. . . . . . >> we're now going to move on

from a series of questions. i'll start with you if i can. many stakeholders who work with the corps of engineers have comment and complained a little bit about the process it follows from identifying a water resources problem to implementing a solution and can be long costly delays. for example, in the arid west, there are many water supply challenges that haven't yet been solved such as removing sediment from reservoirs to providing more water supply capacity and effectively managing multiwater supply needs such as flood risk management, drinking water, irrigation, all from a single reservoir. so as a result, the water supply is becoming scarce and more expensive. can you please share in any thoughts you might have to improve the corps's processes so that the water resource projects are operated more efficiently. >> thank you, senator.

we actually have a number of suggestion, but in the interests of time, i'm going to limit it to two. first improve the governmental collaboration between the corps and local governments. the corps has a lot of technical assistance that is very valuable to local governments. but the processes and permits that they have often prohibit or slow down projects from moving forward. and secondly, congress may want to consider doing -- requiring the corps to do a regulatory efficiency assessment of corps processes, and have the corps submit to congress the results of this with potential alternatives on how they're going to address it. thank you. >> and as you say, though, you're just going to share two. if there are additional ones you'd like to provide in writing. >> we would be happy to do so. >> thank you. >> mr. robinson as well as mr. friedman, ports and inland waterways are very important to the lifeblood of the american economy and our economic activity.

every year over a trillion dollars worth of goods moves through the ports and inland waterways from -- and to every basic corner of the united states and around the world. can you talk a little bit more about the importance of ports and inland waterways and how their management impacts your ability to transport goods, allowing us to keep jobs at home and allowing us to more effectively compete globally? >> senator barrasso, just speaking on behalf of the m carnes and from tulsa, oklahoma to muskogee, just in that segment of the waterway, 53 miles, there is more than 8,000 jobs. there's been $5 billion invested, annual payrolls to the counties and to the cities are $320 million annually. in muskogee, which is a community of 39,000 people, most of them manufacturers in that community, and muskogee is a manufacturing town depend on the waterway. so they depend on the

reliability of the waterway. they depend on the transportation cost savings for delivering and receiving goods on the waterway. it's critically important to the economy of rural america. we're not investing in the system like we should be. therefore we're encountering delays and not a good situation in rural america. >> mr. friedman, would you like to add? >> yes, thank you for the question, senator barrasso. so i'll address that from the perspective of the great lakes and the st. lawrence seaway waterway system where we're all interconnected as ports and we trade with one another both within the system domestically, and there is also of course the international st. lawrence seaway where we connect to all parts of the globe. the partnership we have with the army corps under wrda to keep our harbors dredged is a critical lifeline for big cities like cleveland, detroit, chicago, as well as a number of

rural communities. it's critical for agriculture, for heavy manufacturing, for steel making which takes place in cleveland based on iron ore which comes down from minnesota as one of the primary examples of the types of trade in our region. and then we have many cargos that flow in and out of the heartland through the st. lawrence seaway, both exports from american manufacturers and imports like specialty steel that we rely on in the appliance manufacturing sector and other manufacturing sectors. so i think in total, the number for the entire system is on the order of 227,000 jobs both on the u.s. and the canadian side of the seaway and the great lakes. so making sure that we continue to get wrda right, streamline the process, authorize new projects and get to full use and full spend of the harbor maintenance tax is a critical priority for us. thank you. >> thank you. senator carper? >> thanks.

let's start off with nicole carter, if i may. excellent testimony. very helpful. a question for you if i could. given our current operating environment, with recently passed tax reform which reduces revenues over the next ten years by about $2 trillion, crumbling infrastructure, it's just as bad with respect to roads, highways and bridges. complete with limited numbers of chiefs reports and a large backup of corps projects, what are the big issues we should tackle on the next water resources development act? >> thank you for question. in wrda 2014, congress established new ways for nonfederal entities to be involved in projects. and this has resulted upon an additional projects being led by nonfederal entities.

in trying to understand how well are those projects and processes working for those nonfederal entities as well as delivering in projects would be part of the process to understand how to incorporate a corps projects into a larger investment package. basically, right now that process consists of the nonfederal entities often providing the funds up front and essentially signing an agreement that upon the availability of appropriations they may receive some reimbursements. gao recently did a study that identified that there are about $4 billion projects like this in the country. and that about $400 million has been reimbursed. but we don't know the total amount that requires to be reimbursed. how well those are working? well, how well other agencies in the future want to make those investments and what they can

expect in the way of the federal government partnering in those investments if they do choose to lead rather than wait for the corps. >> thank you, thank you very much. i want to turn next to mr. friedman. thanks very much. does the cuyahoga river still catch on fire? >> no, sir. we're coming up on the 50th anniversary of that infamous fire, senator, and i'm happy to report that the environmental health of the river has been restored significantly. so we're proud of what we've been able to achieve since that dark day. >> i was -- i stood in ohio state university around that time. and we used to talk about fish fries up on the cuyahoga river. the wrong kind. the wrong kind. a question for you if i could. by 2020, the total volume of cargo shipped by water is expected to more than double by what it was just 17 years ago in 2001. ships continue to get bigger. we see more congestion at the docks. larger ships require deeper navigational channels, as we know, which only a few u.s. ports currently have.

