATSDR's
responsibilities and authorities in the areas of public health
assessments, establishment and maintenance of toxicological databases,
information dissemination, and medical education.
ATSDR accomplishes its mission by supporting and building capacity
at state, Tribal, territorial, and local health departments; monitoring
and investigating environmental exposures in communities; preparing for
and responding to emergencies; and developing critical science-based
tools and resources. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, ATSDR responded to 715
state, community, and Federal requests to address the potential health
risks to over 2 million people around the country. During that period,
ATSDR and our cooperative agreement partners conducted over 119
assessments to evaluate environmental exposures in communities. Much of
this work takes place in the regional offices, where staff can respond
quickly during emergencies. Many regional staff served and are serving
as liaisons to states during the COVID-19 response, among other
deployments.
Toxicological profiles are one way ATSDR provides state-of-the-art
science to healthcare and public health professionals. These documents
are unique compilations that provide comprehensive and extensive
evaluation, summary, and interpretation of available toxicological and
epidemiological information on a substance. ATSDR published 17
toxicological profiles in FY 2020 and currently maintains a database of
184 profiles.
The foundation of ATSDR's activities are environmental justice and
health equity. Communities economically and socially marginalized
continue to bear disproportionate impacts of environmental hazards. It
is a top priority for ATSDR to continue to engage these communities to
address their concerns and understand how exposures impact health. For
example, ATSDR's Region 10 is currently working on five health
consultations with American Indian and Alaska Native tribes to evaluate
exposures from contaminated sites through drinking water or traditional
and subsistence use of resources.
While ATSDR is uniquely positioned to examine the health impacts of
environmental exposures, demand for ATSDR technical and scientific
support exceeds the current capacity of the agency to respond. Funding
in FY 2020 and FY 2021, along with COVID-19 supplemental funds, have
allowed ATSDR to provide enhancements in its support to state and local
health departments, expand its environmental health education,
investigate the health impacts of exposures to emerging contaminants,
and develop tools to address environmental risks and aid in emergency
response. The President's Budget looks to continue this progress by
providing a $3.75 million increase to support expanded geospatial
public health analysis activities: improving technology, enhancing
science in environmental modeling, and providing support to states.
Support to State and Local Health Departments
ATSDR's Partnership to Promote Localized Efforts to Reduce
Environmental Exposure (APPLETREE) cooperative agreement program funds
states to detect, respond to, and prevent harmful exposures in
communities. In FY 2020, ATSDR awarded approximately $35 million to 28
state health departments through APPLETREE. ATSDR also provided an
additional $1.4 million in COVID-19 supplemental funding to 16 state
APPLETREE recipients for guidance and community engagement on safe
practices for disinfection for homes, schools, and early learning
education centers.
State health departments are on the front lines when it comes to
responding to environmental exposures and ATSDR's cooperative agreement
program builds capacity in states to assess potentially hazardous
substances. This increased capacity extends ATSDR's reach and allows
health departments to support clinicians, build bridges between health
and environmental agencies, and rapidly respond to emergencies. ATSDR
provides technical assistance and support for state experts to
investigate community health concerns and implement practices to
protect people from harmful exposures.
APPLETREE awardees use program funding to identify if and how
people are exposed to hazardous substances at specific sites and in
communities across the country. They review environmental and health
data to identify potential health risks, make recommendations to
prevent exposures, and educate communities and local health
professionals about site contaminations and potential health effects.
Within current resources, ATSDR has prioritized activities that
focus on children as an important susceptible group and ensuring the
assessment of potential exposure risks at early care and education
facilities for young children. In Missouri, the state health department
investigated lead exposures in children enrolled in a Head Start
facility built on a lead mining waste pile. Their investigation
included on-site blood lead testing to evaluate the children's exposure
to lead. One of the 26 children tested had a blood lead level above the
reference value and was referred to services for additional evaluation,
and soil remediation actions were planned.
ATSDR's support has also enabled awardees to address the health
effects of emerging contaminants, such as in North Carolina, where the
state health department used APPLETREE funding to enhance their actions
addressing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) exposure.
APPLETREE awardees have conducted or are in the process of conducting
investigations of PFAS exposure at sites in at least five states. They
have also provided technical assistance and health education related to
PFAS exposure in over 20 communities across the U.S.
APPLETREE funding is also enabling states to take an innovative
approach to address environmental exposures. With ATSDR's support, the
California Department of Public Health collaborated with a community on
a citizen science project to address concerns about air quality. The
health department helped community volunteers install air monitoring
sensors, which transmit air quality data to a real-time interactive map
that all community members can use to help limit their exposures.
Environmental Health Education
Children are particularly sensitive and susceptible to exposures to
chemical contaminants, as their organ systems can easily be disturbed
by environmental contaminants during rapid stages of growth and
development. ATSDR manages a national network of Pediatric
Environmental Health Specialty Units (PEHSUs), located in each federal
region across the United States, to advise parents and healthcare
providers on protecting and caring for children potentially exposed to
harmful chemicals. Regional PEHSU units respond to requests for
information, offer advice on environmentally related health effects for
pregnant women and children, and provide education to healthcare
providers, other health professionals, and community members.
The PEHSU network has produced multiple tools to help clinicians,
parents, and children understand environmental exposures. For example,
they produced the Pediatric Environmental Health Toolkit, a web-based
reference that provides examples of everyday environmental interactions
for children and steps clinicians and parents can take to decrease
harmful exposure.
Uniquely positioned around the U.S. and nationally known as an
expert resource in children and women's environmental health, ATSDR's
PEHSU and other partners engaged early in the COVID-19 response to
deliver timely education and disseminate guidance on safely
disinfecting homes, schools, and day care settings during the pandemic.
COVID-19 supplemental funds are helping make this guidance more widely
available to communities. During a six-month period of the COVID-19
response, the PEHSUs provided approximately 300 consultations to
healthcare professionals and over 350 consultations to community
members.
Investigating the Health Impacts of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
(PFAS)
ATSDR and state partners utilize biological (e.g., urine, blood)
and environmental (e.g., drinking water, dust, air) sampling to better
characterize the relationship between how people come into contact with
hazardous substances and possible exposure-related health effects.
ATSDR and its funded state health grantees are investigating
exposure to and possible health effects associated with per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in multiple communities across the
United States. PFAS are a class of thousands of human-made chemicals
that have been used in industry and consumer products, such as grease-
proof food packaging and water-repellant fabrics, worldwide since the
1950s. Exposure to these chemicals is widespread, with the CDC's
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) detecting
PFAS in the blood of more than 95 percent of the U.S. population \1\.
More research is needed to determine the health effects in humans, but
some studies \2\ suggest exposure may affect cholesterol levels, affect
the immune system, and increase the risk for some cancers. ATSDR has
worked to address community concerns about PFAS since 2009, with the
development of the first health assessment that looked at PFAS exposure
in Decatur, Alabama. To date, ATSDR has worked to investigate exposure
to and possible health effects associated with PFAS in more than 40
communities across the United States. Most of these communities have
concerns about PFAS in their drinking water connected with PFAS
production facilities or fire training areas where aqueous film forming
foam (AFFF) was regularly used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072821/
\2\ https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp200.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To learn more about the relationship between PFAS and health, the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2018 directed
ATSDR to complete exposure assessments and a health study to look at
PFAS exposure in communities. With funds provided through the
Department of Defense Appropriations, ATSDR conducted exposure
assessments in ten communities near current or former military bases
across the U.S. that are known to have had PFAS in their drinking
water. An exposure assessment provides information to communities about
the levels of PFAS in their bodies. This information can be used to
help reduce exposures. ATSDR has completed sample collection, provided
individual results to participants, and released initial community
summaries in all exposure assessment sites. The exposure assessments
looked at exposure in more than 2,300 individuals from over 1,400
households. In FY 2022, ATSDR will continue to develop individual site
reports and an overall PFAS exposure assessment report covering all
sites.
ATSDR is using funds provided through Defense Appropriations to
conduct a national health study that will look at the relationship
between PFAS exposures through drinking water and health outcomes. The
Pease Study in New Hampshire serves as the first site in the multi-site
health study. Recruitment and sample collection for the Pease Study
reopened on October 15, 2020 after a pause to ensure safety of
participants and staff from COVID-19. In September 2019, ATSDR awarded
research cooperative agreements to seven recipients for the Multi-Site
Study to conduct work in seven additional states. This groundbreaking
health study will provide information about the health effects of PFAS
exposure that can be used in all communities to protect health. Three
awardees plan to begin study recruitment by mid-summer 2021, with the
remaining four planning to begin in early fall 2021.
ATSDR is also taking steps to ensure that clinicians have the
guidance they need to address patient concerns about PFAS exposure.
ATSDR is working closely with the Pediatric Environmental Health
Specialty Units to offer pediatricians and other healthcare
professionals information about PFAS so they can best serve their
patients in these communities. ATSDR is also working with the National
Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine to develop clinician
guidance on PFAS testing, how test results should inform clinical care,
and how to advise patients on exposure reduction. As part of the
ongoing review of scientific information on PFAS, ATSDR recently
released the final version of the Toxicological Profile on
Perfluoroalkyls that provides a comprehensive and extensive evaluation,
summary, and interpretation of available toxicological and
epidemiological information. We continue to review the rapidly evolving
science on PFAS and will update the toxicological profile as new
information emerges.
Development of Tools to Address Environmental Risks and Aid in
Emergency Response
To guide the work of the agency, ATSDR's Geospatial Research,
Analysis, and Services Program (GRASP) conducts geospatial information
system (GIS) research, analysis, support, training, and technology to
better understand how place affects health. The geospatial tools
developed by the program are the cornerstone of ATSDR's work to
understand the health impact of hazardous exposures.
ATSDR has recently received COVID-19 supplemental funding to
develop tools to provide critical support to CDC's COVID-19 response.
GRASP has worked on over 70 projects responding to the COVID-19
pandemic, using geospatial analysis to investigate geographic
variations and demographic, behavioral, socioeconomic, and infectious
risk factors and using innovative visualization methods to communicate
complex results. To address data needs for the COVID-19 response, the
program developed the COVID Data Tracker (CDT) Dashboard \3\ using
technology and data from multiple organizations to increase the
understanding of the novel coronavirus, reduce the disproportionate
burden of the pandemic on communities of color and other groups that
have been marginalized, explore the impact and recovery of healthcare
systems, and to provide timely information to the public. The amount
and type of data in the CDT grows every week and has become the one-
stop public facing source for almost all COVID-19 data, including
vaccination data. The week of June 13, 2021, CDT had about two million
views, with over 190 million views since it launched in April 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRASP has also built upon existing tools to respond to COVID-19. In
2007, the program partnered with emergency response planners at ATSDR
and CDC's National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) to develop
the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) \4\. SVI uses U.S. Census tract
data to characterize the social vulnerability of every U.S. community
and ranks each community on 15 social factors, including poverty, lack
of vehicle access, and crowded housing. Public health officials and
local planners can use the SVI to better prepare for and respond to
emergency events like hurricanes, disease outbreaks, or exposure to
dangerous chemicals. In 2020, the SVI was used to create a Pandemic
Vulnerability Index (PVI) \5\ to map populations that are more
vulnerable to the spread of COVID-19, providing critical information to
public health professionals to aid in decision-making and helping to
focus vaccine efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/placeandhealth/svi/
data_documentation_download.html
\5\ https://covid19pvi.niehs.nih.gov/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to their work on the COVID-19 response, the geospatial
unit continues to provide geospatial analysis support for 90 sites
across the U.S. that experienced environmental concerns such as
ethylene oxide and other exposures, helping CDC/ATSDR scientists
understand relationships between health and environmental,
sociodemographic, and behavioral factors and communicate these findings
through clear visualizations.
Looking Ahead in FY 2022
ATSDR will prioritize the development of geospatial health tools
and other resources to expand environmental health capacity. These
tools will improve CDC/ATSDR's ability to respond effectively and in a
timely manner to public health events and explore environmental factors
that may influence the progression of infectious disease and other
health outcomes. ATSDR's geospatial team is currently working on an
Environmental Justice Index project, which will use information on
demographic and socioeconomic factors and cumulative environmental
exposures to identify communities that experience a disproportionately
high environmental burden in the U.S.
Work on emerging environmental contaminants continues to be a
priority for ATSDR. These substances fall into one of two categories.
The first are new substances for which information about their impacts
on human health are still evolving, such as PFAS. The second category
of emerging contaminants are known contaminants of concern that have
emerging information on their toxicity which needs to be evaluated to
assess the potential impact on human health.
Microplastics fall into the first category. They are pervasive in
the environment and are small enough to be internalized and transported
within the human body. Exposure-dose and health effects have not been
established, and studies are complicated due to a lack of standardized
methods for identifying and measuring the particles. ATSDR, along with
CDC's National Center for Environmental Health, is working on
developing the science to define and prioritize potential health risks
and develop initiatives to better characterize and understand whether
microplastic exposures are harmful to human health.
ATSDR is also working to address concerns regarding ethylene oxide
exposure, which falls into the second category. Recent reviews by EPA
\6\ indicate that the cancer risks from ethylene oxide may occur at
lower exposure levels than previously thought. Ethylene oxide is used
industrial settings and in the sterilization of medical equipment and
some spices. Not all ethylene oxide sterilization facilities are
required to report to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). For those
that did report to TRI in 2019, 67 percent were located in census
tracks scored as ``high'' or ``moderate to high'' on CDC/ATSDR's Social
Vulnerability Index. ATSDR is supporting several states to address
these ethylene oxide exposures, including working with five communities
near ethylene oxide sterilization facilities. ATSDR is simultaneously
exploring opportunities to study ethylene oxide exposures on a national
scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/
toxreviews/1025tr.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2022 Budget Request for ATSDR
Increases provided in FY 2021 enabled an expansion in the number of
states funded through the APPLETREE program. In FY 2022, ATSDR's budget
request will bolster GIS capacity building within state and local
health departments, an important priority to enhance health
departments' response to environmental and public health emergencies.
Conclusion
ATSDR has a unique mission and responsibility to advance health
through studies, use of innovative data sources, support for health
departments, development of guidance for clinicians and direct
interaction with communities affected by exposure to hazardous
substances. In FY 2022, we will continue working toward our goals of
providing science-based evidence to inform actions to protect people
from environmental exposures and improve health. Thank you again for
the opportunity to be here today to discuss the important work of the
agency.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir, for your testimony.
And we will proceed with Mr. Middlebrook. You may proceed,
sir.
Mr. Middlebrook. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking
Member Rouzer, and members of the subcommittee. I thank you
again for the opportunity to talk to you today and present the
President's fiscal year 2022 budget request for the Great Lakes
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. I am happy to
share this information with you and to report on the activities
of the corporation.
More than 3 billion metric tons of cargo valued at over
$450 billion has transited the St. Lawrence Seaway over its 60-
plus-year history. This includes grain, iron ore, steel,
project cargoes, and other bulk commodities.
During the 2020 navigation season, nearly 38 million metric
tons of cargo moved through the binational waterway. The Saint
Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation was renamed the Great
Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation by Congress
as part of the fiscal year 2021 Consolidated Appropriations
Act.
