S.Hrg.119-398

1[Senate Hearing 119-398]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                                                        S. Hrg. 119-39856                 HEARING TO EXAMINE THE WATER RESOURCES7                   DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2026 AND U.S. ARMY8                   CORPS OF ENGINEERS' PROJECTS, PROGRAMS9                   AND PRIORITIES1011=======================================================================1213                                HEARING1415                               before the1617                              COMMITTEE ON18                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS1920                          UNITED STATES SENATE2122                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2324                             SECOND SESSION25                               __________2627                           FEBRUARY 25, 202628                               __________2930  Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works3132                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3334        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov3536                               ______3738                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE394063-623                  WASHINGTON : 20264142               COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS4344                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS4546                             SECOND SESSION4748             SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Chairman49            SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Ranking Member5051KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota           BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont52CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming           JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon53JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah                 EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts54LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    MARK KELLY, Arizona55DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 ALEX PADILLA, California56PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska              ADAM B. SCHIFF, California57ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi         LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware58JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               ANGELA D. ALSOBROOKS, Maryland59JON HUSTED, Ohio6061               Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director62                  Dan Dudis, Democratic Staff Director6364                            C O N T E N T S6566                              ----------67                                                                   Page6869                           FEBRUARY 25, 202670                           OPENING STATEMENTS7172Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West73  Virginia.......................................................     174Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode75  Island.........................................................     37677                               WITNESSES7879Telle, Hon. Adam R., Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil80  Works..........................................................     581    Prepared statement...........................................     782    Responses to additional questions from:83        Senator Cramer...........................................    1584        Senator Wicker...........................................    1585        Senator Whitehouse.......................................    1686        Senator Merkley..........................................    1787        Senator Kelly............................................    2088        Senator Padilla..........................................    2189        Senator Schiff...........................................    2590Graham, LTG. William, H. Jr., Chief of Engineers and Commanding91  General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army..    2792    Prepared statement...........................................    2993    Responses to additional questions from:94        Senator Cramer...........................................    3295        Senator Ricketts.........................................    3396        Senator Whitehouse.......................................    3597        Senator Merkley..........................................    3598        Senator Kelly............................................    3699        Senator Padilla..........................................    36100101                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL102103Juneau Independent Article: USACE Rescinds Promise to Pursue Lake104  Tap as Long-term Flood Solution................................    65105Letter to Senator Capito and Senator Whitehouse from Steel106  Manufacturers Association                                          74107Statement for the Record of the American Society of Civil108  Engineers......................................................    76109110                 HEARING TO EXAMINE THE WATER RESOURCES111                   DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2026 AND U.S. ARMY112                   CORPS OF ENGINEERS' PROJECTS, PROGRAMS113                   AND PRIORITIES114115                              ----------116117                      WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2026118119                                        U.S. Senate120                  Committee on Environment and Public Works121                                                    Washington, DC.122    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room123562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Shelley Moore Capito124(chairman of the committee) presiding.125    Present: Senators Capito, Whitehouse, Cramer, Lummis,126Sullivan, Ricketts, Boozman, Merkley, Kelly, Padilla, Schiff,127Blunt Rochester, Alsobrooks.128129        OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,130          U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA131132    Senator Capito. Good morning, everybody. I would like to133call this hearing to order. I appreciate everybody being here.134    I would like to welcome our witnesses, Secretary Telle and135General Graham. I appreciate both of you being here. I also136appreciate the back and forth that we have had with your137offices over the last several months.138    The purpose of today's hearing is to help the committee139develop the next Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). Yes,140it is that time again. We call that WRDA. WRDA not only141authorizes water resources studies and projects, but sets142national policies for the U.S. Corps