how do we ensure that ports are effectively able to distribute and receive goods as ships continue to grow in size is a policy, is it a policy issue? is it a funding issue? is it both? if it is a funding issue, how do we go about doing more with less? >> okay, thank you for that question, senator. i'll try to address that. yes, it's certainly a funding issue and a policy issue both. as you heard me say earlier, apa is asking for $66 billion over the next 10 years to address many of those issues that you just spoke to, deepening water site projects such as deepening in order to keep up with the ships that are of course enormous today, as well as some landside projects to ensure that we have the intermodal connections so once that cargo comes off of that ship at a port or moves on to that ship, it can get to that port efficiently from an inland point. so we absolutely need a federal partnership.

i would also point out that there is already what i would call a robust public/private partnership in place because our port authorities work very closely with private sector port terminal operators and ship owners who invest heavily in our ports, are in partnership with our ports and with our federal government. so it will leverage -- the federal dollars will leverage additional private investment and go towards those sorts of infrastructure projects which there is no direct payback on. so we look forward to through this next round of wrda and this infrastructure discussion we'll be having this next year to ensuring we can put a plan in place to fund those important needs at our ports. >> in my opening statement, i mentioned that the corps faces a rather -- indeed a real sizable math problem as it tries to service roughly a $200 billion requirement. and more with the annual budget that hovers around $4.6 billion.

think about that. think about that. $200 billion requirement to meet and an annual budget that hovers around $4.6 billion. we're just -- we know it costs a lot of money. we know how economically important it is in our country. we're just not spending the money. we're not investing the money. and we can do streamlining from now until the cows come home. we've done a lot of smart streamlining. i think we're prepared to do some more. there is good opportunities to figure out how to leverage federal resources, state resources for to bring in private sector resources. we're doing that right now with the extension of the port of wilmington. but at the end of the day, one of the things we need is for the federal government to do its share, to do its part. and i -- that's not something that requires a response from any of you. i think that's the 800-pound gorilla in the room that is the 800-pound gorilla in the room. thank you.

>> senator inhofe? >> i think senator carper brought out something that is significant and is unique that is in this area where we're trying to bring in private sector funding, we actually had to pass a bill and a provision into the law to allow that to take place. i can't think of any other place in government where you have to ask permission to let the private sector pay for something. that was something that was good. mr. robinson, i again appreciate your being here so that we can make it very visible to people that we have problems on this inland waterway. i can remember back when i first came to congress, i would go up through some of the eastern states and see the problems they've had with their old ports thinking, well, we're pretty fortunate in oklahoma we don't have those problems. well, now we do have those problems. enough years has gone by we've outlived the lives of some of the -- our ports. and so we have to address that.

we had a subcommittee meeting that i chaired not long ago on transportation and infrastructure. and someone suggested that in the cost share of the inland waterway trust fund, it should be changed in some way. one suggestion was from 15% from the trust fund and 85% from the general fund. are you familiar with that suggestion? >> yes, senator inhofe, i am. and i think there probably needs to be an adjustment. you know, the problem as senator carper acknowledged is not doing more with less. we've been trying to do that forever. it's not working. we need to do more with more and do it efficiently and in a business-like manner. >> yeah, well that's -- and those of us who have been down there and observed the problems that we have in some of these relatively new ports that carry our goods and services. our nation's system directly touches 38 states has been brought out.

it's not just the coast. three of our ports go through senator boozman's state. and two more ports are in oklahoma. now, in the fast act, for the first time, and i've been through all seven of them since 1987, that we were able to have a freight provision. and that freight provision left a lot of the authority up to the states as to how to -- how to expend that and so forth. so i'd ask the question, would allowing the states to use fast act freight funds on our waterways, if they chose to do it, would that be a valuable tool to address the issues and the needs of our inland states? >> i think so, senator inhofe. i think we need more tools. and that would be one of them. the question of course would be whether states who are so focused on their highways' needs, roads and bridges, how much effort or expenditure they would allow from those funds for waterways.

and the other question is what would they use those funds for? would they use to it cost-share new projects? if that were the case, thing is a real need to cost-share projects there is not enough money in the inland waterways trust fund to do that. perhaps the states are going to have to pick up a little bit of the load there. so, yes, i think that. >> it's not going to happen unless somebody does something. >> that's exactly right. >> you've got to get aggressive and come in with the state. >> right. >> decide what the alternatives are and then what percentage perhaps might be appropriate for that, because i'd look at sources. and i run out of ideas. anyway, i think that's something we can do and something that doesn't affect us here in the federal government as much as it does in the state government. >> well, and i also think, senator inhofe, the water structure financing act that the congress authorized in 2014. >> right. >> is another tool that could be used.