This name change was led by your colleagues to acknowledge
the seaway's longstanding contributions and importance to the
Great Lakes region and its economy. Since then, we have been
executing this name change, and on May 13th of this year, the
67th anniversary of our creation by Congress, we debuted our
new corporate seal.
For fiscal year 2022, the President's budget requests an
appropriation of $37.7 million from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund. The budget request includes two programs: seaway
operations and maintenance, and seaway infrastructure. This
request supports the administration's priorities of safety, job
creation and economic growth, and transformational
infrastructure investments.
The fiscal year 2022 request for the seaway operations and
maintenance program is $23.2 million. This will provide the
financial and personnel resources necessary to perform the
operational, maintenance, and administrative functions of the
corporation, including lock operations, marine services, vessel
traffic control, asset maintenance, ballast water management,
safety and environmental inspections, and trade promotion and
economic development.
Operations and maintenance also includes a request of $1.5
million for the U.S. portion of the operations and maintenance
costs of the binational Seaway International Bridge. The U.S.
and Canada share the ownership, management, and operation of
this international bridge.
Due to COVID-19 and the cross-border travel restrictions,
paid car and truck traffic on the bridge has dramatically
decreased to only 10 to 15 percent of average levels. That has
resulted in a 70- to 75-percent reduction in toll revenue, and
as a result, the bridge is unable to function self-
sufficiently.
Last year, the Canadian Government provided Federal funding
to supplement the reduced tolls to ensure that the bridge
safely remains open. The $1.5 million request in the fiscal
year 2022 budget request will satisfy the U.S. shared
commitment to the needs of the bridge.
The budget request for the seaway infrastructure program
includes $14.5 million for 11 maritime infrastructure-related
capital projects, including $6.5 million for the rehabilitation
of the diffusers at Snell lock used to dampen the flow of water
when the lock is emptied, $3 million to replace deteriorated
and damaged concrete at Eisenhower lock and Snell lock, $1.5
million to upgrade electrical distribution equipment at the
locks and maintenance facilities, and $1 million to upgrade the
machine shop facility used to maintain the new hands-free
mooring technology at the locks.
I am happy to report that we were able to operate during
the 2020 navigation season without any positive cases of COVID-
19 impacting our workforce, even though the majority of our
Massena, New York-based operational employees reported to the
worksite every day, given our operational nature.
During the winter maintenance cycle, our workforce was
impacted by several positive cases. However, additional
remedial measures, implemented quickly, reduced the
transmission of COVID-19, and the winter maintenance schedule
was completed in time for the opening of the 2021 navigation
season on March 22nd.
The fiscal year 2022 budget request will help ensure that
the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation can
continue to operate and maintain the U.S. seaway
infrastructure, ensure safe navigation, protect the
environment, and promote trade and economic development.
Thank you for including my written statement in the record,
and I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.
[Mr. Middlebrook's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Craig H. Middlebrook, Deputy Administrator, Great
Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, U.S. Department of
Transportation
Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony
for the record regarding the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 budget request for
the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (GLS or
Corporation) (formerly the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation). I am glad to present this information and to report on
the activities of the GLS.
The GLS is a wholly owned government corporation within the U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT) with its funding appropriated
since 1987 from the user fee-based Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
(HMTF). Since its creation, the GLS has been funded through
appropriations derived from user fees and not from the Treasury's
General Fund. Prior to 1987, the GLS's funding was derived from tolls
to commercial vessels transiting the St. Lawrence Seaway.
The GLS's mission is to operate and maintain the U.S.
infrastructure and waters of the St. Lawrence Seaway, while performing
trade and economic development activities designed to enhance the
utilization of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway System. The GLS is
primarily responsible for maintaining and operating the Eisenhower and
Snell locks located in Massena, New York, and controlling commercial
vessel traffic in areas of the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario.
Since the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959, the GLS has
directly served commercial marine transportation stakeholders by
providing a safe, reliable, and efficient deep-draft international
waterway, in cooperation with its Canadian counterpart, the St.
Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC).
Over its 60-year history, more than 3 billion metric tons of cargo
valued at over $450 billion has transited the St. Lawrence Seaway,
including grain, iron ore, iron and steel, project cargoes, and other
raw and bulk commodities. During the 2020 navigation season, nearly 38
million metric tons of cargo moved through the binational waterway.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://greatlakes-seaway.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/
tonnage2020_12_en.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A ship entering the St. Lawrence Seaway at Montreal, Canada, and
transiting to Lake Erie crosses the international border 27 times while
passing through the St. Lawrence Seaway's 15 locks (2 U.S. and 13
Canadian). As a consequence of this geographic fact, when constructing
the Seaway in 1954, the United States and Canada created a binational
governance approach for the Seaway through an exchange of diplomatic
notes, constituting a binding international agreement between the
countries. It was and remains a bold, optimistic, unique, and effective
governance approach; all other U.S. inland waterways are operated,
maintained, and managed directly by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and the U.S. Coast Guard. Due to the geography of the St. Lawrence
River and the importance of the sovereignty issues involved, however,
the U.S. and Canadian Governments established a binational framework of
civilian Federal oversight and control of this international waterway,
which today is administered by the GLS and the Canadian SLSMC.
To carry out its mission, the GLS possesses legal authorities that
distinguish it from other operating administrations at the U.S.
Department of Transportation and from most other Executive Branch
agencies. The Wiley-Dondero Act of 1954 (Seaway Act), which created and
permanently authorized the GLS, incorporated authorities that were
first put into law through the Government Corporation Control Act of
1945. The GLS was created as a government corporation to manage this
public infrastructure asset and provide a direct service to customers--
moving ships safely and efficiently through a binational waterway. The
succinct and plain language of the Corporation's enabling statute
allows sufficient flexibility to manage its operations in a business-
like manner. Some of the distinguishing attributes include the ability
to make and carry out contracts or agreements as necessary to conduct
business as well as the ability to acquire real and personal property
and sell, lease, or dispose of such property. Together with its mission
of providing 24/7 transportation services, these legal authorities help
promote a culture within the GLS of accountability and customer
service.
The deep degree of trust and operational cross-border interaction
that has developed between the U.S. and Canadian Seaway entities over
the past 62 years helps maintain a transit experience for Seaway users
that is essentially seamless from a ship captain's perspective. It is a
remarkable achievement given the operational complexities and multiple
jurisdictions that impact that transit.
The St. Lawrence Seaway directly serves an eight-State, two-
province region that accounts for one-quarter of the U.S. gross
domestic product (GDP), one-half of North America's manufacturing and
services industries, and is home to nearly one-quarter of the
continent's population.
Annual commerce on the Great Lakes Seaway System typically exceeds
180 million metric tons and serves U.S. farmers, manufacturing workers,
miners, and commercial interests throughout the Great Lakes region.
Virtually every type of bulk and general cargo commodity moves on the
Great Lakes Seaway System, including iron ore for the U.S. steel
industry; limestone for construction and steel industries; coal for
power generation and steel production; grain exports from U.S. farms;
general cargo such as iron and steel products and heavy machinery; and
cement, salt, and stone aggregates for agriculture and industry.
Additionally, the Seaway has emerged as a critical transportation route
for the shipment of large components essential to the wind energy
industry.
Maritime commerce on the Great Lakes Seaway System provides
shippers with nearly $4 billion in annual cost savings compared to the
next least expensive mode of transportation.\2\ The Seaway also
produces significant economic benefits to the Great Lakes region. An
economic impact study completed in 2018 concluded that maritime
commerce on the Great Lakes Seaway System sustains over 237,000 U.S.
and Canadian jobs, $35 billion in economic activity, $14.2 billion in
personal income, and $6.6 billion in federal, state/provincial, and
local taxes each year.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Great Lakes Navigation System:
Economic Strength to the Nation, January 2009.
\3\ Economic Impacts of Maritime Shipping in the Great Lakes-St.
Lawrence Region, Martin Associates, July 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2022 Budget Request
For FY 2022, the President's Budget requests an appropriation of
$37.7 million from the HMTF to fund the GLS's operations and
maintenance of the U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway, as well as
capital infrastructure projects to rehabilitate and modernize the GLS's
perpetual assets and associated equipment. The request represents a
decrease of $300,000 from the FY 2021 enacted level.
The budget request includes two programs--(1) Seaway Operations and
Maintenance and (2) Seaway Infrastructure, which support the
Administration's priorities of safety, job creation and economic
growth, and transformational infrastructure investments.
The FY 2022 request for the GLS's Seaway Operations and Maintenance
program is $23.2 million to provide the GLS with the financial and
personnel resources necessary to perform its operational, maintenance,
and administrative functions, including lock operations, marine
services, vessel traffic control, asset maintenance, ballast water
management, safety and environmental inspections, and trade promotion
and economic development.
This program budget request also includes $1.5 million for the U.S.
portion of operations and maintenance costs for the binational Seaway
International Bridge. The GLS has an ownership interest with Canada in
the binational South Channel Span of the Seaway International Bridge.
Due to the pandemic and the associated cross-border restrictions
currently enforced between the United States and Canada, paid car and
truck traffic on the bridge has dramatically decreased by 80-90 percent
of average levels, resulting in significant toll revenue reductions
(70-75 percent). The request level was developed based on the
assumption that the current bridge toll levels remain constant in FY
2022. Federal funding from the Canadian Government has kept the bridge
open and operational since the start of the cross-border restrictions
in March 2020.
For its Seaway Infrastructure program, the FY 2022 President's
Budget includes a request of $14.5 million for 11 infrastructure-
related capital projects, including $6.5 million for rehabilitation of
the diffusers at Snell Lock used to dampen the flow of water when the
lock is emptied; $3 million to replace deteriorated and damaged
concrete at Eisenhower Lock and Snell Lock; $1.5 million to upgrade
electrical distribution equipment at the GLS locks and maintenance
facility; and $1 million to upgrade the GLS's machine shop facility
used to maintain the GLS's new Hands Free Mooring Technology.
Safety and Reliability
The continued safety and reliability of the St. Lawrence Seaway is
the foundation upon which we can promote and accommodate increases in
maritime cargo. The Seaway is already one of the world's safest
waterways and that safety record continues to improve. Over the past 25
years, the average number of international vessel incidents in the
Seaway requiring GLS inspectors has decreased significantly. From 1996-
2006, the average number of incidents was 19 per year. However, from
2007-2020, the average number of incidents declined to only 6 per year.
This positive development can be attributed to several factors,
including the U.S.-Canadian Enhanced Seaway Inspection Program, the use
of the Seaway's Automatic Identification System (AIS) vessel traffic
management technology beginning in 2002, the use of the Seaway's Hands
Free Mooring system beginning in 2018, the well-trained and skilled GLS
lock operations and maintenance staff, and a major fleet renewal
program implemented by many of the Seaway's commercial carriers.
In addition, since the Seaway's opening in 1959, the GLS has
consistently maintained a near-perfect reliability rate of 99 percent
for commercial users of its locks in the U.S. sector of the waterway.
During the 2020 navigation season (April 1-December 30, 2020), the GLS
workforce ably operated and maintained the waterway and lock system at
a reliability rate of 99.3 percent and lock availability rate of 99.96
percent, all while managing the impacts of the coronavirus disease 2019
(COVID-19) pandemic. This high mark of success is due primarily to the
GLS's efficient management and operations of the locks and control of
vessel traffic. Global customers from nearly 50 countries return each
year to use the Seaway because of the waterway's strong safety record,
efficient operations, and near-perfect reliability rate.
Environmental Stewardship
The GLS also ensures strict ballast water management efforts to
prevent any new introductions of aquatic invasive species via
commercial vessels entering Seaway waters. In 2008, the GLS and
Canadian SLSMC implemented regulations jointly requiring all ships with
no ballast in their tanks to conduct saltwater flushing of the empty
ballast water tanks before arriving in the Seaway. The GLS, along with
the U.S. Coast Guard, Transport Canada, and the SLSMC, formed the
Ballast Water Working Group (BWWG) to enforce ballast water inspections
of all vessels to ensure these regulations are carried out. The BWWG's
annual summary report documents the Group's inspection results and
findings.\4\ The report measures both the performance of the binational
inspection team in inspecting the ballast tanks of incoming ocean
vessels and the compliance by the oceangoing trade in meeting U.S. and
Canadian ballast water management requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://greatlakes-seaway.com/en/commercial-shipping/
transiting-the-seaway/ballast-water/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In both cases, the results of the 2020 report are outstanding. In
2020, every ballast tank of every ocean vessel entering the Seaway was
assessed--10,628 ballast tanks on 536 vessel transits. The BWWG found
that the compliance rate by industry in 2020 for low salinity non-
compliant tanks was 98.2 percent.\5\ In those rare instances where
salinity levels do not meet the standard, the ballast tanks are sealed
and then re-inspected on the vessel's outbound journey to ensure that
the tank was not used on its voyage in the Great Lakes. Since 2009, 100
percent of international vessels entering the Seaway have received a
ballast water management exam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://greatlakes-seaway.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/
2020_BW_Rpt_EN.pdf.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Great Lakes Seaway System has one of the most stringent
inspection regimes in world. The effectiveness of the Seaway's ballast
water inspection program has been publicly credited as a key factor in
dramatically reducing the risk of introduction of invasive species into
the Great Lakes. Since 2006, there have been only 2 new aquatic
invasive species identified in the Great Lakes that the scientific
community considers are possibly associated with ballast water, but the
timing of introduction and actual source pathways are uncertain. This
can be compared to 15 new aquatic invasive species that were identified
from 1993-2006, the equivalent time period before the new regulations,
which the scientific community strongly attributes to ballast water.
The GLS is proud of its efforts in serving as an environmental
gatekeeper to the St. Lawrence Seaway and will continue to perform
these important inspections.
Infrastructure Modernization
The locks, channels, and accompanying infrastructure of the St.
Lawrence Seaway owned and maintained by the GLS are ``perpetual''
transportation assets that require periodic and regular capital
reinvestment in order to continue to operate safely, reliably, and
efficiently. After 50 years of continuous operation with only minimal
capital reinvestment, Congress approved the authorization and funding
for the GLS's infrastructure renewal program beginning in FY 2009. The
start of the program marked the first time in the Seaway's 50-year
history that a coordinated effort to repair and modernize the U.S.
Seaway infrastructure had taken place.
From FY 2009-2020, the GLS spent $179 million on 59 infrastructure-
related projects. Major infrastructure projects completed over that
time period included maintenance dredging in the U.S. portion of the
Seaway navigation channel, lock miter gate and culvert valve machinery
upgrades, culvert valve replacements, hands-free mooring installation
at the locks, gatelifter upgrades, miter gate rehabilitation, and
tugboat replacements, as well as various other structural and equipment
repairs and/or replacements. The GLS's infrastructure investments over
the past decade demonstrate our country's commitment to the long-
standing agreement to jointly operate and maintain the St. Lawrence
Seaway with Canada.
The GLS Seaway Infrastructure program is developed annually by
Corporation engineering, maintenance, lock operations, and policy staff
following annual winter preventative maintenance work and inspections.