of Engineers Civil Works143Program.144    Since 2014, this committee has kept to a biannual schedule145of passing this bipartisan legislation and I look forward to146continuing that track record today.147    Earlier this year, or this Congress, earlier this year,148Ranking Member Whitehouse and I sent a letter to our Senate149colleagues soliciting their requests for WRDA 2026. I am150pleased to say that we received a significant number of151requests, more than last time, which demonstrates the strong152interest and the necessity of this legislation.153    To help us kickstart the WRDA process, this hearing will154allow the committee to learn more about the Trump155administration's recently announced priorities for the Corps,156examine the agency's implementation of prior WRDAs, and then157discuss ongoing projects and programs of the Corps.158    Secretary Telle, I appreciate and applaud your willingness159to closely examine what changes need to be made to allow the160Corps to better deliver water resources solutions with our non-161Federal partners. I look forward to learning more about those162changes today.163    The Corps does critical work across the Nation through its164navigation, flood risk management and ecosystem restoration165missions. This work protects the lives and livelihoods of166millions of Americans and facilitates commerce throughout our167Country and internationally. Last week, actually, I visited the168Winfield Locks and Dams to see the great work the Corps is169doing on the Kanawha River there. There is nothing like getting170eyes on a project.171    As I previously stated, it is important that any WRDA bill172supports the timely and efficient delivery of water resource173projects while continuing to meet national missions.174Flexibility is key to ensuring that the Corps can identify and175carry out solutions that are tailored to the needs of each176community.177    We must also continue to preserve the role of our non-178Federal partners and sponsors in this process. To achieve this179goal, WRDA 2026 will advance studies and projects, without180forcing a one-size-fits-all solution.181    In September, I stressed the importance of the timely182implementation of WRDA 2024 and prior WRDAs, consistent with183congressional intent. Secretary Telle, throughout your two184decades as a Senate staffer and your confirmation process, you185heard how important the Corps' work and the policies enacted in186WRDA are to communities across the Country. Now that you have187had more time on the job, I look forward to an update on the188Corps' implementation efforts.189    I also want to acknowledge and thank the staff across the190Corps enterprise for their ongoing efforts to provide the191committee with technical assistance on the WRDA requests that192we received from our Senate colleagues. Technical assistance is193a vital part of our legislative process, and we greatly194appreciate timely responses from the Corps.195    The work of the Corps has and will continue to make a196difference in communities, and that is certainly true in West197Virginia. The Corps is actively working on a number of studies198and projects that are critically important to my home State.199    The fifth and final stage of the Bluestone Dam Safety200Assurance Mega Project, it is a huge project, in the city of201Hinton, continues to make significant progress. Once completed,202that project will protect more than 150,000 people and $20203billion worth of infrastructure.204    I am also pleased that work on the Lower Mud River Flood205Risk Management project in Milton, where Secretary Telle joined206us there, could resume this summer. Unfortunately, there is207still more to be done. West Virginia continues to experience208devastating flooding.209    I am thankful to the Corps, and the Huntington District in210particular, for the progress they are making on the Kanawha211River Basin and Upper Guyandotte feasibility studies. These212studies are exploring potential solutions to manage the flood213risk in these areas.214    I look forward to making sure that the next WRDA bill215contains the necessary authorizations and authorities for the216Corps to continue to carry out this important work. And I thank217the witnesses for being here today.218    Our Ranking Member is not, here is his little sign, I will219put it up here, he is here virtually today, he is in Rhode220Island, where he is snowed in with 37 inches of snow. While we221do not typically--which sounds like nothing in North Dakota.222    Senator Cramer. No, it sounds like plenty.223    [Laughter.]224    Senator Capito. While we typically do not provide for225virtual participation, this is an extraordinary circumstances226for an extraordinary person. And we are glad to have Ranking227Member Whitehouse with us for this important hearing.228    So, Ranking Member Whitehouse, I heard your voice from229above here as we were starting, so I know you are listening. I230look forward to continuing our partnership to develop the next231bipartisan WRDA bill, and I now will recognize you for your232opening statement.233234         OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,235          U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND236237    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman, for the hearing238today to discuss the Water Resources Development Act of 2026.239Thank you particularly for the courtesy of allowing me to240participate remotely and to your team for making all of this241wonderful technology actually work. I appreciate it very much.242    Just to give you a sense of what is going on up here, the243guy who plows my driveway had his plow snowed in, and is only244now starting to get out. We found another team to take a whack245at my driveway last night, a plow and a front-end loader. They246were defeated, and went away after pushing in maybe 30 yards.247    So we are in, I would say, hip deep here. Largest snowfall248ever recorded in Rhode Island. So I appreciate the courtesy.249    Thank you, also, Assistant Secretary Telle, and Lieutenant250General Graham, for appearing before the Committee. I do wish251we were convening under better circumstances.252    Mr. Telle, as you will recall, I supported your nomination.253I look forward to working with you. You committed to work254collaboratively with this committee to tackle our priorities255and deliver the Corps' missions to all American people.256    Yet, communications between the Corps and congressional257offices have been largely shut down. Your office does not258answer requests for information from my staff. Letters from259members of this committee receive no response. Questions for260the record from last September's hearing remain unanswered.261    As we convene today to discuss the WRDA Act of 2026, your262office has issued implementation guidance for just 3 of over263180 provisions in the Water Resources Development