it's a leveraged, you know, because the federal government is getting the money back. it's a loan. so i think that's another one of the tools at our disposal, the tiger program. >> okay. and there is a variety. >> sure. >> we can get together and decide what we want to do on the state level. ms. ufner, the counts ties and cities are facing a lot of crises when it comes to water resources and address these. i know other state, not just oklahoma, have some of these problems. in the city of bartlesville, oklahoma, the city is growing and in need of additional water storage. now, we had water storage. and a result from one lake in that city. and as a result increased our -- the rates to the customers by over 100%. but when we tried to open up another one, and i'm not sure if you're familiar with this particular issue, but we went to the corps of engineers. and they increased -- they had a rate increase of 3,000%, which

obviously that particular city of bartlesville was not able to do anything. when i ask the gao to investigate how the corps comes one their prices, they reported back that they couldn't because the agency's recordkeeping was so bad and varied, they could not actually study how the agency arrives at their numbers. does that shock you? >> i almost feel like that's a trick question, senator. >> no, it's not a trick question. it's a serious question. and now is the time to talk about it because we have new people coming in, and we've had a hearing already with the civil division to the corps of engineers. and they recognize changes have to be made. but not if we all sit around and keep quiet and don't talk about it. >> i think that you hit a strong point on the head there is a lot of information that is not available out there. and it's something that we need to figure out and work together to do it. >> yeah. well, my time is expired. but that's something we need to

address. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. senator whitehouse. >> thank you, chairman. i appreciate the panel being here. particular welcome to mr. friedman. rhode island has two ports that we're investing in and proud of, the port of providence and davisville in quonset. we're the home of one of the world's best ship servicing agencies. so we're keenly interested in ports. and i'm interested in your take on what sea level rise infrastructure impacts our ports are looking at. >> i think our ports are keenly interested in and concerned about sea level rise and what they can do in partnership with local state and federal government to enhance resiliency, as we heard mr. cochran speaking to earlier. you know, i think we would look toward this wrda bill to

increase our ability to work in innovative ways with the army corps of engineers. i think that you usually find that a lot of the new and interesting ideas tend to bubble up from those of us who are on the ground at our local ports and communities, and we need the ability to sit down with our army corps districts and work together on those solutions. we are engaged in those discussions with the buffalo district of the corps which oversees cleveland. believe it or not, we've had some coastal resiliency issues in cleveland. superstorm sandy did a tremendous amount of damage to our breakwater and other structures in our port. so we're looking at ways to use dredge material for example to fortify our port. >> is it fair to say that the concern of america's ports about sea level rise goes beyond the actual seashore itself, that you can raise piers and seawalls and so forth, but if the sea is

infiltrating through for instance water systems and bubbling up behind, if it's flooding access roads that are necessary to get goods in and out of the ports, those are matters of equal concern to the actual shoreline itself. is that correct? >> no question, senator. i think our ports are literally on the front lines of this issue and they're very concerned about the upland impacts if the sea level rises al well as being inundated being right on the docks. there is no question our port are focused on that question, and i think they're all working very hard to figure out how do we mitigate going forward. >> ms. ufner, you're here on all counties, could you tell us what wur hearing from coastal counties about the infrastructure hazards and risks and problems and challenges that they're seeing related to sea level rise and storm surges and

so forth >> well, it's much -- even broader than sea level rise and storm surges. we're definitely getting the flooding in the coastal counties. i also work very closely with our gulf states counties and parishes caucus, and especially with the hurricanes that have come through this past fall, they're increasingly focusing on how to address those issues because the weather events have been getting more severe. and the population growth within those communities makes it even more essential that the communities can address these issues at the local level. >> so my -- my view on this is that this is a problem that coastal communities face, counties and municipalities, that very often those counties and those municipalities don't have a lot of resources to do the planning. i see your head nodding for the record. yes, good.

it's also my view that a lot of the fema mapping has proven itself to be wildly inaccurate. and so -- so you have counties that are counting on the federal government for planning as to what sea level rise and flood risk looks like, and they're being given bad information. which puts it, again, back on the community to try to reach its own better planning process, but without the resources, it's really hard to ask a local community to take on a task like that. is that a fair description of the problem as you see it as well? >> it is. counties drive a large part of their income from property taxes and states set the limit of how we can even raise property taxes. so it sets an ugly cycle of how do we fund for something, how do we strengthen our local communities. and that's why the federal/state partnership is so valuable to us. >> well, i've got just a few seconds left. let me just make one point to my

colleagues. i think that we are beginning to address these wrda issues, one of the areas in which we can become more efficient and more helpful to the army corps would be to try to find a good, honorable and transparent way for congress and this committee to be able to assert its own priorities in the process. it concerns me that we shovel projects in one side of the wrda bill and we shovel money in the other side of the wrda bill. and how the army corps of engineers connects that money to those projects is a giant black hole. with about and i think we need to fix that. i know we've been through a problem of earmarks that received a lot of justified criticism. our response was to abandon this responsibility entirely. i think that was an overreaction, and that we can and should in this committee try to frame out an honorable

transparent proper way for these priorities to be met under our supervision rather than just throw it off to the army corps bureaucracy. i hope that statement was not unwelcome and i appreciate the extra time. >> it was very welcome. thank you very much, senator whitehouse. senator wicker? >> thank you. mr. friedman, let's talk about kbr the harbor maintenance trust. and i notice in your testimony, you advocate full use of hmt revenues over a ten-year period. what we've been doing, as is pointed out, we've been taking in more hmt revenue and sort of setting it aside and making the deficit look better by not spending it for its intended purpose. if we take your recommendation