This capital planning process ensures that aging machinery, equipment,
and parts are rehabilitated/replaced; that buildings for employees and
the public, grounds, and utilities are sufficiently maintained/
refurbished; and that commercial trade continues to move on the Seaway
safely and without interruption or delays.
Trade and Economic Development
The statute that created the GLS provided general authority for the
Corporation to undertake trade and economic development activities, and
this is an important aspect of our mission. In recent years, Congress
has provided additional funding for the GLS to expand this program. The
GLS devotes resources to trade and economic development activities
aimed at increasing commercial trade through the St. Lawrence Seaway
and improving economic conditions in the eight Great Lakes States. The
primary benefit is the stimulation of U.S. and Canadian port city
economies through increased maritime industry activity, including
services and employment to support maritime commerce. In 2015, the GLS
designated a Great Lakes Regional Representative who leads this value-
added service for the wider stakeholder community.
Initiative activities include facilitating new trade for Great
Lakes Seaway System ports, conducting trade research and analysis to
assist Great Lakes Seaway System stakeholders in identifying cargo
trends and new business, participating in joint marketing efforts with
our Canadian counterparts, promoting the Seaway System to prospective
customers, and assessing the economic impact of Great Lakes Seaway
shipping.
The GLS's trade and economic development activities were
instrumental in the 2014 launch of the first regularly scheduled
international liner service to a U.S. port on the Great Lakes since the
1970's. Working directly with Great Lakes Seaway System ports, the GLS
helps identify ways to increase tonnage traffic in traditional Seaway
cargoes as well as in diversifying the types of cargo moving through
their port.
Additionally, the GLS has been instrumental in the growth of
international cruising activity in the Great Lakes. In January 2020,
Viking Cruise Line announced its Great Lakes itineraries and the
construction of two Seaway-sized cruise ships. The first ship will
conduct its maiden voyage in May 2022. This adds to the nine other
cruise vessels that have itineraries in the Lakes. The GLS continues to
work with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to find ways to streamline
passenger processing and bring more cruise vessels to more ports in the
Great Lakes. Stakeholders and customers alike are realizing the
benefits from a modernizing vision of the Great Lakes Seaway System and
the added value the GLS and Great Lakes/Seaway ports are providing to
their communities and to the region.
Current Issues
COVID-19--The GLS is happy to report that we were able to operate
the entire 2020 navigation season (April 1-December 31, 2020), without
any positive cases of COVID-19 impacting our workforce, even though the
majority of our Massena-based operational employees reported to the
worksite every day. During the winter maintenance cycle, the GLS was
impacted by several positive cases of COVID-19; however, additional
remedial measures implemented quickly reduced the transmission of
COVID-19 and the winter maintenance was completed in time for the
opening of the 2021 navigation season on March 22.
Seaway International Bridge--The U.S. and Canada share the
ownership, management, and operation of the Seaway International
Bridge. The bridge is the only U.S. federally owned international
border crossing bridge and is co-owned by the GLS and the Canadian
Federal Government through its Canadian Federal Bridge Corporation,
Ltd. (FBCL). The bridge is managed by the Seaway International Bridge
Corporation (SIBC), on behalf of the U.S. and Canadian owners.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated cross-border
restrictions currently enforced between the United States and Canada,
paid car and truck traffic on the bridge has dramatically decreased to
10-15 percent of average levels, resulting in the financial inability
of the bridge to function self-sufficiently. To date, the Canadian
Government has provided federal funding to supplement the reduced
bridge tolls to ensure the bridge safely remains open.
Water Levels--Water flows and levels can significantly impact the
safe and efficient operation of navigation in the Seaway. If Lake
Ontario outflows reach a certain level, it becomes unsafe for
commercial navigation to transit through the Seaway. In 2019, Lake
Ontario experienced record high water levels and flooding to shoreline
communities due to unprecedented precipitation in the region. The 2021
shipping season has not been similarly affected by water level issues,
as Lake Ontario is currently in drought conditions.
Lake Ontario water outflows are regulated by the International
Joint Commission (IJC) and its International Lake Ontario St. Lawrence
River Board (Board) is the entity that manages the outflow rates.
Outflows are governed by a water regulation plan, Plan 2014, which the
IJC and the Board implemented in January 2017 after many years of
interagency and binational discussions regarding the prioritization of
uses for the boundary waters. The GLS and the Canadian Seaway have
worked closely with the IJC and the Board over the past several years
to ensure that the priority rights of the Seaway and commercial
navigation established by the U.S. and Canadian Governments in the
Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, reaffirmed by both countries in their
concurrence of Plan 2014, and reiterated in the accompanying joint U.S.
and Canadian Government documents, including the Supplementary Order of
Approval, continue to be respected.
Pilotage--All international vessels entering the Great Lakes St.
Lawrence Seaway System are required by U.S. and Canadian regulations to
have a certified vessel pilot on board to assist the vessel's captain
in navigating the vessel. The oversight of pilotage services is a
state-regulated activity everywhere in the United States, except for
the Great Lakes, where pilotage is regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard
Office of Great Lakes Pilotage pursuant to the Great Lakes Pilotage Act
of 1960.
In addition to overseeing the three U.S. pilot districts in the
Great Lakes Seaway System, the U.S. Coast Guard also establishes the
rates that the U.S. pilots may charge for the provision of their
services to vessel owners. Changes in the rate adjustment methodology
have been controversial and have been met with criticism and litigation
from various U.S. and Canadian commercial navigation stakeholders. The
availability and cost of U.S. pilotage services in the Great Lakes
Seaway System are crucial components of the Seaway's safety and
economic competitiveness. It is essential that the availability of
Great Lakes Seaway System pilots be maintained in a manner that ensures
safety while promoting the competitiveness of the waterway.
The GLS remains dedicated to safely and efficiently operating the
U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway while also promoting the
economic benefits of the marine mode, attracting new cargoes to the
Great Lakes Seaway System, and leveraging technology and innovation to
enhance the system's performance and safety. Over its more than 60-year
history, the GLS has been a model of binational partnership, ensuring
that this international waterway is one of the safest and most reliable
transportation routes in the world. With the investments being made in
the St. Lawrence Seaway by the United States and Canada, it will remain
so for many years to come.
Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this statement for
the record.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mr. Middlebrook.
Thank you to all our witnesses, and we will now move to
have the questions to the witnesses. And we will use the timer
to allow 5 minutes of questions for each Member. If there are
additional questions, we may have additional rounds, as
necessary.
And beginning the questioning to Ms. Fox: In many places in
the West, including my district, we are taking vital steps to
fight drought by improving local water capture and groundwater
recharge. Many groundwater basins that would be very effective
for water storage and supply have had major challenges with
historical contamination. Some of the sites are Superfund, some
are brownfields, and some are regulated by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.
What is EPA doing to specifically address groundwater
remediation for basins needed for water supply, especially in
drought-prone regions?
Ms. Fox. Thank you so much for the question, Chairwoman
Napolitano. And I share your deep concern for the drought that
is plaguing the Western States. In fact, we now have 99 percent
of the West in drought. That is 14 States, including
California, where we are both from. And 60 percent of the West
is now in extreme drought.
The EPA is doing several things to really address this
issue. For example, the EPA's Office of Water and the Office of
Land and Emergency Management are working together on cleaning
up groundwater and building long-term drought resiliency.
We are also actively engaged in the White House drought
working group, which is led by the Department of the Interior
and USDA, to really think about in the short term in this
crisis that we are seeing in the West what can we do, what
short-term funding options do we have to support communities.
We are also actively engaged in the National Drought Resilience
Partnership, which is really looking at longer term
authorities.
And what I would say, Congresswoman Napolitano, as far as
the tools and resources we have available to tackle drought,
one of the biggest ones that we have at EPA is really the work
that we are doing around water reuse. We have a dedicated water
reuse team here in the Office of Water, and they are really
working with communities all around the country to make sure
that they know what the latest technologies are providing
technical assistance and support, trying to coordinate across
the Federal family on water reuse and recycling.
We are also really thinking about how to target the funding
and financing programs that we have available to this issue.
So, for example, States can utilize their Drinking Water
Revolving Loan Fund programs for aquifer recharge projects.
And one of the things that I am particularly proud of is
with this year's notice of funding availability for WIFIA, we
are prioritizing projects that tackle these kinds of issues and
tackle climate resilience. It really is going to take all of us
working together to make sure that the urgent crisis around
drought is addressed.
So thank you for the question.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, ma'am, for the answer.
I have great concern for the protection of the Clean Water
Act, and I am troubled that the administration has not
addressed the ``dirty water rule,'' and your testimony today
doesn't even mention it. Of particular concern to me is the
streams that are feeding the great rivers of the arid West only
flow in the rainy season and are dry the rest of the year.
These are rivers that we rely on for our drinking water, and if
they are polluted because of lack of protection for
intermittent waters, our residents and businesses will be
forced to pay for treatment of contaminated water sources.
What is EPA doing to protect and prevent pollution in these
areas?
Ms. Fox. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. And I
share your concerns about the Navigable Waters Protection Rule
and the lack of protections that we have for so many water
bodies across America.
That is why Army and EPA have made the determination to
undertake a rulemaking to address these issues. As
Administrator Regan and I have said, we want to develop a
definition of ``waters of the United States'' that is
consistent with the spirit and intent of the Clean Water Act,
which is to preserve and protect the integrity of our Nation's
waters.
And we also want a rule that stops the ping pong,
Congresswoman. I mean, for over a decade we have had multiple
lawsuits. It seems like every time there is an election this
rule gets rewritten, and we want to stop that ping pong because
at the end of the day, who gets hurt? It is people, and it is
our Nation's waters.
And that is why we are both going to be expeditious as we
develop this rulemaking, but we are going to do it in a way
that is grounded in learning from the lessons of the past. We
are going to understand what worked and what didn't about the
pre-2015 WOTUS definition, what worked and what didn't around
the Clean Water Rule, and then also what worked and what
doesn't about the Navigable Waters Protection Rule.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much for your answers,
ma'am. I appreciate it.
Mr. Rouzer, you are recognized.
Mr. Rouzer. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And, Ms. Fox,
thank you again for being here. It is great to see you, and
thank you again for the visit that we had recently. I very much
enjoyed the opportunity to talk with you.
A number of things, but I am going to start with this: So a
few weeks ago, as I mentioned in my opening comments, Acting
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Jaime Pinkham
testified before this subcommittee. And he, in essence, said
this, or I asked him this question: Which agency is going to be
the lead on the WOTUS rewrite?
And his response was, quote, ``It will be primarily EPA,
with a tremendous amount of engagement from the Civil Works
program at the Army.''
Would you say that is an accurate assessment? Is that how
you understand the relationship there?
Ms. Fox. Well, first of all, it is wonderful to see you
again, Congressman Rouzer. And I really enjoyed our discussion
about so many water quality issues in North Carolina and really
look forward to working with you as I take on this new role.
So the ``waters of the United States'' is a joint
rulemaking, with EPA and Army both having a responsibility. And
so it is a big and important rule and so we divide up the work.
And we are very collaborative. We actually have biweekly
meetings. At the staff level, they meet weekly on many of the
technical issues. It is really a collaboration in the finest
sense of the word between our two agencies.
Mr. Rouzer. Which agency or is it both of you that will be
coordinating the stakeholder outreach, and can you give a
timeline on that, any specific details on what that will
entail?
Ms. Fox. Yes. We have not ironed out the specific sort of
staffing division of responsibility on the stakeholder
engagements, but I do anticipate that EPA Office of Water staff
will take on a lot of the administrative coordination,
logistical coordination, et cetera, of those stakeholder
engagements.
As to your question, Congressman, about the timing, we want
to be transparent in the development of this rule, because we
know it is so foundational to so many things that communities
care about. And so, later this summer, we will be announcing
the framework for the rulemaking and also the various
stakeholder engagements that will happen.
But just to preview that for you, sir, this summer, later
this summer, we intend to do public listening sessions that
will be virtual. So any member of the general public can share
their feedback with EPA and Army.
We will also do dedicated stakeholder conversations with
many of the stakeholder groups that are impacted with that
rule. We will meet with agriculture. We will meet with
industry. We will meet with environmental organizations,
environmental justice groups, and, of course, our State and
Tribal coregulators. Local governments and county governments
are so important to this. So we will do those targeted
stakeholder discussions.
And then we anticipate in the late fall-early winter, we
will then have regional roundtables as well. And, really, the
regional roundtables, Congressman, really recognize that the
way in which ``waters of the U.S.'' is implemented in different
regions, it looks different because the geology, the hydrology
are different. And so we really need to understand that
application, that implementation on the ground. And so we will
be doing those really in all of the 10 EPA regions, like I
said, in the late winter.
Mr. Rouzer. One quick question, and this is very important.
I remember in 2015 the Obama ``waters of the U.S.'' rule. I had
Democratic mayors, Republican mayors, it was across the board,
just a lot of strong concern. There were 31 States and a myriad
of stakeholder groups representing farmers, ranchers, miners,
really anyone who wanted to do anything on land were very much
concerned about the rule.
Who is concerned about the Trump rule, specifically? I know
my friends on the other side call it the ``dirty water rule,''
but I have not heard a word from my Democratic mayors back home
or anyone. People seem to be satisfied with this rule. So I am
just wondering who you all have specifically heard from.
Ms. Fox. Well, thank you for that question, and thank you
for that feedback about the concerns from your constituents on
the 2015 rule. Of course, as you know, I was not here in 2015,
so I can't speak to all the particulars.
But what I can say is that with the Navigable Waters
Protection Rule, it is being litigated in many courts around
the country. In fact, there are 20 State's attorneys that have
expressed their deep concern. And I will say I think that
concern, there is cause for concern in thinking about some of
the long-term water quality protections.
We have heard, for example, from New Mexico that now over
90 percent of their waters are no longer jurisdictional. And
the concern that they have raised to us is that when a water is
not jurisdictional, it means that we don't have the ability to
use the permitting process to assess and potentially mitigate
water quality impacts. We are not saying no development. We are
saying we want to really understand the impacts of the
particular development on our Nation's waters. And that is
really why this definition is so important.
So we have heard lots of concerns about the 2020 rule. We
have heard lots of concerns about the 2015 rule. And,
Congressman, that is why Administrator Regan, Army, myself are
so committed to really understanding those implementation
challenges through our stakeholder engagement process and
really trying to find a balance that really protects our waters
but is also clear and efficient in its implementation.
Mr. Rouzer. Madam Chair, my time has expired. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. You are very welcome.
I would like to have Ms. Johnson next, followed by Mr.
Webster, followed by Mr. Garamendi and Mr. Bost. Ms. Johnson,
you are on.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Well, thank you very much. And thank
you for having this hearing.
I would like to pose a question first to Ms. Fox. I was
pleased to see in your testimony that the EPA, under the
leadership of Administrator Regan, is embedding equity in
everything that it does.
I wonder specifically what are the primary avenues in which
the agency intends to embark upon this goal, and how do you see
the EPA accomplishing this, and what do you view as the main
obstacles or roadblocks that may be in place that you need to
overcome?