Act of 2024.264This seems ridiculous. when Congress passes a law, the relevant265agency must move swiftly to implement it. And 3 out of 180 does266not seem to measure up.267    Most egregiously, in the 7-months since the Senate268confirmed your nomination, we are seeing what I consider to be269the worst politicization of the Corps of Engineers in modern270times. Like many other Federal agencies, the Corps' permitting271processes have been corrupted to stymie safe, affordable272renewable energy, and to give advantage to the President's big273fossil fuel donors. I do not think that is fair, and I do not274think that is right.275    Wielding the permitting authority granted to the agency by276Congress in this manner violates the law and contravenes the277Corps' own regulations, which State that it is neither a278proponent nor an opponent of any permit proposal.279    You announced an unprecedented pause on $11 billion in280funding for Corps studies and projects in Rhode Island and 11281other States represented by Democrats in the Senate, including282six other members of this Committee, for the reason, according283to Russell Vought at OMB, that we are Democrats. This is not284just an attack on the opposition party but, because of our285geography, it is an attack on our Nation's coasts as well.286    Annual funding for inland flood projects has long outpaced287funding for coastal projects, by 20 to 1, even 100 to 1.288Instead of addressing this problem, the Corps has made things289worse by pausing work on large-scale non-structural flood risk290projects, the vast majority of which protect coastal areas.291With our coasts facing severe increases in flood risk from292rising sea levels and worse ocean storms, it is just wrong for293you to so disfavor coastal areas.294    A rumored Administration proposal to fund inland waterway295projects off the backs of coastal ports, by significantly296increasing the Harbor Maintenance Tax and merging the Harbor297Maintenance Trust Fund with the Inland Waterways Trust Fund,298would actually worsen the Corps' reputation as the bureaucratic299tributary of the Mississippi River, with no regard for300America's coasts.301    The U.S. economy relies on global trade, and that global302trade comes through our coastal ports. Please, you should not303be party to administration schemes that would jeopardize our304Country's long-term economic security just to harm coastal305states as retribution for not bowing to the President's will.306    It is hard for me to imagine what your theory is, pursuing307a bill that requires bipartisan support to pass while engaged308in this kind of conduct. I know it comes from OMB, but somebody309along the line has to say no. A hard, fast and convincing310course correction is required to get yourselves on track.311    Please remember that you lead the U.S. Army Corps of312Engineers, not the Donald J. Trump Corps of Engineers.313    Thank you, Chairman.314    Senator Capito. All right. Okay. I want to thank the315Ranking Member, and hope he finds somebody else to tow him out316of there.317    We are now ready to hear from our witnesses. Our first318witness is the 14th Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil319Works, Adam Telle. Secretary Telle was confirmed to serve in320this role by the Senate in a bipartisan vote last August.321    Prior to his confirmation, Secretary Telle spent two322decades in public service with roles in the U.S. Senate and in323the Trump Administration. He now oversees the civil engineering324functions of the United States Army.325    Welcome, Secretary Telle. You are recognized for 5 minutes326to deliver your opening statement.327328  STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM R. TELLE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE329          ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY330331    Mr. Telle. Thank you, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member332Whitehouse, and distinguished members of the committee. I333appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the334development of the proposed Water Resources Development Act of3352026.336    I am eager to share with you my perspective after 6 months,3377 months, as the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil338Works, including what the Corps of Engineers is doing well and339where significant reform is warranted. I hope my perspective is340valuable to you as you develop WRDA 2026.341    I also wish to share an update on the implementation of342past WRDAs, which remains a topic of critical interest to343members of this committee. Since my last appearance before this344committee, the Army Civil Works Program has finalized345implementation guidance for all of the remaining provisions of346WRDA 2020 and 2022. WRDA is the law of the land, when it is347signed by the President, and we are implementing the law today.348    Of the 552 provisions included in the three most recent349WRDAs, we are developing additional guidance for 19 of the350provisions to ensure they are consistently implemented. I351remain committed to completing the implementation guidance as352soon as practicable and look forward to working with this353committee to identify opportunities to improve the process for354the future.355    One thing I have observed at this point is that the Army356Corps of Engineers is at its very best when responding to357emergencies, where it is unburdened by red tape, and enters358what we like to call Army mode. Specific examples come to mind.359They include the Corps' execution of assignments to clear and360remove debris after Hurricane Helene throughout Appalachia, in361particular in western North Carolina, and after the 2025 Los362Angeles wildfires.363    Last August, the Corps successfully supplemented State and364local efforts in anticipation of glacial outburst flooding in365Juneau, Alaska. And just last month, the Corps executed366assignments in response to winter storm Fern across the367southeast. And today, we are busy responding to the ecological368disaster in the Potomac River.369    When it comes to our primary missions, our everyday370missions, for decades, the Army Civil Works Program has not371really had a plan. The status quo has been to execute372everything all at once, moving each project down the yellow373brick road of red tape one inch at a time, resulting in374inexplicable delays, including the projects that are of375strategic national importance.376    Meanwhile, reaching paperwork milestones has been elevated377as evidence of achievement. This is simply unacceptable for an378agency that is so important to the safety and prosperity of the379American people. Stacks of important government paperwork have380never saved an American life or community, except perhaps in381very cold weather when no other fuel is available.382    We have to change the way the Army Civil Works Program383conducts its business, or the next