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''and restore over a ten-year period the full use of these revenues, will that get us where we need to be in terms of meeting our funding needs? >> thank you, senator wicker. it gets us part of the way there but not all of the way there. if you look at the numbers that apa has submitted in the infographic, and they can provide more detail we are calling for full spend every year of the revenues brought into the trust fund and spending the roughly $9 billion surplus that has been built up, as you just mentioned. and then on top of that, we would need additional moneys through an infrastructure bill to reach the $66 billion which we identify as the full need. so we would certainly be fully maintaining our harbors at that point if we fully spend the harbor maintenance trust fund, catching up with the backlog if we use the surplus. and then for some additional water site improvements such as deepening, which was mentioned earlier, some of our largest

harbors for the larger ships, some of the big container ports. and then some critical land-side multimodal connections using infrastructure dollars. we think that gets us to where we need to be as a nation. >> okay. so it's your hope that the president's infrastructure plan which should be outlined to us and to the public within a couple of weeks, or perhaps at least within a month, that that $1 trillion infrastructure plan will be the third step in getting us where we need to be to meet our needs? >> we hope so, senator, yes. >> okay. and i hope so too. now thank you for this chart. and senator carper -- or these graphics. senator carper showed a bigger copy of this. but illustrative examples of port related investment needs. and i notice you have three rail projects, one being the mississippi rail relocation project and marine terminal project at pascagoula,

mississippi. that's the only city in the united states that rhymes with hallelujah. you might tuck that away as a fact to be learned today. also, a cross harbor rail tunnel in new jersey and a port arthur rail project. how are we doing in rail access to ports? and why aren't we where we need to be? what have been some of the challenges in getting that rail to the ports? >> okay, well, i think we've made good progress in the last 20 or 30 years or so improving a rail access to ports. intermodality, or the whole concept of putting a container on to a train is not that old a concept. and so many of our ports had to be retrofitted with the kinds of rail connections that would be

functional for them. the granddaddy of all those would be the alameda corridor project in southern california, which consolidated all the rail lines in a cut so as to eliminate grade crossings. you've seen those sorts of projects on somewhat smaller scale at many of our ports. and that's been i think a good public/private partnership between the railroad industry, between ports themselves and the federal government. but we do need more. we're seeing increased volumes to and from our ports. i think it's particularly important for exports. well tend to think about containers coming in through our ports. but where i am in cleveland we think a lot about exports. and we need those strong rail connections are from the hinterland into the ports in order to move exports which quite often are heavy and bulky products that we make here in the u.s. that's why in that $66 billion, we have included those critical rail connections. in some cases it's tunnel clearances. in some cases it's rail bridges.

some cases it's grade crossings, it's more track in order to manage those trains as they move in and out of the ports. thank you. >> thank you. quickly, mr. cochran, this loss of land in louisiana is something i'm familiar with as a next-door neighbor. the truth of the matter is it's -- i'm not advocating doing away with flood control. but it's actually flood control over the centuries and decades that has caused the absence of sediment and the loss of land. that correct? >> one of the significant factor, yes, sir. >> just the point i would make is no one would advocate the solution to the problem is to go back to the wild days that we used to have that caused the sediment. i appreciate you and your testimony thinking of innovative ways, different ways to address something that we can't change back to the way it used to be. and i appreciate that also, let

me just say i understand that we're all for streamlining permitting. you have some doubts about some of the suggestions at the other end of the table. we're going have to come together across the aisle on ways that we can streamline the permitting process. so i'm glad to see, to see a consensus among all five of our witnesses, i believe, that we need to address that. and i hope we can work on nuances that can be a happy solution and a win-win for all parties. >> i just would offer -- and i appreciate that. i think the key there is what you identified, which is sitting down together. sitting down together. one of the things we've been lucky enough and maybe threatened enough in louisiana to do is to recognize that hurricanes and other things aren't -- they're completely nonpartisan. and we need to be too as we figure this out.

so looking at how to make the system work better, how to make underlying protections do what they're intended to do, but to do so in the most efficient way, that's a great conversation to have. >> thank you, senator. senator gillibrand? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. ranking member. i'm very grateful to you for holding this hearing. it's a very important work that our committee does. to draft the new watery sources discrepancy meant act this year. my state of new york has a wide range of diverse water infrastructure needs and challenges. we are a coastal state threatened by the impacts of climate change, coastal storms and sea level rise. we're also a great lakes state, constantly challenged by aquatic invasive species like carp that have the potential to destroy our fisheries if they're not stopped from gaining a foothold in the great lakes basin. we have the largest and busiest port on the east coast, which is essential to international commerce. and we have a number of small ports and harbors across our state that are important to the local economies and need to be properly maintained. we cannot address all of these