Ms. Fox. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman, and it
is wonderful to see you again. It has been I think almost a
number of years since we have last visited.
So thank you for the question. And I have to say our
commitment to equity starts from President Biden and to
Administrator Regan.
And what Administrator Regan has done is he has asked each
of his national program offices in our 10 EPA regions to look
at what regulatory authority, what funding and financing
programs we have, what voluntary programs we have--you know, we
also have a range of technical assistance tools available to
us--and has asked us to assess, you know, are there
disproportionate impacts from how we are utilizing these
authorities that we have, and can we do better?
So what that means, in the context of the Office of Water,
is we are looking at things like, when we do a rulemaking, do
we have meaningful community engagement from those who are
perhaps disproportionately impacted? And, unfortunately, we
haven't always done that. And that is why, for example, as we
are looking at the Lead and Copper Rule, we are doing community
roundtables with low-income people and communities of color
around the country. So we are thinking about, are we being
equitable when we do these regulations and rulemaking?
I am very grateful that Congress has bestowed upon the
Office of Water a range of funding and financing programs. You
know, are those resources going to communities who are most
vulnerable when it comes to water quality and quantity
challenges? So we are doing that assessment.
And then, Congresswoman, one of the things that I would say
as far as do we have all the tools that we need, I would say I
think we need more. So, for example, one of the barriers that
we face in utilizing some of our grant programs is that the
definition of disadvantaged communities doesn't always line up
or doesn't always actually target the communities who are most
vulnerable. So we may need to come to Congress and present that
information to all of you so that we could work on getting
those things aligned.
Another thing that I hear from communities all around the
country is that they need technical assistance and support to
even be able to access the funds that we have. And so we think
that it is actually really important to invest more in building
the technical and the managerial and the financial capacity of
these more vulnerable water systems. And so I think that is
another area of promise as we move forward.
And then, of course, you know, the environmental justice
programs. The President's budget, the fiscal year 2022 budget
calls for a historic investment in environmental justice
communities. And so we are keeping our fingers crossed that
that makes it into the final budget that Congress passes
because we know that the situation is dire all around the
country.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Well, thank you very much. I just
have a very short amount of time. I will yield back. I yield
back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
Mr. Webster, you are next. You are on.
Mr. Webster. I am on?
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, you are. Yes, sir.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Chair.
I have a question for Mr. Cosby: In the agriculture world,
does your area--because we have been talking about global
warming and so forth, do you have any impact on the agriculture
industry and their harvesting and planting machines and so
forth as it comes to internal combustion engines? Do you have
anything to do with that?
Mr. Cosby. Thank you for the question, sir. And my agency
is--you know, we have a lot of things that we do. And I would
like to talk a little bit about the programs that we have to
offer to the landowners across this great country through our
conservation programs and through our working lands programs.
And it helps these farmers adjust to a lot of things that
are happening, and especially with drought and some of the
disasters that are happening around the country right now.
We have our EQIP program, our environmental EQIP program
that we have, and we administer that throughout the whole
country. And we offer those programs to the farmers out there,
and it helps them to address a lot of things.
What we do on the land is we sit down with the landowner
and we start with a conservation plan. And from that
conservation plan, we talk to the landowner about, you know,
what are their objectives? What are you trying to achieve on
these acres? We walk a lot of times--we walk every acre, and we
talk about what the resource needs are for those acres. And we
help landowners, inform landowners on what they can do to solve
some of those resource problems. And a lot of times those
landowners take those plans, they implement those programs.
But, also, we have our financial assistance programs that
we offer to a lot of the landowners to help offset some of the
costs of some of these practices that they want to put on. A
lot of our practices, they do a lot for climate mitigation, and
it helps with erosion, water quality. And so we have a lot of
tools in the toolbox to work with landowners around the country
to help them with their resource needs, sir.
Mr. Webster. Specifically, let me ask: Most of the
harvesting and so forth, there is a museum in my area for
International Harvester equipment and all kinds of interesting
pieces of equipment. And they are still used, and they are all
internal combustion engines.
And I am wondering, is there a battery-powered industry
building or coming or thought about in the agriculture
industry, do you know?
Mr. Cosby. Sir, what I would like to do is take that
question back with me and maybe sit down with you and your
staff to look at this a little bit further, but I would like to
take that question back.
Mr. Webster. OK. Well, I have got a lot of agriculture in
my area, and I am not sure exactly how they are going. One of
the things I am talking about is the fact that, in Florida, if
you had an electric vehicle, you wouldn't want to leave the
State; trying to get out of the State with a hurricane coming
with that electric vehicle, in some places, you can't make it,
and then to recharge is going to be a little difficult.
But in the area of farming, the recharging stations are not
next to you. They are not there. And I am wondering if that
industry is--part of what you take back with you and part of
what I would like to know about is what is happening in that
realm of agriculture that changes footprint, changes the use of
internal combustion engines, and allows for farmers still to
maintain what they are doing, still to do their work, the
crops, feed us, and yet do it in a way that would be the right
way.
And, anyway, I look forward to hearing back from you. I
yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Webster, for yielding back.
Mr. Garamendi, you are recognized.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And for the witnesses, thank you very much for your
statements. I have got about a dozen questions for each of you
and certainly not the time to ask them.
Ms. Fox, you have been questioned several times on the
``waters of the U.S.'' I will add very briefly to that. It is
an extremely important issue for California, particularly for
my district where I have about 200 miles of the Sacramento
River Valley and a lot of agriculture. The 2015 rule created
very, very serious problems for agriculture where a drainage
ditch, dry most of the year, would be subject to the rule. The
Trump rule went too far in the other direction. There is a lot
of middle ground there. Listening to the way in which you
intend to go about that, it is the right way. Gather the
information. Find the appropriate way to deal with it. Not
every agricultural ditch is a ``water of the U.S.'' or would
have impact.
Also please keep in mind that there are other Federal rules
that also interact with ``waters of the U.S.,'' particularly
the clean waters programs, discharges, and the like. And so
when you explained what you wanted to do and your philosophy, I
think you may have merged into the discharge area. In any case,
count on us being deeply involved in all of this. Our farmers
will be there, and I will be there. I did oppose the 2015, much
to the chagrin of my environmental friends but I thought it was
too far, too much, and, of course, the Trump administration
rule, equally too far in the other direction. I am going to let
it go at that. You have already opined on this, and we will
deeply be involved in it.
I do have a couple of other questions. Mr. Cosby, not a
question but a shout-out and a thank you. The NRCS is extremely
important in California. The work that you are doing not only
on the farms but now into the forests, working with, for
example, the Yuba County Water Agency, trying to figure out how
to bring NRCS into the forest for forest health, for water, as
well as for fire protection. Please continue. Be strong. Make
sure that money goes out to the projects, most of which you
have already spoke to.
I had not expected to talk about the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry program, Mr. Breysse, but I am
going to. My work in the House Armed Services Committee is
directly related and complementary to what you are doing, and
so I would appreciate a conversation with you and my staff
about the work that you are doing on this. The registry program
that you are talking about, we have a similar program with the
military, the OATH Act, and then augmenting that this year to
cover many of the things that you are covering. So we have got
a meeting that will be scheduled between your team and our team
on the House Armed Services Committee.
With regard to the Great Lakes, we are putting together an
amendment to the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and
Control Act of 1990 so that we can find a way of making sure
that boats and ships that move from one environment to another
do not transmit nonnative aquatic species. So we look forward
to working with you, Mr. Middlebrook, on this issue so that we
can once again try to protect our native aquatic species from
invasives. So, yeah, you and I and our team are going to have a
further conversation.
And, finally, with regard to the NOAA: NOAA, you have
icebreakers. You rent icebreakers. I want to know how you are
doing that. I want to know how that works. The Coast Guard and
the Navy are in desperate need of icebreakers. Maybe your model
works. Maybe it doesn't. So let's look at that and have a
conversation about it.
So my questions are, hey, we are going to have a
conversation on each and every one of these issues. What do you
say to that? On board? Thumbs up. Let's do it.
With that, I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi, very much for
your input.
Next we have Mr. Bost. You may proceed.
[Pause.]
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Bost?
We will proceed to the next individual, Mr. Pappas.
Mr. Pappas. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the
opportunity.
Mrs. Napolitano. I am sorry. I skipped somebody. I am
sorry, Mr. Pappas.
It is Mr. Malinowski who is next.
Mr. Pappas. OK.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Madam Chair.
So thank to you the witnesses. Very interesting and
important testimony.
And I wanted to start with you, Ms. Fox, raising an issue
about cybersecurity. Earlier this year, as you know, a water
treatment plant in Oldsmar, Florida, was hacked and the
intruders apparently attempted to dramatically increase the
amount of lye in the water treatment process. It was a near
miss that could have been absolutely catastrophic. This is
obviously a larger problem. Chris Krebs, the former Director of
CISA, speaking to this event, said that the vulnerability at
that particular water treatment plant was probably more the
rule than the exception around the United States.
I note that EPA has asked for a small increase to $15
million in its budget to help these kinds of facilities harden
their systems. So I wonder, first of all, do you agree with Mr.
Krebs that that was more the rule than the exception? And,
second, say a little bit about what the money you are
requesting will do and whether it is sufficient.
Ms. Fox. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
And one thing that you may or may not know about me is that
I used to work for a local water utility. I worked for the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and so I saw firsthand,
working at a local water utility, how vulnerable water
utilities are. So you mentioned the situation in Florida, but
we have seen cyber threats, cyber attacks on other water
utilities around the country.
This is a critical issue when it relates to preserving
public health, and so this is an area--I think what is in the
fiscal year 2022 budget is a start, but we are going to need, I
think, more tools and resources in order to make sure that our
drinking water and wastewater systems are cyber secure. We
have, I think, made some really good progress in a voluntary
way, working with the Federal family and then working with some
of the national water associations, working with the
associations that represent our State coregulators. But I think
we need to invest more in these water utilities so that they
can develop cybersecurity plans.
I think we need to start asking whether, when a breach
happens, is there a requirement that it is reported to the EPA?
Because that is currently not the case. So I think that there
is a lot that we need to do from a regulatory perspective and
from a funding perspective, and I would welcome the opportunity
to work with you and this committee on moving some of those
issues forward.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you.
Would that require legislation, or is that a regulatory
fix?
Ms. Fox. So I think what one that we are doing with the
Office of Water is really, and really at the request of the
National Security Council and the President, is what current
regulatory authorities do we have that we could utilize to do
more on cyber, but we also know that we are going to need, I
think, more legislative action in order----
Mr. Malinowski. I meant in terms of specifically the
reporting requirement.
Ms. Fox. The reporting, as well as funding, funding
directly so that water utilities can make these kinds of
investments.
Mr. Malinowski. Good. Thank you.
And then finally just to echo the emphasis that Ms. LeBoeuf
provided on climate and climate policy, we had a record-
breaking year in 2020 in terms of the number of billion-dollar
weather and climate disasters in this country, 22. The previous
record was 16, and we have seen the heat waves and what
happened in Texas and subways flooded in New York City.
I guess my quick question for you is: Is there any amount
of money we can spend on the resiliency and hardening
infrastructure that is actually going to insulate us from those
kinds of disasters if we don't take dramatic action soon to
actually deal with the cause of those disasters, which is the
change in climate?
Ms. Fox. It is an excellent question, Congressman.
I think this question is exactly why President Biden is
acting so urgently to address the climate crisis. We have had a
number of Executive orders that I think illustrate the urgency
with which the President wants us to act. The national climate
office within the White House is doing an excellent job of
convening the Federal family on these issues, and it is why I
think we so desperately need the bipartisan infrastructure
framework to become legislation. It would really help us make a
lot of progress on the climate issue as well.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. My time is up.
I yield back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Malinowski.
Now we will proceed to Mr. LaMalfa, followed by Ms. Mace
and then Mr. Pappas.
You are on, Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it.
As we sit here in the West and northern California, I have
at least seven forest fires going on in my area here. And we
don't hear talk about it enough. We hear a lot about changing
weather patterns but not a lot about the action in order to
mitigate drought and to mitigate forests that have an overload,
have an over-inventory of trees and brush and dead material
that needs to be removed and made something useful of it.
So, if we want to do something about this situation with
changing weather patterns, why don't we focus on thinning
forests, managing them in a way so they have the inventory per
acre that makes them much more survivable, and storing more
water when we do get it as rainfall? We are getting less as
snowpack lately. And we would have that to carry over into
later years. But, you know, those are the eternal discussions
that we have and seem to gloss over a lot.
In regards to the WOTUS conversation earlier here, we have
had areas up here where people in agriculture have been told
they cannot farm their land because it somehow affects the
``waters of the United States.'' Changing crops, changing from
a grain crop to a tree crop has in recent times, before the
Trump administration WOTUS action, people were getting fined
and getting land even seized from them for changing crops and
forming their land in the way that works for actually better
water management for them. And so it has really became an out-
of-control rule. And as one of my colleagues was mentioning,
who is complaining right now about WOTUS as it is, as it has
been redefined? So, when we do the ping-pong thing back and
forth, we want to change it back to the thing that is very
restrictive.
``Waters of the United States'' has nothing to do with a
farmer's irrigation ditch, drainage ditch, the land which they
are farming themselves. When you want to talk rivers and things
like that, fine. You have a conversation. But every drop of
water that falls on somebody's roof, somebody's driveway,
somebody's ditch, somebody's field, does not belong to the
United States. And that is something that needs to be made
clear and understood by this administration and everybody else
in Washington, DC.
So, with those struggles we have in agriculture, I want to
focus on Chief Cosby there. You mentioned in your issues with
NRCS, you want to protect the viability of agriculture
operations, the Nation's soil, water, and related natural
resources on non-Federal lands. So let me bring up how things
are going in the Klamath Basin which borders northern
California and southern Oregon, the Klamath River. It, of
course, is facing a catastrophic lack of water supply. The lack
of water is partially the Federal Government's fault. The
Klamath project was built, part of it, over 100 years ago to
bring water to agriculture that belonged solely to agriculture.
Courts have upheld that that water, the augmentation of the
existing lake, was water that belongs to agriculture. Yet it is
still being pilfered by the Department of the Interior through
the Bureau of Reclamation to flush down the stream for either
trying to help coho salmon or being forced to stay in the lake
ostensibly to try and help the sucker fish. So both ESA and the
NEPA both require the water be flushed for those reasons.
So it is really a conundrum as to which way--you keep the
water in the lake, you flush it out--either way, none of it is
now available for agriculture or the refuges up there or much
wildlife that affects the whole Pacific Flyway in place.
So the Bureau this year, the Bureau of Reclamation for the
first time ever will not even open the canal to agriculture to
send in for irrigation water for products that you and I use
all across this country. So it triggers a long process of
Government aid approval that would actually be helpful, but it
takes months and months. Meanwhile, these folks are on the line
with not being able to farm their crops and making a living for
lack of that. So they will be waiting for Congress to put
together a disaster package. The Bureau has already allocated
its entire aid budget.