decades will be more of the384same. The stars are aligned under President Trump's leadership385to change this. We have in hand $45 billion that the Congress386has previously appropriated to our programs that we have not387yet executed. Shockingly, $15 billion of this funding is more388than 6 years old.389    We also have many ongoing projects that the Congress has390authorized and the Corps is attempting to build but which will391require significant additional funding to complete.392    The status quo approach is insufficient, meaning we will393never deliver on what you expect of us without fundamentally394changing our behavior. To meet this challenge, on Monday we395unveiled a plan we call Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork.396It is comprised of approximately 27 individual but397complementary initiatives to start. It is designed to reimagine398and rejuvenate the Army Civil Works program. And with your399support, this will be the most significant transformation of400the program since at least 1986.401    Much of the content of this product was informed by the402feedback I heard from members of this committee, the403frustrations that they have experienced. And through this suite404of strategic initiatives, it is my goal to harmonize the Army405Civil Works Program and to realign and right-size the incentive406structures of the Corps of Engineers, with an emphasis, again,407on building infrastructure, not paperwork.408    This new plan is driven by a sense of urgency. Our strategy409is centered on a fundamental cultural transformation to enhance410our effectiveness and restore discipline. We are sharpening our411focus on our primary under a strategic plan that will deliver412on the mandate you have given us.413    To accelerate project delivery, we are implementing smarter414contracting practices, upholding higher design standards, and415reforming our partnership pipeline to build what America needs,416faster and more effectively. As President Trump has directed,417and as bipartisan members of this committee have called for, we418are cutting bureaucratic red tape by reforming our entire419regulatory and permitting system to provide fast, clear, and420consistent decisions to the public. This will eliminate costly421delays and accelerate our economy at a time that we find422ourselves in a global competition that will determine whether423the United States of America remains the greatest nation in the424history of the world.425    Finally, we are instilling a discipline by fundamentally426overhauling our financial and operational practices to attack427waste and inefficiency. We are committed to executing our428mission with a higher standard of integrity, ensuring every429dollar is spent with purpose to achieve clear, measurable430results for the American people.431    President Trump, Secretary Hegseth, and Secretary Driscoll432want to deliver infrastructure now, and our partners in433Congress are tired of decades-long delays and cost overruns.434The time is right for this change, and we have a unique435opportunity to transform the way the Corps of Engineers436conducts its business to meet this moment in history.437    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.438    [The prepared statement of Mr. Telle follows:]439440[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]441442    Senator Capito. Thank you.443    Next, we will hear from Lieutenant General William H.444Graham, Jr., the 56th Chief of Engineers and Commanding General445of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. General Graham assumed446these duties after serving as the Corps' Deputy Commanding447General for several emergency operations.448    As Commanding General, he is responsible for over 30,000449civilian employees and 800 military personnel in more than 110450countries.451    General Graham, welcome, and we thank you for being here.452Please proceed with your opening statement.453454STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL WILLIAM H. GRAHAM JR., CHIEF OF455ENGINEERS AND COMMANDING GENERAL, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,456                     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY457458    General Graham. Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse,459and members of the committee, I am honored to testify before460you today in regard to the 2026 Water Resources Development461Act. Through the Civil Works Program, the Army Corps works with462our partners to study, build and operate protect water resource463projects, focusing on our three main areas of commercial464navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction, and465aquatic ecosystem restoration.466    Breaking these down, the navigation program, which consist467of our coastal and Great Lakes channels, as well as the inland468rivers and intercoastal waterways, underpins much of the469national economy, ensuring that commodities can move reliably470and efficiently.471    Our flood and coastal storm damage reduction program472maintains 746 dams, over 13,000 miles of Federal levees, and473450 miles of shore protection that provide, on average, a474staggering $200 billion per year in flood damages avoided.475    To continuously maintain and improve these mission areas, I476want to thank this committee for supporting the Corps' Civil477Works Program. Your commitment since 2014 to pass biannual478Water Resource Development Acts has provided us with the479authorities necessary to address the changing needs of the480Nation's water resource infrastructure.481    We deeply value the authorities you entrust to us and482pledge to put them to work to deliver for the American people.483    To that end, the Army Corps' objective, each and every day,484is to safely and efficiently deliver quality studies and485projects on schedule and within budget.486    Our current on-schedule rate across the Civil Works Program487is 86.2 percent. That is an improvement from 80 percent that I488reported in September. So, by focusing on the basics and489getting the engineering right, of getting the project490management right, and getting the project delivery team right,491we are making our cost estimates more reliable and our project492delivery more efficient.493    That said, there is more work to do, more improvements to494make. To that end, we are very excited about the Building495Infrastructure, Not Paperwork initiative that Mr. Telle496outlined. These improvements, delivered by district engineers497who are empowered to manage risk, not avoid it, will allow the498Corps of Engineers to make the necessary changes to best499deliver our important infrastructure for the Nation.500    Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.501I look forward to addressing your questions.502    [The prepared statement of General Williams follows:]503504[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]505506    Senator Capito. Thank