challenges without a strong investment in the army corps. but funding is only part of it. we need to ensure we are investing our federal dollars so that we are more resilient in the face of these challenges. i was very disappointed that the trump administration chose to rescind the flood risk management standard implemented by the obama administration which required federally funded projects to incorporate best available and actional science on climate change and sea level rise and build above the base floor elevation levels. if we are spending, as we are in the northeast, billions of dollars to build the infrastructure to protect our communities, it defies logic that we would leave taxpayers exposed to the types of catastrophic losses we saw after super storm sandy, and more recently hurricanes harvey and maria by not building to withstand the current and future flood risks. so to ms. ufner, what are the

consequences to counties and local governments and their taxpayers if we fail to properly assess risks, both current and future when planning to build in flood plains? >> thank you, senator, for your question. ultimately, counties are responsible for our public health and safety of our communities. and probably if you look at what's happened in santa barbara county, california within the last day with the flooding that is due from the wildfires, there is only limited things that you can do after a wildfire to address the risk. but it demonstrates that when floods happen, people die, homes disappear, roads are gone, memories are gone. and this is something that local governments want to prevent, and they want to be there to help with their residents.

>> are we doing enough to ensure that we are adequately protecting ourselves and our assets from future storms and floods? and what could we be doing better? >> it's a combination approach there is a responsibility on the local governments. a lot of our local governments, though, they have the limited income and technical assistance to follow through with these projects. and that's where they really look to the army corps of engineers and other federal agencies to bring the technical assistance, the data, the modeling the communities can use. and we've been working with our counties on best practices that they can use in their own communities to build the resiliency at the local level. >> what else could we be doing? >> we just keep on going in the direction we're doing. and the way of it is these are steps on the ladder that we can help the communities that are out there really being aggressive. they're our trendsetters.

and they're the ones that we learn from on what may work in other communities. >> thank you. to mr. cochran, what needs to change in terms of army corps policies and procedures to allow for greater use of natural nature-based solution mitigate flood risks along our coastlines? >> one of the things i want to point out is this multiple lines of defense system chart that we used early to illustrate the integration of hardened infrastructure and natural infrastructure is actually based on a chart that the corps put together following in its post sandy efforts as it did a comprehensive coastal study in the northeast. so i take that as both a positive sign that, you know, too, too often what we do is learn about these things after the fact. and this is a post-sandy study, not a pre-sandy study. one of the things we really need to encourage within the corps is

to take the learns that have occurred in these post-sandy situations and really make sure that they penetrate across the corps, across the various divisions, not just singular in one place so that all the areas both coastal and inland can get the benefit, clear benefit of this kind of thinking, this kind of an approach. because from that comes actual information and data so you can do the kind of comparisons that will let you select the things that work best, not just take one old system, but integrate these things so they become not only protective but sustainable in the process. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator gillibrand. senator ernst? >> thank you, mr. chair. a number of my coastal colleagues have mentioned the detriment to hurricanes and so forth. and i would just offer them the opportunity to come inland a little bit. iowa has about a thousand miles of coastal setback in either direction. but regardless of those large scale effects that come from

hurricanes, we do have flooding issues in iowa that occur on a much more regular basis than those 100-year floods or 500-year floods that are recorded out there. senator whitehouse mentioned that black hole that exists within the army corps of engineers. you know we get the projects in one side. and as he said, the funding in from the other side. and i tend to agree with the senator in that there is a black hole, and we need greater transparency there. part of that black hole i feel is the benefit-to-cost ratio. and mr. cochran, in your testimony, you encourage congress to direct the corps to modernize that bcr, the benefit-to-cost ratio analyses because you believe they are often inaccurate. a priority of mine is to modernize the bcr metrics so that more communities,

particularly our rural ones have an opportunity to get their projects funded. we have a flood mitigation project in cedar rapids, iowa, that was authorized by wrda in 2014. it was mentioned for prioritization in wrda in 2016. but has not received any funding due to the low bcr that results from iowa's relatively low property values. and i know that that is -- that is true in other areas as well, and maybe mr. cochran in louisiana too, because your property values are low also. do you have any thoughts on how the bcr metrics could be modified so that project likes this flood mitigation project in cedar rapids have a better chance of receiving funding? >> one of the recommendations that we have is really a focus on making sure that you can in

fact take account for the range of benefits that can come from projects when you're doing protection. and a lot of that has to do often with the benefits of wetlands, the benefits of setbacks, things like that that you are used to in your riverine situation that really don't get accounted for any benefits when you get into the cost benefit. well, there is some land there. but they don't actually look at the benefits associated with it. these kind of benefits. so a true accounting for the benefits from natural infrastructure for the benefits of there really needs to be done. and it will end up benefitting these discussions that you're talking about. because it actually gives a true picture, not one that just slanted towards an old way of doing things. part of the challenge that i think a lot of people have had with these analyses too is a real lack of transparence it is. it's difficult understanding exactly where the numbers came from or how they got there and no real requirement that they be justified in a way that will

allow people to actually engage in that conversation. so we think that transparency is a fundamental piece of this. data transparency, real accounting for real benefits, those things together really can make a difference. >> that is too true. again, going back to that black hole that senator whitehouse was referencing. so thank you. i think that's important. and i hope that we are taking a look at the bcr as we move forward. and, of course, ms. carter, the army corp. component of the program that was established by wrda in 2014 has yet to get off the ground. that's the army corps portion. the epa has already implemented their portion. what are some of the challenges the corps is facing in implementing this program? and at this current pace, how long will it take for the corps to catch up to where epa is? >> thank you for question. indeed the wifia program for the corps has not been funded.