So the question to you, Mr. Cosby, is: What are the goals
you lay out for your agency to protect the viability of
agriculture operations? We want farming the basin to continue,
but we have to set up a much faster process to get the aid out.
These farmers don't want aid. They would rather farm with the
water that actually belongs to them. That said, what can we do
to speed up the process to get the aid out so they can get
through 2021? We believe the Commodity Credit Corporation is a
vehicle we can do that with, partnering with NRCS. CCC does
much work already with agriculture, as you know, and so they
could be a way for a distribution system for payments, not
completely unlike how we tasked SBA to get through the CARES
Act and the first part of the COVID business.
So what do you think about the partnership that NRCS can
use with CCC to accelerate aid payments for these farmers and
ranchers that are up in that basin?
Mr. Cosby. And, Congressman, thank you for your question.
We share your concern about drought and what is happening
in the western part of the United States, and NRCS is making
some programs available to those farmers and ranchers. It is
mainly through our Environmental Quality Incentives Program,
which we call EQIP. We have made available----
Mr. LaMalfa. Sir, sir, let me jump in there. Let me jump in
there. We have heard of EQIP----
Mrs. Napolitano. Your time is up, Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. It is a fine program.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's a fine program, but it doesn't do anything near the
scale of what we are talking about for the type of damage that
is being done up there. And so, when you say we have programs,
they are good little programs but they nip at the edges of the
size of an agricultural operation. I am a farmer in my real
life, too, and they help----
Mrs. Napolitano. Would you mind putting this in writing.
Mr. LaMalfa?
Mr. LaMalfa. Yeah, yeah, thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
We will proceed to the next Member of Congress.
Ms. Mace, you are on.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Chairwoman Napolitano, and Ranking
Member Rouzer. I appreciate the time this afternoon, and I
appreciate all of our witnesses being here today and especially
you, Ms. LeBoeuf, with NOAA.
I am speaking to you today from the historic Charleston
Battery right here in downtown Charleston and also behind me
right on the water and actually a little bit further behind me,
we pan that way, is the South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources where NOAA also has a lab and works with our
department here.
And while we are not always going to see eye to eye on
funding priorities, I know there are some areas where I think
we can join together and work together with all of my
colleagues here today, and I want to echo how important the
work that NOAA does, your organization, in regards to flooding,
which is why I am standing in downtown Charleston this
afternoon.
Forty years ago, flooding in Charleston, where I am
standing today, averaged about two times a year. Today, in
2021, 40 years later, we are seeing over 40 flood incidents
every single year, and it is predicted by 2045, our city will
be hit by coastal flooding up to 180 times per year.
Additionally, our region has been hit by several major
flooding events over the years, including the 1,000-year flood,
which was in October of 2015, Hurricane Matthew in 2016,
Hurricane Irma in 2017, and just last week we had a mere
tropical storm, which caused tremendous flooding throughout our
great city. The Holy City of Charleston, the original sea level
rise strategy adopted in 2015, was aided by technical mapping
assistance by the Regional Coastal Resilience Grant from NOAA's
Office for Coastal Management. The grant was awarded to the
South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium on behalf of the Charleston
Resilience Network.
I work with the Office of Coastal Resilience and have been
out to the NOAA facility here in Charleston. I have seen the
important work that NOAA and your office is doing with the
digital coast mapping software, something that was very
important to me as a State lawmaker and even more important now
as a Member of Congress. Today we are learning, quickly
learning, that 5-year, 10-year, and further out flood plans are
constantly evolving because this issue is rapidly changing
literally on a year-to-year basis. And I look forward to
hearing from you on how the administration and your office
plans to account for the budgeting needs of cities like
Charleston, South Carolina, that are facing ever-growing, ever-
changing flooding issues.
I also want to add that, as I am sure you know, the city of
Charleston is working closely with the Army Corps of Engineers
to propose seawall construction in which engineers believe they
can save the city from long-term impacts of storm surges until
and through 2082. We are all eagerly awarding the Corps' final
report to be released and signed--we are hoping it will be next
month. I hope you will be able to speak to your office's
coordinating strategists also with the Army Corps of the
Engineers.
Again, I appreciate your time today. I see your office at
NOAA as critical for the needs of Charleston, of South
Carolina, our First Congressional District, and the entire
State of South Carolina and I would like to invite you down
here anytime to come and visit.
So, with the few moments we have left on my time on the
floor, I certainly would love to hear from you, Ms. LeBoeuf, on
NOAA and what we can do to help Charleston and our flooding
situation here today.
Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you, Congresswoman Mace, and Charleston
is absolutely one of my favorite places in the country, and I
share your concern about rising sea levels. In fact, later
today, I will be speaking at a media event to release our
``High-Tide Flooding Report'' for this year. In any home State
of Texas, for example, we either tied or broke several records
from Galveston to Corpus Christi of more than 20 days of high-
tide flooding per year. Just 20 years ago, that was 2 to 3 days
per year.
And you are absolutely right. In Charleston, in Pensacola,
we saw more than 14 days of high-tide flooding where just 20
years ago it was 1 to 2 days, and so absolutely we are facing
some big challenges, and I really appreciate you bringing those
up.
We do work closely with the Army Corps of Engineers and
advise them with regard to sea-level rise and inundation risks
and projections. We also work closely with the Army Corps on
engineering with nature, which is a program that they lead to
better understand the value of nature-based infrastructure to
protect our coastlines and to provide critical habitat for
commercially and recreationally viable species.
With regard to this budget, we are very keen to make sure
that we have the water level sensors in place, that we have
high-performance computing to be able to predict sea level rise
and storm surge risks for all of our coastal communities. For
first time in human history, we must plan infrastructure for
conditions that we have not yet seen. We have never had to do
that before, and so it is essential that NOAA's predictive
capabilities and our observations be put to the task and work
with other Federal agencies to make sure that our communities
are safe and that our Federal agencies are able to complete
their missions with climate change in mind.
So thank you so much. I will absolutely take you up on your
offer to come to Charleston. It has been too long.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Mace.
Ms. Mace. We would--we would certainly----
Mrs. Napolitano. Your time is up.
Ms. Mace [continuing]. Welcome you.
Thank you, Ms. Chairwoman.
Mrs. Napolitano. You are very welcome.
Next we recognize Mr. Pappas. You may proceed.
Mr. Pappas. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
And I appreciate the comments of all of our panelists here
today, and I want to focus my questions on the urgent need to
address PFAS contamination which is something that my
constituents and all of the other Members who are represented
here today, their constituents, are grappling with as well. Now
I have been encouraged and impressed by the commitment that the
administration has taken on PFAS. I think we need aggressive,
comprehensive action when it comes to making some forward
progress here. It is about time.
And, Ms. Fox, maybe I could turn to you. I know that the
Administrator announced the creation of a PFAS council, and you
have been appointed as cochair. One of the charges of the
council is to develop a multiyear strategy to address public
health and environmental impacts from PFAS. So, as we are
approaching the first deadline of initial recommendations from
the council, I am wondering if you could share any updates on
the work on this council and, in addition to that, what
resources EPA may eventually need from Congress in order to
move as quickly as possible when it comes to setting standards,
holding polluters accountable, and protecting public health.
Ms. Fox. Thank you for the question, Congressman Pappas,
and thank you for your incredible leadership on PFAS. It is
quite inspiring, and I very much enjoyed having the opportunity
to hear about your priorities for the people of New Hampshire.
And you are right. I have the incredible honor of
cochairing the EPA's PFAS council. And to preview for you some
of the recommendations that we will be making, we are really
taking again a whole-of-EPA approach. Administrator Regan has
directed us to think really creatively about how we harmonize
all of our authorities under the Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean
Water Act, CERCLA within the Office of Land and Emergency
Management, the Office of Air and Radiation. So we are taking
that charge seriously.
Some of the things that we are looking at are research,
restrict, and remediate. We want to build the research and
scientific base that we have at EPA and across the Federal
family, and we want to do that not only on individual PFAS as
we have historically done, but also, how do we look at PFAS as
a group? So how do we build that research and evidence base?
And then, second, we really want to restrict PFAS from entering
our land, our air, and our water in the first place. You see
what happens, Congressman, when we have that contamination in
our communities. So one of the best things that we can do as a
Federal family is to restrict PFAS in the first place. So we
are looking at that.
And then finally remediate. We have to tackle the PFAS
contamination that exists in too many communities around the
country, and so that is going to be also a huge priority of
this EPA.
As to your question around what we need, right now, we are
both looking at our current authorities, our current regulatory
authority, and how far we can go on tackling the PFAS
contamination, but we may need to come back to you-all for
additional authority.
Additionally, we need resources. We are grateful for the
resources that we have, and we are trying to use every dollar
wisely but the scale of the problem in communities around the
country is so great, and that is why I think we have been so
pleased and just so inspired by your leadership on this issue
and really truly believe this is an area where the executive
branch and the legislative branch can make a lot of progress
together.
Mr. Pappas. Well, thanks for your comments, and it is an
issue that many Members are concerned about and working on. The
ranking member also mentioned this issue in his opening
statement, which I was pleased to hear. I have got legislation,
the Clean Water Standards for PFAS Act, which would accelerate
efforts to set limits on manufacturers who are still
discharging PFAS into our waterways. When we talk about
restricting these forever chemicals from getting out into the
environment, that is an important step forward.
And in the few seconds that I have left, I am wondering if
you would agree that setting PFAS discharge standards for key
polluters is a key pillar in curbing the PFAS crisis and
whether that fits within the framework envisioned by Congress
when they authorized the Clean Water Act.
Ms. Fox. I agree with you, Representative, and one of the
things that I am proud of is that, within the Office of Water,
we have started to undertake a rulemaking that is looking at
industrial discharges from PFAS manufacturers. So it is
something that we intend to move forward with.
Mr. Pappas. Well, thanks for that commitment. This work
can't wait, and the health and well-being of our constituents
and the environment, as well, depends on your work. So we will
continue to engage on this.
And I yield back my time, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Mr. Pappas.
The next order will be Miss Gonzalez-Colon, Mr. Stanton,
Mr. Mast, and Mr. Carbajal.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, you may proceed.
[Pause.]
Mrs. Napolitano. Miss Gonzalez-Colon is not answering.
Mr. Mast, you are on.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the time
today.
My remarks are going to Ms. Fox from the EPA. I have
enjoyed speaking to you before, and I would just want to start
by saying I really appreciate the work that you-all have done
on toxic algal blooms. Everybody on this committee knows this
is the biggest thing that I work on because my community is
getting poisoned by extremely toxic algal blooms on a regular
basis. I just really want to thank you for the yeoman's work
that you-all have done on ingestion standards.
And to move a little bit onto that, EPA put out a policy or
a standard that set toxic microcystin of cyanotoxins over 8
parts per billion or 8 micrograms per liter is very toxic. It
leads to Alzheimer's, ALS, liver failure, kidney failure,
neurological things. Am I giving an accurate representation of
your findings, ma'am?
Ms. Fox. Congressman Mast, it is wonderful to see you
again, and I really enjoyed visiting with you and I want to
thank you for your leadership on these issues.
So there are not many published studies on inhalation risks
related to toxins produced by----
Mr. Mast. This is ingestion, ma'am, ingestion, going back
to what you guys did on ingestion. I am not asking about
inhalation. Did I----
Ms. Fox. Yes.
Mr. Mast [continuing]. Give an accurate representation of
what you said about ingestion?
Ms. Fox. So we have examined the relative exposure levels
between inhalation and incidental ingestion exposures based on
available scientific studies and what we determined from that
analysis is that the amount of aerosolized microcystins that
people are expected to inhale is estimated to be much lower
than the amount that is incidentally ingested while swimming.
Mr. Mast. Right. So, if 8 micrograms per liter, somebody is
swimming in that, versus if somebody is breathing that, it is
not as bad if they are breathing it versus if they are swimming
and taking it in. That is fair to say?
Ms. Fox. I would love to check in with my team on this,
Congressman, and get back to you because I do not want to
misspeak.
Mr. Mast. You were quoted--not you--EPA was quoted by the
Corps of Engineers to say the EPA indicates health risks
associated with inhalation of these algal blooms is very low.
Would you say that that is an accurate representation of what
you-all believe?
Ms. Fox. I would----
Mr. Mast. You guys are being quoted as that.
Ms. Fox. Yes, Congressman, if that is the study, yes, I am
happy to follow up with you on this. I want to make sure that I
am getting the accurate information to you.
Mr. Mast. That is not a study. I am--I actually asked the
Corps for the source material. They didn't have it. So I am
asking you if they are interpreting--you know, you guys said,
the Environmental Protection Agency indicates the highest risk
from microcystin exposure is through ingestion. It is kind of
like a ``duh'' thing. Anything has the highest risk is if you
drink it and ingest it, but they extrapolated from that that
health risks associated with inhalation, therefore, are
extremely low.
Ms. Fox. So, Congressman, as you know, there are hundreds
of issues that the EPA Office of Water has responsibility for
and what you can always rely on and count on me is I am only
going to answer questions accurately when I have that
information in front of me. So I am not deeply familiar with
this particular study. So please let me check in with my career
experts, and I will get back to you promptly on this matter.
Mr. Mast. I will. I want to lead you a little bit more on
it, though, just so you know what to check into. Like I said,
they indicate that or they actually said it is very low. I
asked a very pointed question of the Corps because the fact of
the matter is they are not just facing algal blooms measured at
8 parts per billion. They are facing algal blooms where they
are directly--when I say directly on top of them, I mean
directly on top of them for upwards of 10 hours a day at 800
parts per billion.
Does that seem as though the individuals, the Active Duty
military personnel and civilian Corps personnel exposed to
that, does that seem like a healthy situation to you? That is
an opinion question.
Ms. Fox. I am sorry?
Mr. Mast. That is an opinion question. Does that seem
healthy to you?
Ms. Fox. Congressman?
Mr. Mast. Yes, ma'am. I hope they will pause the clocks
since Ms. Fox just went offline here, until she is back on.
[Technical difficulty.]
Ms. Fox. Can you--somebody needs to get Dominique ASAP.
[Directing comment to her staff.]
Mrs. Napolitano. We can hear you.
Ms. Fox. Sorry, Congressman. I don't know what has
happened, but we are getting our IT people immediately but----
Mr. Mast. Mrs. Napolitano, if you want to pause and come
back to me with my remaining time, I will be open to that.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, you can hear her. You may not see
her, but you can hear her.
Ms. Fox. Is this the camera? I don't know. What is that?
Oh. [Directing comments to her staff.]
Can you see me know?
Mr. Mast. I can hear her, but they're not really focused on
me, Mrs. Napolitano. Can we pause my time and come back when
they are ready?
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, I would like to move on and then
come back to you. Is that all right?
Mr. Mast. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate it, ma'am. Thank
you. I will be standing by whenever you are ready to come back.
Mrs. Napolitano. Very fine.
So next we have Mr. Stanton, followed by Mr. Carbajal and
Mr. Delgado and then Mr. Lowenthal.
Mr. Stanton, you may proceed.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate
the opportunity to ask questions of these outstanding
witnesses.