you, General.507    Okay, we will start the question portion. I am going to508start, myself, and I am going to admit here, a little bit,509Secretary Telle to a little bit of confusion on my part.510Implementation of WRDA laws and a lack of transparency of what511is needed to implement these laws, including the extent to512which any appropriations are needed, has frustrated this513committee for years. That frustration culminated in 1102 of514WRDA 2024.515    This section requires your office to develop and submit a516plan to Congress on the implementation of WRDA 2024 and prior517WRDAs. I recognize that there could be a variety of factors518that impact the rate at which your office can implement WRDA.519However, a firm understanding of where we stand on520implementation is critical to the committee's ability to521develop WRDA 2026.522    What is the status of the plan that is required under 1102?523And I know you talked a little bit about that in your opening524statement.525    Mr. Telle. Yes, ma'am, thank you for the question. I would526say to start off, when a law is signed, when the President527signs a law and it becomes law, it is the law and we follow it.528Of the 552 provisions included in the last three WRDAs, 21, as529of the beginning of this week, 21 required implementation530guidance.531    On Monday, I signed implementation guidance for two of532them. Of the 19 remaining, five of those pieces of533implementation guidance will be finalized in the coming weeks.534Seven of the provisions required appropriations to be535implemented, and an additional seven require a longer536rulemaking process that will engage the public in a way that537will take longer than the typical implementation guidance.538    The remainder of the WRDA provisions did not require539implementation guidance, and therefore are in effect. I believe540there are 86 reporting requirements included in the last three541WRDAs, and those 86, the responses to those 86 reporting542requirements are currently under administration review.543    Senator Capito. Okay. Just so I understand, I am544understanding from 1102 here that you are to put forward and545submit a plan. You have just told me about the implementation546guidance.547    Is the structure of the implementation guidance the same as548the plan? Do you see what I am saying? Are we talking about the549same things here?550    Mr. Telle. Yes, ma'am. I think what we are trying to say551here is, we are happy to comply with 1102. I will check the552status on our compliance with that section itself.553    Of the 552 provisions enacted in the past three WRDAs, only55421 of them--555    Senator Capito. Required a lengthy--556    Mr. Telle [continuing]. required a more lengthy process.557The rest of them took effect immediately because they were558simple and straightforward enough.559    So they are implemented. Again, 86 of the provisions560required information from us. That information has been561collected. The responses are currently under administration562review.563    Senator Capito. Okay. So we would get your implementation564guidance of the remainder of those, we could expect that565through the rest of the year?566    Mr. Telle. Two on Monday, I released two on Monday.567    Senator Capito. Two on Monday.568    Mr. Telle. There are five that should be coming in the569coming weeks.570    Senator Capito. Okay.571    Mr. Telle. Seven that require funding to implement and572seven that will require a longer process.573    I will also add, there are ways that my team has been574talking with your team and other Members of Congress to inform,575both to get your advice on how we can shorten the process, but576also for the future, how we can make WRDA more implementable.577    There are ways that we can help you help us make the578process much quicker.579    Senator Capito. Is this the reason that there is $15580billion that is 6 years old, that has not moved forward?581    Mr. Telle. No, ma'am. No, ma'am. Largely unrelated. That582funding is largely projects that were appropriated as a result583of supplemental appropriations where for some reason, whether584it is a design, or the project became too expensive, we do not585have sufficient funding, the non-Federal sponsor has not agreed586with the plan. There are a lot of reasons that funding has been587stranded. The fact remains it is stranded. And we are putting588pressure, I am putting pressure on the organization to find a589way to make use of that funding.590    Senator Capito. Yes, that is what I am thinking. I mean, I591know you have reprogrammed in the past, I do not know in this592particular area, I know there are strings on that. We have so593many projects. That is a lot of money, $15 billion just sitting594there on projects.595    Mr. Telle. It is a shame, Senator Capito.596    Senator Capito. We need to work with you to try to figure597out a way to do that.598    General Graham, I talked in my opening statement about the599importance of our non-Federal sponsors. I am interested to know600how you keep that open line of communication with your district601and division commanders to make sure that they are working with602their non-Federal sponsors and that they are aware of any603changes that we might make in WRDA in terms of the flexibility604that they might have.605    General Graham. Chairman Capito, thank you for that606question. In my opening statement, it said, we do not do607anything by ourselves. Everything we do goes hand in hand with608one of our Federal partners. We are working right now, the key609member of that partnership is the project or program manager.610And their skills at interfacing with our non-Federal sponsors,611their skills at interfacing with the public are absolutely key.612    We have instituted some initiatives recently to make sure613that those key individuals have the training and experience to614do that really, really difficult job, which is to make sure615that they understand the problem, make sure that they616understand what authorities this committee has given them, and617as those authorities change, so that they can best inform our618non-Federal sponsors on what options are out there, and how to619put those options to work for their communities.620    Senator Capito. Okay. Thank you.621    Senator Whitehouse?622    Senator Whitehouse. Thanks very much, Chairman.623    Mr. Telle, I would like to start with just trying to clear624the information blockade. I have heard from members of the625committee, constantly from my staff, from stakeholders626struggling to obtain basic information from the Corps. And in627particular, my staff has repeatedly requested information on628the status of studies and projects affected by your review of629the Corps' investigations portfolio, and by the pause in630funding to Blue States announced by OMB last October.631    If you would be good enough, Assistant Secretary Telle,632will you authorize General Graham, right