and part of what has been going on is there is -- the corps has no history with a loan or loan guarantee program. so developing the guidelines and understanding how will those projects be scored in terms of the risks to the government have been some of the primary challenges. so as basically as those issues get worked through with either congressional or administration involved in those discussions of how do you score the risk, as those progress, then funding could be provided and the corps could start providing these loan and loan guarantees which could assist with projects like flood levees where communities could potentially proceed on their own to be able to perform those projects. so those interest -- are the main ones to understand the scoring of the project. >> would it be helpful since bca already has an established

process, would it be helpful if the corps could determine those projects and then fund those through wifia and epa? >> i've not looked at those as an option, but there i believe is some legislation throughout to that effect. we have a expert that covers the wifia program. and any questions for the record you would like to provide for us we are maep to -- happy to answer. >> thank you very much. thank you, chair. >> thank you. chairman boozman? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i don't have a question for you, but we appreciate bcs. we appreciate all of your knowledge and crs in general. you all do a great job and probably aren't thanked enough by us as we try and get things together. give yourselves a big pat on the back. >> those type of comments are what keeps us going. so thank you. >> we do appreciate you. mr. robinson, to capitalize on america's changing economy, it's

clear that necessary that america's necessary infrastructure improvements must be made to our inland waterways and ports. they have been working for years to deepen the river navigation so barges and boats can carry larger loads. i think about 40% greater load. so it's very, very significant. senator inhofe and i both understand and certainly we appreciate his leadership. but also the national significance of a 12-foot channel versus what we have now. and we're going work really hard in wrda 2018 to try to get that accomplished. can you explain why the 12-foot channel would be a benefit? >> well, as you said -- as you said, senator boozman -- >> not just for arkansas and oklahoma, but for country as a whole. >> let me give you an example. and you know scott mcgeorge with pine bluff sand and gravel, operating a rock quarry there in pine bluff area. the closest rock quarry to new orleans in the country. and so scott mcgeorge and pine bluff sand and gravel weren't

able to compete when new orleans needed rock desperately. so as a nation, we paid more for that rock than we otherwise would have because we weren't willing to deepen the channel. we started the channel. but we didn't complete it. we didn't go forward with it. >> along that line, i have great concern in the sense as recently as 2016, bob portis expressed concern that the critical backlog on the mkarns was of that nature. that number has now ballooned to $143 million in less than two years. if we continue to kick the can down the road and to not address the critical backlog, talk about that. talk about what how the effect of it, if we actually had to shut the system down. again, not only for arkansas and oklahoma, but for the rest of the country.

also, according to the u.s. army corps of engineer, 58% of locks and dams are past their life expectancy. talk about if we can do some more things, the positive effect. >> the locks and dams on the mkarns are 47 years old. i realize that lox and dams on the rest of the system in the nation are older than that. but one of the reasons that the backlog of critical maintenance is growing at such an alarming rate is because we're near tending of the 50-year life that most projects like that have from an engineering standpoint. so we're discovering new things every time we dewater a lock. and we do that quite often in order to make sure we're keeping up with the maintenance that needs to be done. unfortunately, the funds aren't available to do the maintenance even when we know they need to be done. if the mkarns were shut down as a result of failure of the system in one way or another,

then we have calculated that the cost in oklahoma would be $2 million a day. that's a significant cost to shipment and terminal operators and to the nation. it's just not a good way to do business. these projects were justified on expectations that the benefits would exceed the costs. they have done that. there are significant earnings to the government, to the federal government that go into the treasury. it's not a matter of not enough benefits and revenues. it's a matter of using those revenues for other purposes. >> mr. friedman, a top priority for the chairman and ranking member for the entire committee is passing the wrda bill. we went through a period from 2007 to 2014 where we had a gap. 2014, 2016, we've gotten back on track. can you talk about what it means to have certainty with having a wrda bill every two years to address these problems? >> sure.

thank you, senator. yes, it's critically important for the port industry, the maritime industry to have a wrda reauthorized every two years on a regular cycle. because adjustments need to be made to the new construction start authorizations as projects are designed and then being built that as we know the corps, army corps has been plagued with, you know, projects that string out for many, many years, adding costs. it hurts the competitiveness of the nation if we can't complete these harbor improvement projects, complete these deepenings. so a gap of seven years, as you mentioned, is very, very harmful. it also givers us an opportunity to address the issue that was brought up in terms of transparency and sort of opening up decision-making process at the corps, the so-called black box which we think would be good for all stakeholders to be able

to have input to modernize the benefit/cost ratio, to make sure we're funding the best projects for the nation. so apa is strongly in favor of getting back to the regular order on wrda. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator boozman. senator carper? >> thank you, sir. a question for you, ms. ufner, dealing with stakeholder involvement. i think we all realize that stakeholder and project collaboration with the army corps of engineers is essential to solving our water resources challenges, which is many. this collaboration helps to limit the cost of missed opportunities, promotes better planning, provides better transparency, results in more fiscally and environmentally sound projects. a question for you, if i could. and how can the army corps adapt its efforts to promote integrated planning in management?