There is no area of our country where the need for
significant investments in water infrastructure is more acute
than in our Tribal communities. Approximately 12 percent of
Tribal homes do not have safe water or basic sanitation
facilities, and currently there is a backlog of more than 1,500
sanitation construction projects.
As noted, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights ``Broken
Promises Report,'' infrastructure and investment on Tribal
lands has been underfunded for decades. The chronic
underinvestment has impacted not only the social, physical, and
mental well-being of Tribal members, it has affected the
ability of Tribes to fully leverage their economic potential.
The COVID pandemic brought this underinvestment to light
again, and no place was more evident than on the Navajo Nation
in Arizona. More than one-third of the Nation's population
lacks access to running water or indoor plumbing, and many
families have fewer than 10 gallons of water at home at any
given time. The lack of access to water and basic sanitation
helped fuel the spread of COVID on the Nation, which in May of
last year had the highest per capita infection rate in the
entire country.
Given the tremendous backlog of drinking water and
sanitation projects across Indian Country and on the Navajo
Nation, where an estimated $700 million would be needed to
connect everyone with safe drinking water and basic sanitation,
the National Congress of American Indians has advocated for
increasing the Tribal set-aside in both Clean Water and
Drinking Water State Revolving Funds.
Administrator Fox, do you agree that increasing the set-
aside would be one way to tackle the significant
underinvestment in water infrastructure on our Tribal
communities?
Ms. Fox. Thank you for the question, Congressman Stanton.
And, yes, I agree with you on the Tribal set-aside. I will
say that this is an issue that I have had the opportunity to
work on for a number of years. When the COVID-19 pandemic
happened, I worked with a range of philanthropic partners and
others to try to get more resources to the Navajo Nation, and
this is a dire issue. It is also why President Biden has made
one of the priorities of this administration to strengthen the
nation-to-nation relationship with Tribes.
And just to preview something that is coming down the pike
from the Office of Water, Congressman, is we are developing a
Tribal water action plan that is really the Office of Water and
EPA's commitment to really accelerate action on these critical
water issues in Indian Country. And I really look forward to
working with you on this moving forward.
Mr. Stanton. Madam Chair, I am hoping maybe in the future
we could have a specific hearing on the issue of the water
crisis on Tribal nations across the country, and we can learn
more detailed information from the EPA and the administration
about what steps they are taking to better support our Tribal
nations. Sadly, the COVID crisis was significantly worse as a
result of that water crisis.
I now want to turn to the issue of our aging workforce. The
Government Accountability Office projects that 30 to 50 percent
of the municipal water workforce will be retiring over the next
decade, taking with them decades of experience and knowledge.
In my State, the Rural Water Association of Arizona has
reported numerous vacancies in communities, and systems have
been unable to fill positions due to lack of qualified
workforce.
Water and wastewater utilities need a pipeline of qualified
skilled workers to help ensure clean and safe water for the
public and to maintain the infrastructure necessary to keep
services for the public and to maintain the infrastructure
necessary to keep service areas economically viable, especially
in smaller rural communities.
With 93 percent of the water systems in the country in
communities of 10,000 or less, finding qualified workers is a
significant challenge. How is the Office of Water addressing
the shortage of qualified drinking water and wastewater
operation professionals, especially in our smaller rural
communities?
Ms. Fox. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
This issue of an aging water workforce and the need to
build the next generation of water workers is something that I
saw firsthand when I worked for the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission. At that utility, we had essentially one-
third of our workforce eligible for retirement and what is
particularly concerning to me about this issue is is, like the
issue around COVID-19 that we just spoke about, that also the
retirements are accelerating because of COVID-19.
And so we were really so pleased that Congress has
appropriated a couple of million dollars for a water workforce
grant program to really invest in these types of workforce
training programs. We are going to be announcing the first
round of those grants soon.
We have also done some work around technical assistance and
those sorts of things. I agree with you that the work that
national rural water and rural community assistance programs do
in helping again on these workforce issues, very important, and
particularly in smaller communities and more rural areas.
And, Congressman, if this is an area where you would like
to see the EPA doing more work, it is something I would welcome
the opportunity to have a deeper strategy conversation with you
on.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you much.
I yield back. I appreciate it.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
We will go back to Mr. Mast. You have 1 minute, sir.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, ma'am.
And thank you, Ms. Fox. Again, I appreciate that you will
be getting back to me with things.
This is a very timely issue because I believe that our
Active Duty service soldiers and Corps personnel are being
poisoned as we speak, breathing in algal blooms 100 times
greater than what you said are toxic, the EPA said are toxic,
800 parts per billion microcystin. Unequivocally, the EPA or,
rather, the Corps of Engineers, when I asked, are your people
being poisoned, soldiers, they said ``no,'' and they referenced
``because the EPA says health risks associated with inhalation
at 8 parts per billion are low.'' Now, I am talking about
people standing on these things for 10 hours a day in a
situation where you are gagging; it is so disgusting, and that
is why this is an important opinion question right now.
Do you feel that that is a safe situation for these people
to be standing on 800 parts per billion, 10 hours per day? It
is an important opinion question, ma'am.
Ms. Fox. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. And I
apologize for the technical issues that happened.
And I want to thank you, and I share your concerns for the
people who are serving this country. In fact, my husband also
served in the Army, and I think what I can just say is that my
record on public health is clear. My commitment to you and
understanding these issues better and reporting back, I am
publicly saying that now, I commit to following up with you on
these specifics and I will get back----
Mr. Mast. I know you will follow up.
But does it seem safe to you?
Mrs. Napolitano. You have--your time is up, Mr. Mast.
Mr. Mast. I know you will follow up. Does it seem safe?
Only hurting our soldiers here. That is unfortunate.
Mrs. Napolitano. Next we have Mr. Carbajal.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you to all the panelists and the witnesses that
are with us today.
Ms. LeBoeuf, our oceans are facing unprecedented challenges
from the warming waters to continued threat from oil drilling.
It is clear we need to act to protect these valuable resources
that are also drivers of our economies.
One form of protection is through the National Marine
Sanctuaries. Data from NOAA estimates that between 2010 and
2012, harvest from commercial fishing in the four existing
California National Marine Sanctuaries generated $70 million in
income and supported 1,840 coastal jobs.
In my district, there is widespread support to protect the
waters between the Monterey Bay and the Channel Islands Marine
Sanctuaries as the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary.
The nomination for the Chumash Marine Sanctuary was formally
accepted into the national inventory in October 2015. I
appreciate NOAA's support for extending the nomination last
year after it expired. What is the expected timeframe for NOAA
to advance this nomination forward?
Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you for your question, Congressman
Carbajal.
The National Marine Sanctuary System is really a jewel in
the crown for conserving American waters and the resources that
are there and the economies that depend on them and related
economies like fisheries. We are committed to considering the
sanctuaries along our candidate list, and we very much
appreciate support being able to extend the deadline for the
Chumash sanctuary proposal.
With regard to being able to address all of the sanctuary
proposals on the inventory, that takes resources, and you will
see in our fiscal year 2022 budget that we have asked for
increased resources to begin the process needed to really work
forward on the proposal of the sanctuary on the inventory, and
that includes the Chumash proposal. It takes several steps to
get us started. It also requires a lot of public input, which
we are committed to taking throughout the process. So giving a
timeline is difficult, but I can say, with additional
resources, we are eager to begin.
Mr. Carbajal. Well, thank you for that information. I can't
stress enough the importance of this issue to my constituents.
And my hope is, as you look at prioritizing which goes next and
which effort is given your time and energy, I sure hope that
you give this sanctuary the next priority.
Ms. LeBoeuf, I also want to discuss the importance of
offshore wind. As you discuss in your testimony, offshore wind
is rapidly developing throughout the United States. President
Biden has set an ambitious goal to deploy 30 gigawatts of
offshore wind in the United States by 2030. I am pleased to
have worked with the administration and other stakeholders,
including your department, to advance offshore wind off Morro
Bay in my district. This will help create new jobs and allow us
to move towards a more resilient future by investing in
renewable energy.
In promoting offshore wind, we also need to promote
partnerships and co-use of our oceans. Fishermen need to be
part of the planning process and are important co-users of our
oceans. Can you delve further on how NOAA intends to work with
BOEM and stakeholders to achieve this goal?
Ms. LeBoeuf. Absolutely and thank you again for that.
I couldn't agree with you more that there are many very
important users in the ocean already. It is a busy place. We
just look at the surface of the water and think nothing is
going on, but there are a lot of very important industries
already in place. And making room for wind energy will be a
challenge, but we are confident that we will be able to work
with fishermen and other industries to help reduce the
potential conflicts between users.
NOAA, for example, is very much involved in helping groups
get together to plan and to inform early conversations about
siting of offshore wind so we can better understand, working
from all the same information, what is under water, what other
industries are present, what the risks are, what the
environmental conditions are, particularly as any new industry
expands rapidly like we anticipate with wind. We will work
closely with BOEM to make sure that the fishermen and other
ocean users have a voice at the table because their
contributions are absolutely vital. And, as always, NOAA will
do that with a basis of science and informed decision support
at the foundation.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. I am out of time.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Carbajal.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, are you available now?
[Pause.]
Mrs. Napolitano. I guess she is not.
We are now in the closing end of it. I ask unanimous
consent that the record of today's hearing remain open until
such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any and all
questions that may be submitted to you.
I request unanimous consent that the record remain open 15
days for any additional comments and information submitted by
Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's
hearing.
And, without objection, so ordered.
I would like to sincerely thank all our witnesses again for
their testimony, and, again, congratulations to Ms. Fox on your
recent appointment.
If no other Members have anything to add, the committee
does stand adjourned.
Thank you. Goodbye.
[Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chair Napolitano, for holding this hearing, and thank
you to our witnesses.
I am eager to hear from our witness about the agency's priorities;
in particular, EPA's plans to re-write the Trump Administration's
Navigable Waters Protection Rule and the definition of ``Waters of the
United States''.
The current rule provided much needed clarification for farmers,
homeowners, small businesses, and local governments on the extent of
waters covered by the Clean Water Act.
We will be watching this process closely, but the administration's
decision to initiate a new rulemaking certainly appears to be a plan to
bring back burdensome regulations for our agriculture and business
sectors, state and local governments, and private citizens.
An example of the egregious impacts of the Obama administration's
WOTUS rule was seen in my home State of Missouri, where the rule gave
EPA the authority to regulate over 99 percent of Missouri farmland.
I want to remind the EPA that the Obama administration utterly
failed to properly incorporate feedback from these stakeholders who
would have to live and work under the regulation, and the result was
the deeply flawed WOTUS rule.
I look forward to learning how the EPA plans to proceed on this
rulemaking and avoid a repeat of the grave mistakes of the Obama
administration, and I look forward to hearing from the full panel of
witnesses about their agency priorities.
I yield back.
Appendix
----------
Questions from Hon. David Rouzer to Hon. Radhika Fox, Assistant
Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Question 1. Your written testimony discusses developing ``durable''
policy on Clean Water Act section 401 certification. Isn't it true that
some states have interpreted the language in section 401 as allowing
them to use that certification authority to impose requirements that go
way beyond water quality-related requirements, thereby essentially
turning the 401 Certification process into another broad environmental
review process like under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)? If
the language of section 401 is not limited to water quality concerns
under the Clean Water Act or state law, how does the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) interpret the scope?
Answer. EPA believes that Congress provided authority to states and
Tribes under Clean Water Act section 401 to protect the quality of
their waters from adverse impacts resulting from federally licensed or
permitted projects. EPA recently announced its intent to revise the
2020 Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule after expressing
substantial concern that the rule erodes state and Tribal authority.
Through this process, EPA will consider strengthening the authority of
states and Tribes to protect their vital water resources.
EPA is concerned that the 2020 rule's narrow scope of certification
and conditions may prevent state and tribal authorities from adequately
protecting their water quality. Recently, as part of EPA's initial
process of reconsidering and revising the 2020 Section 401
Certification Rule, EPA provided an opportunity for public and
stakeholder input to inform the development of a proposed regulation.
EPA plans to continue to engage in a sustained dialogue with state and
Tribal co-regulator partners and local governments around these issues.
Question 2. After the publication of the 2015 Obama-era rule, 31
states and myriad stakeholder groups, such as those representing
farmers, ranchers, construction, miners, and really anyone that wants
to build anything, opposed the ``Waters of the United States'' (WOTUS)
rule.\1\ Please list the organizations that have complained, or are
otherwise opposed to, about the Trump Administration's ``Waters of the
United States'' (WOTUS) rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of ``Waters of
the United States'', 85 Fed. Reg. 22250, (Apr. 21, 2020), at 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. Many states, tribes, and stakeholder groups have expressed
their concerns about the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) in
public documents and litigation.
The Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (the agencies) are in receipt of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona's August 30, 2021 order vacating and remanding
the NWPR in the case of Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. In light of this order, the agencies have halted
implementation of the NWPR and are interpreting ``waters of the United
States'' consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime until further
notice. The agencies continue to review the order and consider next
steps. This includes working expeditiously to move forward with the
rulemakings announced on June 9, 2021 [https://www.epa.gov/wotus/
notice-public-meetings-regarding-waters-united-states], in order to
better protect our nation's vital water resources that support public
health, environmental protection, agricultural activity, and economic
growth. The agencies remain committed to crafting a durable definition
of ``waters of the United States'' that is informed by diverse
perspectives and based on an inclusive foundation.
The agencies are committed to hearing from voices across the
spectrum when developing a durable regulatory definition on which co-
regulators, stakeholders, and communities can rely. As a first step, on
July 30, 2021, EPA and the Army announced a series of engagement
opportunities, including an opportunity for stakeholders and the public
to provide written recommendations and participate in a series of
public meetings. In addition, the agencies initiated Federalism and
Tribal consultations and announced that the agencies intend to host a
series of dialogues with state and Tribal co-regulators this fall.
The agencies also plan to convene regionally focused and inclusive
roundtables. These roundtables will allow a full spectrum of the
agencies' partners to engage and discuss their experience with
definitions of ``waters of the United States''--including what has
worked and what has not. The roundtables will provide opportunities to
discuss geographic similarities and differences, particular water
resources that are characteristic of or unique to each region, and
site-specific feedback about implementation. The agencies are
interested in hearing from all stakeholders, including communities,
states, Tribes, local governments, association groups, small
businesses, farmers, and families.
Question 3. Clean Water Act Section 101(b) states that ``[i]t is
the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the
primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and
eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use (including
restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and water
resources, and to consult with the Administrator in the exercise of his
authority under this chapter.'' This shows it was the intent of
Congress to recognize the primacy of states in protecting their own
waters over that of the federal government. Do you agree? Are states
not in a unique position that enables them to best know where resources
are best used for environmental protection? If not, please explain why
you think that the federal government is better suited to determine
State water plans.