here, right now,633sitting next to you today, to provide my staff with the634requested information without further delay?635    Mr. Telle. Senator Whitehouse, thank you for the question.636We met 2 weeks ago and discussed this issue. Your staff had637requested information about the status of 39 separate projects638or studies. I believe within a day or so of me visiting you, my639staff provided you with detailed information on the 39 projects640or studies that you requested, or we provided it to your staff.641    If there is anything that we left off, please let us know.642    Senator Whitehouse. Well, it would be helpful if I did not643have to wait until you and I had a personal meeting in order to644get responses. So to the extent that we have asked for things645beyond those 39, or that the responses are not complete, will646you clear General Graham to provide my staff what they need and647what they ask for?648    Mr. Telle. Senator Whitehouse, we will continue to do what649we have been doing and we will do it even better than we have650been doing, which is to visit with your team on at least a651monthly basis and try to turn around very quickly the request652for information.653    There is no reason for me to clear General Graham. We are654one team. We work together. And the information that you655receive from General Graham will be the same as the information656you receive from me.657    Senator Whitehouse. Well, let's turn to core missions. Your658prioritization initiative proposes to focus all the Corps'659resources on core missions, while terminating legacy efforts660that the Corps believes no longer provide value.661    Is coastal storm risk management a core mission that will662be prioritized in the Corps' annual budget review?663    Mr. Telle. Senator Whitehouse, absolutely. Coastal storm664risk management is growing and a critical part of our665portfolio. We treat it with every bit of importance as inland666storm risk management and navigation.667    As I spoke to you 2 weeks ago when we visited, I spend a668disproportionate amount of my time and effort trying to come up669with building infrastructure in our coastal areas to protect670flood-prone areas on the coast, disproportionate to the inland.671So when it comes to Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork, I672can not think of anything that will benefit more than coastal673storm risk management.674    Senator Whitehouse. So, back to core missions again, what675happens when Congress has directed you in a WRDA bill to do a676particular thing and you have decided that is not a core677mission?678    Mr. Telle. Senator Whitehouse, we follow the law. I am not679sure what specific action you are talking about, but we follow680the law.681    Senator Whitehouse. The question of non-structural flood682risk management we have discussed a couple of times.683    Mr. Telle. Yes, sir.684    Senator Whitehouse. You have made some, I think, logical685points about dealing with the scope of the potential liability686that the Corps faces. To address that, I have developed a suite687of legislative reforms that would provide the Corps with the688authorities it needs to implement non-structural solutions more689effectively and more efficiently.690    My staff requested technical assistance on that legislation691in November and have yet to receive a response. Could you let692me know when we can get that technical assistance?693    Mr. Telle. Senator Whitehouse, we will absolutely provide694you with technical assistance. I will say that when it comes to695the non-structural issue that you raised, I just want to make696sure that the committee is tracking what we are talking about697here.698    In August, on the basis of exorbitant costs per unit that699we were seeing, it was costing $600,000 per home to elevate700structures, and the Corps of Engineers does not have experience701elevating homes at scale on a regional basis, into the702thousands of homes.703    It does not mean that elevation of structures should not be704part of our tool kit, it absolutely should. It is just that at705this moment, that particularly, there were two projects706affected that were in process, and five or six more that were707under the feasibility stage.708    We just came to you immediately in August and to the709committee and said, hey, this is not right, we all have a710responsibility here to ensure we are efficiently spending711taxpayer dollars. And we want to get it right on non-712structural.713    Quite often that probably means that the U.S. Army Corps of714Engineers may not be the best deliverer of that. It does not715mean it would not help participate in the funding of non-716structural solutions at scale on a regional basis. It simply717means that the Corps of Engineers may not be the best executor.718A non-Federal sponsor may be.719    Senator Whitehouse. Well, I will close out just with the720observation that, I appreciate some of the things you have said721about coastal risk management, but particularly with Army Corps722projects, getting stuff done and getting funding out are the723two really powerful ways of expressing your priorities. And the724continued 20 to 1 or 100 to 1 favoring of inland flooding over725coastal flooding I think remains a problem.726    When the largest adjustment to the Corps' actions is one727that disproportionately interferes with coast projects, that728makes it even worse. Then you throw in that Blue States tend to729be coastal ones, and they were the ones that OMB held up for730cuts, it does not look like it is a new day for coasts yet.731    I appreciate everything you said about paying more732attention there. I hope we can work together to turn that into733some real progress. Thank you.734    Mr. Telle. Thank you, sir.735    Madam Chairman, if I may, Senator Whitehouse, when you and736I met recently, I committed to get you some information about737the distribution between coasts and inland on supplemental738funding. I will provide that to you now as well as the entire739committee.740    We analyzed all Corps of Engineers spending on flood risk741mitigation since 2017, Fiscal Year 2017. Of the amount spent on742flood risk mitigation in total, $24 billion, $9 billion was for743coastal storm risk mitigation.744    Senator Capito. Okay. Senator Cramer?745    Senator Cramer. Thank you, Madam Chair, and for Senator746Whitehouse, I can not compare to what you are going through747right now back in North Dakota. We have really good plows that748can get us out of those situations.749    [Laughter.]750    Senator Cramer. I do feel your pain, believe me.751    Senator Whitehouse. We usually have plows on pickup trucks.752    Senator Cramer. I understand. I want one of those, by the753way. That is in my next life.754    Thank you both for being here. I was thinking, Madam Chair,755when you were talking about the history of WRDA, I remember756when you and I were in the House