please. >> and you're talking integrated planning from the concept of environmental protection agency, but using it also within the army corps of engineers? >> yes. >> to -- and basically, how to -- it's a big issue for us with water issues whether in the corps or the army corps to address clean water act issues in a holistic way. and that essentially includes potentially -- i don't want to say bundling projects, but it's a way for us to look at what is the most important thing. and we're still meeting our clean water act goals in the corps or epa, but we can do it in a much more affordable way and that's something that nika has been supporting within the realm of the clean water act.

>> thanks. i want to go back to something i said earlier in my opening statement. and i'm going to ask you to join me in an airplane, go up to about 30,000 feet. and then i'd like for you to just react to what i'm going to repeat that i said earlier. as the 2017 hurricane season illustrated our nation's needs. i spent time in puerto rico, i spent time in the virgin islands. i spent time in houston and saw the kind of devastation that we're going to pay for a long time, a long, long time. as the recently did he parted hurricane season illustrated our nation needs to be a resilient one ready for the next storm or flood or drought event because it is coming. in fact, just this week, noaa estimated that the total costs for extreme weather and climate events exceed $300 billion, which is a new annual record for u.s. so it's clearly not a record of if our next extreme weather events are coming but when.

together the corps's navigation -- together the corps' navigation in flood risk management accounted for more than 70% of the agency's annual solo works appropriations. but the corps has jurisdiction as we know over any number of jurisdiction over any number of environmental programs. they include recreation. they include emergency management and water supply. unfortunately, the mid-1980s, federal funding for new project construction, major rehab, began to decline steadily. with this trend, the corps's actions have shifted to maintenance and rehabilitation of existing infrastructure and a backlog of deferred maintenance has continued to grow ever since. as a result, much of the corps infrastructure is now exceeding its useful life plan. if you were sitting on this side of the dais, as members of this committee, what would you be

doing about it? we'll start with you, steve, please. >> i think that the situation you described is incredibly debilitating to the people who work at the corps of engineers. they are, many of them, quite skilled, quite talented, quite able, and yet they -- the vision of what it could be and what they need to be is completely overwhelmed by a backlog of things that they're not getting done, and so it does seem to me that with -- it's essential to find a way to overcome the backlog, not by doing all the projects. frankly, that's not going to work. but by creating a new vision that actually does, you know, we -- we talk a lot in louisiana about getting ahead of the next storm, the same way you talked about in your opening statement. well, that's critical, because otherwise, you're always playing catch-up. that's what the corps is doing now. that's all they can do is play catch-up. we should -- i don't actually mean this, but we should either

give them a real job to do or we should just get rid of them because the way it is right now, mr. robinson said earlier, everybody has learned how to do more with less. that's just business as usual. if you do that long enough, you give up on what you really need to do. i think that's what the corps has done. >> thank you for that. ms. carter, please. >> well, crs has no opinions or reactions, but one of the topics that may be of concern in the future is dam and levee safety issues. the corps should be coming out in the next few months with reports related to some of the infrastructure investment needs in that area, including related to eye walls, which are one of the pieces of infrastructure that failed in new orleans and contributed to the cost to the federal government for emergency response and recovery. figuring out how aging infrastructure like that fits into the infrastructure package

in the long run will potentially help or hinder the government's ability to manage its risk. >> all right. well, i'm going to ask you just to react to what i said earlier and repeat it, please. >> absolutely, senator. you know, with my aapa hat on, i would repute what i've said, which is that our ports want to see the continued movement toward full use and spend of the harbor maintenance trust fund. that would make a tremendous difference for us, and we are grateful for the progress that congress has made and you've made in that direction recently, the numbers are remarkable from where we were five or six years ago, and then we would, again, you know, submit that our waterways, our water infrastructure needs to be viewed very high priority in any upcoming infrastructure legislation that's passed out of congress and then just speaking

for myself, if i were on your side in your shoes, i can sort of think back to when the army corps, the days when the army corps was building some of the greatest work projects known to man, the panama canal, our great dams and other waterways and water works and i think we need to get back to that spirit of, we can do this. we have to fund it, but we can do it. we need to address these issues and i do, i think, sort of share the view that, you know, without enough funding, there's not much the corps can do. they're fighting this backlog perpetually, but i think we have to just start thinking bigger, on a bigger scale to address these problems and make that a national priority. >> all right. thank you. julia. >> thank you, senator. actually, two thoughts on that. well, several thoughts. there is such a backlog within the corps and the need within the communities are so huge. there are communities out there that would love to partner with