Answer. I agree with you that states play a critical role in Clean
Water Act implementation, and the agencies look forward to hearing
specifically from our state and tribal co-regulators to help inform
next steps. A durable definition of ``waters of the United States'' is
essential to ensuring clean and safe water in all communities--
supporting human health, animal habitat, agriculture, watersheds, flood
management, local economies, and industry. The agencies' July 30, 2021
announcement, which kicked off consultations with states, Tribes, and
local governments, as well as a robust public engagement effort on this
issue, marks an important step in the agencies' efforts to restore
protections and write a rule to define ``waters of the United States''
that is grounded in science and the law, emphasizes implementation, and
prioritizes collaborative partnerships with states, Tribes, local
governments, and stakeholders.
Question 4. Last month, both EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers
(the ``Agencies'') announced they would redo the Navigable Waters
Protection Rule (NWPR) and re-write the definition of the ``Waters of
the United States.'' There are many concerns that the Obama
Administration's rule failed to genuinely consider stakeholder feedback
and placed burdensome and confusing requirements on farmers, small
businesses, local communities, and regulated entities.
Question 4.a. How does the Biden Administration plan to solicit and
incorporate substantive feedback from those affected by this
regulation?
Question 4.b. What specific steps do you intend to take to engage
the states in substantive consultation to ensure their concerns are
fully addressed in a final rule?
Question 4.c. Will the Agencies issue an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit input from impacted stakeholders?
Question 4.d. When does the Administration plan to issue an NPRM?
Answer to questions 4.a. through 4.d. As a first step to developing
a durable regulatory definition on which stakeholders and communities
can rely, on July 30, 2021, EPA and the Army announced a series of
engagement opportunities, including an opportunity for stakeholders and
the public to provide written recommendations via an open docket and
participate in a series of public meetings. In addition, the agencies
initiated Federalism and Tribal consultations and announced that the
agencies intend to host a series of dialogues with state and Tribal co-
regulators this fall. The agencies also plan to convene regionally
focused and inclusive roundtables. These roundtables will allow a full
spectrum of the agencies' partners to engage and discuss their
experience with definitions of ``waters of the United States''--
including what has worked and what has not. The roundtables will
provide opportunities to discuss geographic similarities and
differences, particular water resources that are characteristic of or
unique to each region, and site-specific feedback about implementation.
Additional information on the agencies' public engagement efforts
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/wotus/notice-public-meetings-
regarding-waters-united-states.
Question 5. You recently stated the Agencies will ``[v]ery
imminently'' announce a two-step rulemaking process for repealing and
then replacing the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR).\2\ At what
point ``this summer'' \3\ do you anticipate the Agencies will issue a
proposal to repeal the NWPR? Do the Agencies plan to conduct
stakeholder outreach and engagement in advance of issuing such a
proposal?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Hannah Northey, EPA's top water official on Biden climate,
equity, goals, Politico, July 6, 2021, available at https://
subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2021/07/06/epas-top-water-
official-on-bidens-climate-equity-goals-179726.
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. See above response to your Question 4. The agencies
announced a robust public engagement effort on July 30, 2021, beginning
with public meetings in August and extending into the fall and winter
with regionally focused and inclusive roundtable discussions.
Question 6. There are significant geographic variations across the
United States and a single set of standards will not fit all, how do
the Agencies plan to address these differences in any new rule? Should
there be a role here for state and local governments and water
districts in identifying regional differences and fashioning a workable
solution? What are the Agencies going to do to work with states and
localities to address these concerns?
Answer. See above response to your Question 4. The agencies also
have initiated Federalism and Tribal consultations consistent with
Executive Orders and Agency guidance. The agencies additionally intend
to host a series of dialogues with state and Tribal co-regulators this
fall. This is consistent with the robust public engagement effort
announced on July 30, 2021, beginning with public meetings in August
and extending into the fall and winter with regionally focused and
inclusive roundtable discussions. The agencies are interested in
hearing from all stakeholders on various aspects of the definition,
including communities, states, Tribes, local governments, association
groups, small businesses, farmers, and families.
Question 7. Many States and local governments and their
representative organizations are concerned that the Agencies'
consultation process with state and local governments will once again
be flawed, because the Agencies will not sufficiently consult with
them, and that the rulemaking could impinge on state authority in water
management. Do you consider the states and local government a partner
in our Nation's intergovernmental system? Or just another stakeholder
group in this discussion? Will the Agencies engage the states and local
government in substantive consultation, considering and specifically
addressing the concerns raised by the states and local governments, to
ensure their concerns are fully addressed in a final rule?
Answer. The agencies consider states and local governments key
regulatory partners. See above response to your Question 4. The
agencies have initiated Federalism and Tribal consultations consistent
with Executive Orders and Agency guidance. The agencies additionally
intend to host a series of dialogues with state and Tribal co-
regulators this fall. This is consistent with the robust public
engagement effort announced on July 30, 2021, beginning with public
meetings in August and extending into the fall and winter with
regionally focused and inclusive roundtable discussions. We are
interested in hearing from all stakeholders, including communities,
states, Tribes, local governments, association groups, small
businesses, farmers, and families. I agree with you that states play a
critical role in Clean Water Act implementation, and the agencies look
forward to hearing specifically from our state and tribal co-
regulators--as well as local governments--to help inform next steps.
Question 8. Will you commit to having the Agencies prepare a
detailed response to public comments which will substantively respond
to all issues raises in each comment before proceeding to finalize this
rulemaking?
Answer. Yes, the agencies are soliciting written recommendations
from the public through a public docket. This feedback will be used to
inform the rulemaking process. The agencies also will carefully review
all public comments on the forthcoming proposed rules and respond as
appropriate.
Question 9. We are concerned that a new rule would end up having
direct, significant effects on small entities, and that the Agencies
will fail to convene a Small Business Advocacy Review panel before
proceeding with this new rulemaking. Will you commit to formally
examining the impacts of any new proposed rule on small entities? Will
you convene a Small Business Advocacy Review panel before proceeding
any further with this rulemaking?
Answer. As the agencies receive and consider feedback from the
public--including small businesses--and develop a proposed rule, we
will follow the science and the law, including the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
Question 10. Please provide details and definitions for what the
Agencies consider ``significant environmental damage'' and ``ongoing
environmental harm'', as cited in the announcement for the decision to
repeal the current NWPR.
Answer. The 2020 NWPR was identified in President Biden's Executive
Order 13990, Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring
Science to Tackle Climate Change, dated January 25, 2021, which
directed federal agencies to review all existing regulations, orders,
guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions
promulgated, issued, or adopted between January 20, 2017 and January
20, 2021. As a part of the Executive Order 13990 review, the agencies
reviewed available data to assess the potential effects of the NWPR,
informed by nearly a full year of implementation. The agencies
determined that the NWPR is reducing Clean Water Act protections and
this lack of protections is particularly significant in arid states
like New Mexico and Arizona, where nearly every one of over 1,500
streams assessed through approved jurisdictional determinations has
been found to be non-jurisdictional under the NWPR. The agencies also
are aware of at least 333 projects that would have required Clean Water
Act section 404 permitting prior to the NWPR but no longer do.
Question 11. The Agencies have been inconsistent when describing
their plans for the NWPR. In several federal court filings, the
Agencies announced that they have ``decided to commence a new
rulemaking to revise or replace the rule.'' \4\ Yet in statements to
the press, you have stated that the Agencies ``are moving quickly'' to
a two-step rulemaking process under which, the first step is to repeal
the NWPR.\5\ You have stated the Agencies feel ``it is important to get
the Navigable Waters Protection Rule off the books.'' \6\ Have the
Agencies pre-determined they are repealing the NWPR and that it is not
acceptable to instead revise the NWPR?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Defendants Motion for Remand Without Vacatur, Conservation Law
Foundation v. EPA, (D. Mass) Case No. 20-cv-10820-DPW, available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/documents/
clf_memo_of_law_iso_motion_for_remand.pdf.
\5\ Northey, supra note 2.
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. The agencies intend to revise the definition of ``waters of
the United States'' to create a durable definition following a process
that includes two rulemakings. A forthcoming rule would propose to
restore the regulations defining WOTUS that were in place for decades
until 2015, with updates to be consistent with relevant Supreme Court
decisions. A separate, second rulemaking process would be based on a
broader review of the rule.
Question 12. The Agencies have stated that the NWPR ``resulted in a
25-percentage point reduction in determinations of waters that would
otherwise be afforded protection.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPA, Army Announce Intent to Revise Definition of WOTUS (June
9, 2021), https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-army-announce-intent-
revise-definition-wotus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 12.a. What is the methodology the agencies used to arrive
at this 25% figure?
Question 12.b. What data or database did the agencies use as the
baseline for comparison to the NWPR?
Question 12.c. What is the geographic distribution of this
reduction in jurisdiction (nationwide or isolated to certain regions)?
Answer to questions 12.a. through 12.c. EPA and the Army have
reviewed approved jurisdictional determinations (AJDs) and identified
indicators of a substantial reduction in waters covered under the NWPR
compared to previous rules and practices. These indicators include an
increase in determinations by the Corps that waters are non-
jurisdictional and an increase in projects for which CWA section 404
permits are no longer required. The agencies also have found that
preliminary jurisdictional determinations (through which applicants
proceed with permitting as though all resources were jurisdictional)
are much less common under the NWPR, indicating that fewer project
proponents believe waters are jurisdictional from the start.
The 25 percent figure comes from looking at AJDs completed
nationwide by the Army Corps of Engineers and recorded in their
internal database. The Corps finalized 6,351 AJDs between the NWPR's
effective date of June 22, 2020 and April 15, 2021. When this dataset
was adjusted to account for differences in how determination forms were
designed under the different regulatory regimes, the Corps found
approximately 71 percent of AJDs identified non-jurisdictional aquatic
resources and 29 percent identified jurisdictional aquatic
resources.\8\ In comparison, AJDs made under the 2015 Clean Water Rule
and the pre-2015 regulatory regime from the time periods of June 22,
2018 to April 15, 2019, and June 22, 2019 to April 15, 2020, found that
approximately 46 percent of AJDs included non-jurisdictional aquatic
resources and 54 percent included jurisdictional aquatic resources.\9\
Thus, there is an absolute 25-percentage point reduction in
determinations of waters that would otherwise be afforded protection
under the different regulatory regimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Under the NWPR, a single AJD in the Corps' database can include
both affirmative and negative jurisdictional determinations. Under
prior regulatory regimes, the Corps' database was structured such that
a single AJD could have only affirmative, or only negative,
jurisdictional determinations. Because of this difference, a NWPR
jurisdictional determination that includes both affirmative and
negative jurisdictional resources was normalized and counted as two
separate approved jurisdictional determinations, one affirmative and
one negative.
\9\ Due to preliminary injunctions, the 2015 Clean Water Rule and
the pre-2015 regulatory regime were being implemented in different
parts of the country during a portion of the time periods for which the
agencies assessed data. Data used in this analysis for the 2015 Clean
Water Rule are from August 16, 2018 (the date that the nationwide stay
was lifted) to April 15, 2019, and June 22, 2019 to December 22, 2019
(the Clean Water Rule was replaced by the 2019 Repeal Rule on December
23, 2019). The 2015 Clean Water Rule was never in effect for the entire
country due to preliminary injunctions. For the time periods assessed
under this analysis, the pre-2015 regulatory regime was in effect
nationwide from June 22, 2018 to August 15, 2018, and December 23, 2019
(effective date of the 2019 Repeal Rule) to April 15, 2020. The 2019
Rule Repeal, which reinstated the pre-2015 regulatory regime, was in
effect until the NWPR's effective date of June 22, 2020, but the
agencies chose to analysis data for comparable time periods as the data
available for NWPR determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agencies also looked at the data from the NWPR on an aquatic
resource level. Of the 40,211 individual aquatic resources or water
features for which the Corps made approved jurisdictional
determinations under the NWPR between June 22, 2020 and April 15, 2021,
approximately 76 percent were found to be non-jurisdictional. Many of
the non-jurisdictional waters are excluded ephemeral resources (mostly
streams) and wetlands that are not adjacent under the NWPR.
The agencies are aware of at least 333 projects that would have
required section 404 permitting prior to the NWPR, but no longer do
under the NWPR. The agencies also are aware that this number is not the
full universe of projects that no longer require section 404 permitting
under the NWPR, partly because to the extent that project proponents
are not seeking any determinations for waters that the NWPR now
excludes, such as ephemeral streams, the effects of such projects are
not tracked in the Corps database. As a whole, the reduction in
jurisdiction is notably greater than the deregulatory effects discussed
in the NWPR rule preamble and the economic analysis case studies.
Question 13. The Agencies have expressed in litigation filings that
they have ``substantial concerns about the lawfulness of aspects of the
NWPR.'' \10\ More recently, you were quoted as saying the NWPR ``is
not, in [your] view, something that's sustainable or durable'' and that
``[w]e need a rule that's legally defensible.'' \11\ How does your view
align with the fact that no court has preliminarily enjoined the NWPR?
Please describe in detail what you believe is not ``legally
defensible'' about the NWPR.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Declaration of Jaime A. Pinkham, Conservation Law Foundation
v. EPA, (D. Mass) Case No. 20-cv-10820-DPW, available at https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-06/documents/
2_conservation_law_found._d._mass._-
_jaime_pinkham_declaration_final_signed_
508c.pdf.
\11\ Northey, supra note 1.
\12\ Northey, supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (the agencies) are in receipt of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona's August 30, 2021 order vacating and remanding
the NWPR in the case of Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. In light of this order, the agencies have halted
implementation of the NWPR and are interpreting ``waters of the United
States'' consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime until further
notice. The agencies continue to review the order and consider next
steps. This includes working expeditiously to move forward with the
rulemakings announced on June 9, 2021 [https://www.epa.gov/wotus/
notice-public-meetings-regarding-waters-united-states], in order to
better protect our nation's vital water resources that support public
health, environmental protection, agricultural activity, and economic
growth. The agencies remain committed to crafting a durable definition
of ``waters of the United States'' that is informed by diverse
perspectives and based on an inclusive foundation.
Question 14. The Agencies have represented to a federal court that
they ``have noted on-the-ground effects of the NWPR since the rule went
into effect,'' citing vague and speculative ``concerns'' raised by
stakeholders that the NWPR ``is resulting in significant, actual
environmental harms.'' \13\ How do those assertions about ongoing harms
align with your more recent statements to the press that the Agencies
do not have the ``ability to really assess the potential water quality
impacts on wetlands, on streams, on a range of things'' \14\ that
allegedly result from activities that can move forward without a permit
under the NWPR?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for
Voluntary Remand without Vacatur, Conservation Law Foundation v. EPA,
(D. Mass) Case No. 20-cv-10820-DPW, available at https://
www.eenews.net/assets/2021/06/09/document_pm_01.pdf; Supra n.2.
\14\ Northey, supra note 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. The agencies' EO 13990 review identified substantial
concerns with the NWPR and the agencies determined that additional
consideration should be given to certain aspects of the NWPR through
notice-and-comment rulemaking, including concern that when interpreting
the jurisdictional scope of the CWA the NWPR did not appropriately
consider the effect of the revised definition of ``waters of the United
States'' on the integrity of the nation's waters, as well as concern
over the loss of waters protected by the CWA.
Question 15. The Corps' declaration submitted to federal courts
refers to 333 projects ``that would have required Section 404
permitting prior to the NWPR, but no longer do under the NWPR.'' \15\
However, the approved jurisdictional determinations (AJDs) for many of
those projects suggests that the jurisdictional status of waters in
question was unknown because the Corps engineer answered ``N/A'' in the
section of the form asking about ``Associated JDs.'' \16\ If there was
no prior AJD related to the project, what is the Agencies' basis for
claiming that the projects would have required Section 404 permits
before the NWPR but no longer do? If there was a prior JD, please
provide them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Pinkham, supra note 9.
\16\ See e.g.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Program,
Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form (Interim), Navigable Waters
Protection Rule, available at https://www.swt.usace.army.mil/Portals/
41/docs/missions/regulatory/JD/SWT-2016-344%20AJD.pdf?
ver=2020-09-03-084218-473
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. The agencies are aware of at least 333 projects that would
have required section 404 permitting prior to the NWPR, but no longer
do under the NWPR. These projects had AJDs carried out for determining
that no permit would be required. The reference to associated AJDs
refers to separate AJDs carried out on the given project site in
association with other actions. Notes on associated AJDs allows for
Corps staff to track prior activities on sites.
The agencies also are aware that this number is not the full
universe of projects that no longer require section 404 permitting
under the NWPR, partly because to the extent that project proponents
are not seeking any determinations for waters that the NWPR now
excludes, such as ephemeral streams, the effects of such projects are
not tracked in the Corps database. The reduction in jurisdiction is
notably greater than the deregulatory effects discussed in the NWPR
rule preamble and the economic analysis case studies.
Question 16. You recently stated that more than 300 projects ``now
have the ability to move forward without a permit.'' \17\ You went on
to say that ``[w]ithout the ability to really assess the potential
water quality impacts on wetlands, on streams, on a range of things,
that is concerning to us.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Northey, supra note 2.
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 16.a. Does this mean the Agencies have not confirmed that
any of those 300 or more projects have moved forward?
Question 16.b. Even if any given project has moved forward, it
appears potential impacts on water quality are unclear. Have the
Agencies assessed whether there were any discharges, whether any states
imposed regulatory requirements, or whether there were any impacts on
water quality?
Question 16.c. If the Agencies have assessed any of these things,
when will you release those findings?
Answer to questions 16.a. through 16.c. The agencies are aware of
at least 333 projects that would have required section 404 permitting
prior to the NWPR, but no longer do under the NWPR. The agencies also
are aware that this number is not the full universe of projects that no
longer require section 404 permitting under the NWPR, partly because to
the extent that project proponents are not seeking any determinations
for waters that the NWPR now excludes, such as ephemeral streams, the
effects of such projects are not tracked in the Corps database. The
reduction in jurisdiction is notably greater than the deregulatory
effects discussed in the NWPR rule preamble and the economic analysis
case studies. Based on this and other aspects of the EO 13990 review,
EPA and the Army have substantial concerns about aspects of the NWPR
and the harmful effects of the NWPR on the nation's waters. Therefore,
we have decided to initiate rulemaking to revise the term ``waters of
the United States.''
Question 17. The Agencies have asserted in sworn declarations that
``[p]rojects are proceeding in newly non-jurisdictional waters in
states and tribal lands where regulation of waters beyond those covered
by the CWA are not authorized.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Pinkham, supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 17.a. What basis supports this claim?
Question 17.b. Which projects are proceeding and in which states?
Have the Agencies confirmed that each of these states, in fact, do not
have laws in place that address discharges to ephemeral streams or
wetlands that are not jurisdictional under the NWPR?
Question 17.c. Have the Agencies confirmed that any of these
unnamed projects in fact involve discharges to newly non-jurisdictional
waters?
Answer to questions 17.a. through 17.c. The agencies have heard
concerns from a broad array of stakeholders, including states, Tribes,
scientists, and non-governmental organizations, that the reduction in
the jurisdictional scope of the CWA is resulting in significant, actual
environmental harms. These entities have identified specific projects
and discharges that would no longer be subject to CWA protections
because the waters at issue would no longer be jurisdictional. In many
cases permit applications have been withdrawn. For example,
stakeholders have raised concerns about dredge and fill activities on
large swaths of wetlands in sensitive areas, in the floodplains of
jurisdictional waters, or even within several hundred yards of
traditional navigable waters, that are proceeding without CWA
regulatory protection or compensatory mitigation. Stakeholders also
have identified for the agencies many other wetlands and streams, newly
deemed non-jurisdictional, which are likely to be filled for commercial
and housing developments, mines, water pipelines, and other forms of
development without CWA oversight.
Due to the NWPR definition of ``waters of the United States,''
projects are proceeding in newly non-jurisdictional waters in states
and tribal lands where regulation of waters beyond those covered by the
CWA are not authorized, and based on available information, will
therefore result in discharges without any regulation or mitigation
from federal, state, or tribal agencies. See ``Economic Analysis for
the Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of ``Waters of the
United States'' at 40 (Jan. 22, 2020) (indicating that a large number
of states do not currently regulate waters more broadly than the CWA
requires, and are ``unlikely to increase state regulatory practices''
following the NWPR).\20\ One project example is the construction of a
mine that would destroy hundreds of previously jurisdictional wetlands,
deemed non-jurisdictional under the NWPR, next to a National Wildlife
Refuge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-01/
documents/econ_analysis_-_nwpr.pdf.
Question 18. The Agencies found that in New Mexico and Arizona,
nearly all of the more than 1,500 streams have been deemed a non-
jurisdictional ephemeral resource, ``which is very different from the
status of the streams as assessed under both the Clean Water Rule and
the pre-2015 regulatory regime.'' \21\ Under the pre-2015 regime,
however, ephemeral resources were not per se jurisdictional, but
instead had to undergo case-by-case determinations to see if there was
a ``significant nexus.'' What data do the Agencies have to show that
any of these streams would have been jurisdictional under a case-by-
case determination for ``significant nexus''?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. Ephemeral streams, wetlands, and other aquatic resources
provide numerous ecosystem services, and there could be cascading and
cumulative downstream effects from impacts to these resources,
including but not limited to effects on water supplies, water quality,
flooding, drought, erosion, and habitat integrity. The agencies have
substantial concerns about the consideration of these effects on the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters in
the NWPR rulemaking process.
Question 19. If there is a hurricane and it floods a section of
farmland in my district, North Carolina's Seventh Congressional
District, which then drains into the Cape Fear River and then the
Atlantic Ocean, would that constitute a ``Water of the United States''?
Answer. Uncertainty over the definition of ``waters of the United
States'' has harmed our waters and the stakeholders and communities
that rely on them. EPA and the Army look forward to engaging all
parties as we move forward to provide the certainty that's needed to
protect our precious natural water resources. We are committed to
crafting an enduring definition of ``waters of the United States'' by
listening to all sides so we can build on an inclusive foundation. Our
goal is to develop a WOTUS definition that ensures clean and safe water
for all while giving you and your district the certainty you need to
appropriately address emergency situations like the scenario referenced
in your question.
Question 20. In making the decision to replace the NWPR, what
public input did the Agencies rely on to drive this action? What
groups, associations, entities, or other stakeholders requested the
Administration take this action?
Answer. Based on a careful evaluation of the record of the NWPR,
the agencies have substantial and legitimate concerns regarding the
adequacy of consideration of the CWA's water quality goals in the
development of the NWPR. As such, the agencies believe it is
appropriate to reconsider these issues--and, in particular, the effects
of the ``waters of the United States'' definition on the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters--in a new
rulemaking. We have initiated a robust and meaningful public engagement
effort to hear from all of those impacted by the WOTUS definition,
including Tribes, states, local governments, communities, and any other
interested stakeholders.
As explained above, the agencies announced a robust public
engagement effort on July 30, beginning with public meetings and a
recommendations docket in August and extending into the fall and winter
with regionally focused and inclusive roundtable discussions. We are
interested in hearing from all stakeholders, including communities,
states, Tribes, local governments, association groups, small
businesses, farmers, and families.
Questions from Hon. Salud O. Carbajal to Hon. Radhika Fox, Assistant
Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Question 1. Can you explain the importance of the administration's
request of $9 million for the Drinking Water System Infrastructure
Resilience and Sustainability Program?
Answer. This program supports water infrastructure in underserved,
small and disadvantaged communities, ensuring access to safe drinking
water. It supports the President's priority of assisting communities
and their drinking water systems in the planning, design, construction,
implementation, operation, or maintenance of a program or project that
increases resilience to natural hazards. Eligible entities will be able
to use this increase in funding will target climate resilience for
drinking water infrastructure to adapt to or withstand the effects of a
malevolent act or natural hazard.
Question 2. Can you provide an update on this program's
implementation?
Answer. EPA appreciates Congress' recent attention toward upgrading
and modernizing our nation's drinking water systems. Congress
authorized the Drinking Water System Infrastructure Resilience and
Sustainability Program in America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018,
and Congress provided first-time appropriations for this program in
Fiscal Year 2020. EPA is in the final stages of preparing a Request for
Applications (RFA) for this inaugural round of funding.
Question 3. As currently structured, the program is only available
to assist drinking water systems serving small and disadvantaged
communities. Are these the only water systems that face challenges
related to climate change and extreme weather, or would wastewater
systems and larger drinking water systems also benefit if Congress
expanded the program to make them eligible as well?
Answer. As you know, there are certainly important differences
between the needs of our country's drinking water systems and our
wastewater and stormwater systems. EPA supports several programs that
ensure access to clean and safe water for all Americans including
underserved, small and disadvantaged communities.
Questions from Hon. Greg Stanton to Hon. Radhika Fox, Assistant
Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Question 1. Tribal water systems are facing many of the same
challenges as our smaller systems in finding qualified workers, but in
many instances, they are often doing so far with fewer resources.
Question 1.a. How is EPA approaching the next generation of tribal
operators?
Question 1.b. How can EPA help with future planning for tribal
water systems in developing a new workforce?
Answer to questions 1.a. and 1.b. EPA's technical assistance and
training programs help to ensure that all communities, especially small
and underserved communities, have the tools they need to address their
pressing water infrastructure and other water quality needs. In
addition, EPA provides training and technical assistance and
certification for tribal wastewater and drinking water systems to
improve their operation and management practices and promote
sustainability. Examples of EPA technical assistance and training
programs that help tribal communities include the Tribal Public Water
System Supervision, the Drinking Water Infrastructure Grants Tribal
Set-Aside, WIIN Act Section 2104: Assistance for Small and
Disadvantaged Communities Tribal Grant, the Clean Water Indian Set-
Aside, Small System Technical Assistance for Drinking Water and
Wastewater Grant, and the new Technical Assistance for Small Wastewater
Systems Grant programs.
EPA appreciates this Committee's attention to water infrastructure
and to our water workforce--including our Tribal water workforce--and I
look forward to being a partner with Congress as you consider this
important issue.
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Terry J. Cosby, Chief, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Question 1. Given the crisis agriculture and other key sectors of
our economy are facing from unprecedented drought, do you believe the
requested increases in funding are sufficient?
Answer. The current crisis caused by the unprecedented drought is
severely impacting our communities in the western region of the
country. The USDA-NRCS watershed programs are uniquely suited to help
these communities to plan, design, and construct infrastructure to help
alleviate the long-term effects of drought. Through our watershed
protection and flood prevention operations program, we have helped
communities install agricultural water management practices that have
helped to improve irrigation efficiency. Some of our sponsors are
taking advantage of the ability to use the watershed rehabilitation
program to add water supply to our rehabilitated watershed dams.
The requested funding will enable USDA-NRCS to help address needs
where the Federal investment can strategically serve communities to
meet unprecedented drought and other resource challenges created by
climatic variability.
Question 2. What is the typical timeline for a Watershed and Flood
Prevention Operations (WFPO) project from planning to construction? How
would additional funding for the NRCS enable it to expedite completion
of WFPO projects so that communities could see more immediate benefits
from this program?
Answer. NRCS seeks to work with project sponsors to complete
watershed planning in 18 months, designs in 18 months, and construction
in 2-5 years. These project timelines can vary significantly due to
many factors. Some of these include project complexity, potential
environmental and cultural impacts, public and stakeholder involvement,
agency review timelines, permit acquisition process, varying
construction seasons due to climate and weather.
NRCS is committed to our responsibility to use public funds in a
manner that is economically, environmentally, and technically
defensible. Working through the environmental review process, as well
as maintaining quality technical standards, helps to ensure that
measures are adequately installed and provide the intended benefits to
the local community while protecting life and property.
Questions from Hon. Greg Stanton to Terry J. Cosby, Chief, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Question 1. The Flood Control District (FCD) of Maricopa County in
Arizona operates and maintains 16 dams designed and constructed by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), including the Powerline,
Vineyard, and Rittenhouse Flood Retarding Structures (PVR FRS). The PVR
FRS provide 100-year flood protection for a significant portion of the
far eastern part of the county, including portions of the cities of
Mesa, Gilbert, Queen Creek, and Chandler. According to the 2010 Census,
nearly a half million people, thousands of buildings, and critical
infrastructure are protected by these structures. Unfortunately, these
structures are now more than 50 years old and are in serious need of
repair.
In September 2014, NRCS accepted FCD's funding requests for
rehabilitation of the Vineyard and Powerline FRS. The Vineyard FRS
project began first under a three-phased approach. As the design phase
progressed, estimated costs rose significantly, and an additional funds
were requested. A Phase 2A construction contract was awarded in March
2017, but because of the increased cost estimates, the NRCS issued a
Cease and Desist Order to FCD in April 2017, halting progress. In April
2019, NRCS requested FCD de-obligate $31.1 million for the Powerline
and Vineyard projects. As an alternative, the FCD requested the
projects be phased, but NRCS rejected this approach, noting that
phasing of rehabilitation projects would no longer be allowed and, as a
result, all funding would need to be in place before work could
proceed.
I am concerned that delays due to funding shortfalls and the lack
of program flexibility are slowing progress on these critical projects
and leaving the residents of Maricopa County at risk.
Question 1.a. Is NRCS willing to re-evaluate its position to allow
large-scale projects to be phased so that critical projects, like those
in Maricopa County, can proceed?
Answer. Although NRCS prefers that rehabilitation of dams be
completed without phases, NRCS does allow for a phased approach. All
phases must be identified in the authorized plan and associated
Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, and there
must be a final NRCS approved design prior to the start of
construction. When phasing a project, the local sponsor must show they
have resources to commit to the entire project for the construction to
be completed in a timely manner. Each phase must be constructed in a
manner that will result in a structure that will independently function
in a safe manner until the remaining phases are constructed. The
completed phase must be operated and maintained by the sponsor to
ensure a safe structure until subsequent phases can be completed.
Question 1.b. If a phased approach is not possible, will you commit
to working with me and the FCD to identify options to advance these
critical flood protection repair projects in a timely manner?
Answer. If a phased approach is not possible, NRCS is committed to
working with the local sponsors to identify viable options to complete
the rehabilitation of aging infrastructures so that communities are
provided the critical flood protection necessary to ensure the safety
of those who live, work, and enjoy recreation in these watersheds.