the corps on projects, but there's no funding. they don't meet the cost benefit analysis. and the technical assistance that the corps offers is so valuable. having said that, there's a lot of challenges within the corps, with the processes, the bureaucracy, complex requirements that make it very difficult, even if counties do want to partner with them, that they may go to other federal agency first, because it may take ten years through the corps as opposed to seven years somewhere else. >> all right. good. thanks. last word, scott. >> i hate to beat a dead horse. >> no, go ahead. >> the civil works program in the country for many, many, many years has delivered significant benefits to the country. and revenues to the treasury. revenues far in excess of the cost of the program. it's time to re-invest some of those earnings back into the system instead of using up the principal, the capital, that was

originally invested. >> all right. thanks. good words of wisdom. thank you all. this has been a good hearing, and we appreciate very much what you've added to it. >> just a couple quick questions. going to point to you, mr. friedman, when you talked about the days of the panama canal, there's an excellent book called "the path between the seas". >> i've read it. >> the time, the bureaucracy, the complexity how long -- the title is actually, "the panama canal, 1870 to 1914" so it did span a 44-year plan and the issues -- and they actually had to, you know, find a cure for a major disease that was killing a lot of people down there at the time of the construction, so it was a remarkable achievement, and it was over 100 years ago. so thanks for bringing that up. several projects and programs passed in the water infrastructure improvements for the nation act. they're important to reduce flooding, ice jam prevention. you mentioned mitigation and the

mitigation pilot program so in your view, how important is preventi preventing flooding to the economic health of rural communities. >> to reiterate what we mentioned before, it is immeasurable. communities are responsible. counties, in particular, are responsible for health and public safety, and we take many measures to ensure that our public is protected. we're the first on the scenes of any emergencies, flooding disasters, and when they result in deaths and/or damage to our economies, ultimately impacts the national economy. so, it's huge that we're able to address this long-term and figure out the steps that we need to get there in the end together. >> one of the things i don't think i mentioned yet was that, you know, in terms of -- because i've continued to advocate maintaining this network of stream gauges and snow pack

monitors throughout the upper missouri basin, used to monitor snow depth, soil moisture, to inform agencies like the corps as to potential flooding issues or drought as well. in your opinion, is there more that can be done to predict flooding or drought than what we're doing here? >> there is definitely more that can be done and what we're hearing from our counties is that there needs to be more available data that is reliably updated. we hear this a lot about the data used for nfip or also flood elevation data. that is not readily available and/or updated. and for communities to make the most efficient decisions in their community, they need the most up-to-date information. >> all right. well, thank you. thank all of you. you know, some members may ask, you know, senator? >> i have a question but i'm not going to ask it now but i want to flag it for mr. cochran with

regards to flood risk management, beach nourishment and cost benefit. one of the things that's important on the east coast from maine to florida is the issue of cost benefit ratio with us building the dune systems and so forth to protect a lot of our coastal towns and communities. we're going to send that to you and ask you to be sure to take a good look at that. thank you very much. >> members may be submitting written questions to each and every one of you so i ask that you follow up quickly for the record. the hearing's record will remain open for two weeks. i want to thank all of you for being here and your time and your testimony. the hearing is adjourned. >> thank you.

american history tv on c-span3. this week in primetime. tonight, at 8:00 p.m. eastern, historians attending the american historical association conference look at how american veterans are being remembered, honored, and memorialized since world war ii, thursday night at 7:00 p.m. eastern. we're live from the museum in washington, d.c., with a discussion on the 1968 vietnam

war tet offensive and the battle of wei. and friday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern, lincoln scholar and howard university professor on abraham lincoln's friends and enemies. watch american history tv this week in primetime on c-span3. the c-span bus is traveling across the country on our 50 capitals tour. we recently stopped in raleigh, north carolina, asking folks, what's the most important issue in their state? >> i think the most important issue here in the state of north carolina is to make sure that we're implementing what we say in our constitution about education. we say in article 9 of the constitution that we're going to provide equal opportunities for all our students here in north carolina, so i would like to see that we continue to value equity and provide for the educational

opportunities for all students here and fund that as well, not just say it and give lip service to it, but to actually fund that. >> one of the most important issues facing our state right now are the issues of the court system and control of the court system, legislatiors are workin on ways to revamp the court system, and some want to take judges out of the hands of the voters. i think it's important that the people elect the judges -- elect judges and that the court system is one for the people, run by the people. >> probably the most significant issue for me at the present are the many, many bills that have been introduced this past year, which i believe affect and denigrate the independence of the north carolina judiciary as an independent branch of government. bills have been introduced to make judicial elections partisan. i don't see anything that partisanship has in common with

what we think of judges. fair, impartial, independent. >> i would say right now, it would be the gerrymandering case. currently, you have republicans controlling the general assembly in the north carolina state legislature, and currently, they're drawing out maps that are gerrymandered, and currently, at the supreme court, they're having a case, and they're trying to see if these maps drawn by the republicans are actually gerrymandered or if they're drawn to fit the whole population of people. and currently, they're going to go to a supreme court case and decide if some of these maps with gerrymandered or drawn illegally or drawn legally. so that's like a big case right now. >> voices from the states on c-span.