and Chairman Shuster promised757we would have 2-year WRDA. We have been doing it ever since. It758is really a nice cadence we are in. And that is a testament to759the leadership of this committee on both sides for the last760several years.761    Real quickly, Secretary Telle, I want to just share762publicly what I shared with you privately lately. I really763appreciate your work on the Dakota Access Pipeline764Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). We will not go through765the entire history of it. It has been a decade in the works.766    I just want you to know that those of us who are living767with that situation are grateful both for the urgency you have768given it as well as the thoughtfulness. Thoughtful urgency,769urgent thoughtfulness, whatever you might call it, complicated770stuff, but we really appreciate the work of you and your team.771We look forward to a decision of record here fairly soon, or a772record of decision, fairly soon.773    I want to speak just a little bit to you, Mr. Secretary,774about the rollout this week, and just applaud, thank you so775much. Anything that you can do to make the agency more776efficient and effective in the very important work of your777mission, I applaud. And if there is anything we should be doing778to help codify any of that, please be open with us on that. I779would really want to be part of that solution, if you will.780    And I think, and this is a bipartisan issue, in fact, we781have had some very good hearings already on permitting reform,782and I think about the very specific role that your agency783obviously plays, that the Corps plays in infrastructure784buildout. Even your discussion, just listening to the last785several minutes to your discussion with Senator Whitehouse, I786think we are all on the same page.787    Let's do stuff better, faster, more efficiently with lower788costs if we can, while not cutting corners, just doing things789in a better way. Let us know how to be helpful on that.790    On the regulatory front, I do want to speak a little bit791about the efficiency of jurisdictional determination as it792relates to what is and what is not a Waters of the United793States. As this new rule is in the making and really grateful794to the EPA for the hearing out in North Dakota that we had, I795hope we populated the record in a helpful way there. I feel796like we really did.797    One of the areas that has always frustrated me about the798evolution of WOTUS is that even when the court has been crystal799clear about what is not a Waters of the United States, which800has always been fairly obvious to me, the idea that a801jurisdictional determination is still required is one of my802great frustrations.803    So as we get to finalizing a rule, maybe just help me804better understand that piece of it. How can we help landowners805know intuitively, intellectually, obviously what is not a806Waters of the United States? Is that an area of opportunity for807us in efficiencies?808    Mr. Telle. Senator Cramer, thank you for the question. I809think you are touching on something critically important that810we are hard at work on as part of our Building Infrastructure,811Not Paperwork initiative. On March 12th of last year, I will812say we have already got a walking start, because the Sackett813decision that was rendered by the Supreme Court in 2023 was the814law of the land. On March 12th of last year, we issued interim815guidance to our regulators throughout enterprise about what it816meant to follow the law as it stands.817    We have also, as you mentioned, gotten busy with our818partners at the Environmental Protection Agency on making sure819that our rules match the law as it stands today. We are intent820on following the law.821    The point that you are making, I believe the point you are822making, which is a critically important one, is even when we823have a new law, new rule, we still rely on the employees in824General Graham's enterprise, whether it is at the Huntington825District or the Portland District or the St. Paul District, we826rely on our regulators, who are wonderful people, to interpret827the law.828    Quite often, I have heard frustration from Members of829Congress, from the public, about the inconsistency they see830across the landscape. If it is the law, it ought to be831interpreted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers employees832consistently. And it ought to be in keeping with the law.833    So we began the process in the fall of a very rapid834acquisition of the latest technology to make sure that we can835use the tools available that we have, the never before seen in836human history data that we have to tie geographic features837about what a Water of the United States is back to the law, all838the way back to the Clean Water Act of 1972 and through all the839decisions that have come ever since.840    If we can provide this tool to our regulators, we can take841subjectivity out of the equation. If we can get our regulators842a tool, the tool may not provide the final decision. That may843still be our regulators. If they have a tool, which we are very844rapidly developing to coincide with the finalized rule, it will845provide clarity and durability to the public in a way that we846have not seen yet.847    Senator Cramer. That is a really great point. Because you848are right, the diversity of ideas out there and philosophies,849even, probably, among the regulators, is a bit of a problem.850And that is what presents a lack of clarity to the developer,851the landowner, an engineering firm in Bismarck, whatever the852case may be.853    I might just add to that, though, how about the854determination by the developer or the landowner themselves to855see what is obviously not a wetland to be able to say, I always856put it like this, we do not ask every driver on the interstate857to call the highway patrol every few miles to ask permission to858drive the speed limit. Now, the nice thing about the speed859limit is it is not only on the sign at the side of the road, it860is on your GPS in your car. So, there is clarity there.861    It just seems to me, we need to get that down to a more862local level.863    Mr. Telle. Senator Cramer, you are right. The best version864of what we are trying to do would enable the public to have865transparency in real time about what is and what is not a866Waters of the United States. These decisions should be made867instantly, with the technology we have today.868    This is complicated by the legal wrangling that has869happened over the decades. I am committed to looking at what870the law says today and providing technology that provides871clarity in real time to the public.872    Senator Cramer. Thank you.873    Senator Capito. Senator Merkley?874    Senator Merkley. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all875very much. The Corps does such important work in the northwest876quadrant of the United States of America. We have a very close877working relationship with the Corps that we much appreciate.878    I do feel like the flow of information has changed a bit879over this last year. I am very concerned about that. I have880seen situations where an administration has previously not881answered the QFRs until right before the next hearing, but I882have never seen a situation where they just absolutely did not883answer them at all.884    And the QFRs that I submitted after our September gathering885have never been answered. I just do not understand that. Why886not answer them?887    Mr. Telle. Senator Merkley, I agree with you. I agree with888you. I think it is unacceptable that we have not answered the889questions for the record that were submitted prior to our890previous hearing. This is something that I did not anticipate891would take so long. Obviously, we had the longest government892shutdown in history in the middle of that period, but it is893still no excuse.894    Senator Merkley. I really appreciate that. You have895answered my question, that you want to get it done.896    Mr. Telle. And I will just say, both for this committee and897for the House T&I committee, the QFRs are in the final stages898of administrative review. We expect them very soon.899    Senator Merkley. So, in the northwest, where we have put a900lot of hydroelectric dams and flood control dams on the901Columbia and on the Willamette and on its tributaries, there902has always been this partnership in which we have said, well,903we know those dams will have a big impact. The fish ladders904will not get the fish through, so we have mitigation905strategies, including hatcheries. And those hatcheries have906been kind of a sacred responsibility to maintaining the salmon907and other species that travel through the river system.908    It has appeared that the work that the Corps has been doing909on the hatcheries has slowed down or stopped. Is there a910strategy for the Corps to say that they are not going to911continue this partnership that has been so important to the912economy and the culture of the northwest?913    Mr. Telle. I am not aware of any particular strategy,914Senator Merkley. I will defer to General Graham on the latest915on that project.916    General Graham. Senator Merkley, thank you for that917question. Absolutely not. Where we have fallen behind is the918capital reinvestment of those hatcheries. I took a look at what919the Portland District is doing on the four hatcheries that it920has on the Willamette. We think that it probably has $160921million to recapitalize those facilities.922    That is where we need to go. We are thankful for the923roughly $9.4 million that we received in the latest924appropriations to work on Cole River. And we will put that925money to good use to design how to replumb that facility. As I926mentioned, there is $160 million of backlog and we have not927been investing in that. And it is time to capitally reinvest on928those facilities.929    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, General. When I asked930in September, you shared that you had ranked, after931consultation, the hatcheries as a C minus or D at most932locations, and indicated a desire to establish a long-term plan933to reinvest in those hatcheries.934    Is that plan currently under development? Because I thought935that was a very good idea when you suggested that in September.936    General Graham. Senator, that plan is, first step on any of937that plan is to make sure that we truly understand the State of938the facilities that we have, so we can put a good cost estimate939together. And talking about the Portland District, that is940underway.941    Senator Merkley. Well, if we need to formalize that in some942way, I will be happy to work with you. I think the hatcheries943are suffering. And Cole Rivers is such a critical one, but it944is only one of many, many hatcheries that have been part of945sustaining the fish on these multiple rivers.946    So I want to really highlight that, and continue to work947with you all on that.948    I want to turn to, WRDA 2022 authorized a study to examine949dredging in different regions across the Country. Dredging is950particularly important to our many harbors on the west coast,951our many riverways. It is very important to our recreational952fishing, to our commercial fishing, to commercial traffic up953and down the Columbia.954    And that study, we do not have it. How do we get this955study?956    Mr. Telle. Senator Merkley, I will push to General Graham957in just a moment to give you a response on the study. I just958want to reiterate something you said here. Dredging is the959lifeblood of the American economy.960    I have been using the analogy lately with all the winter961storms, which is particularly appropriate today, with Senator962Whitehouse stuck in Rhode Island, that our dredging capacity is963really, it provides the same function to our economy that snow964plows provide when we are trapped under inches of snow. We965clear the roads, we can get back to work.966    It is the same thing with our economy at a much larger967scale. It is the secret to our economy, it is how we project968economic power across the globe. And it is critically969important.970    I will let General Graham answer the specific question on971the Columbia River.972    General Graham. Senator Merkley, thank you for that.973Section 8205 of WRDA 2022 asks for that report. That report is974still under administrative review. As the Assistant Secretary975spoke to, we will work diligently to get that information over976to you.977    We are looking to, one point would be to look at dredging,978we look at right now regionally, not so much as the Columbia979system. Under Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork, we are980going to look to harness the power of, we are the largest981purchaser of dredging services in the Nation, and we are982looking to leverage that to get a better deal for the American983people, to include the many industries on the Columbia River.984    Senator Merkley. Thank you, General. My time is up, but in985both the case of this dredging study and in the case of the986report that was required for the impacts of de-authorizing987hydropower in the Willamette Valley, I just had, the Peoples988Utilities came in yesterday and said, we really want to get989that report, because it appears that some of these smaller990operations get a little bit of hydropower, but at a very, very991elevated cost, way above other ways. They do not know for sure,992and that is what this report was all about.993    Both of these reports in September, we were told, is under994administrative review, the words you just used, which means it995is stuck at OMB. It is just essential in a democratic republic996that when the reports are done, I understand a short look at997them, and sometimes some correcting. To just have them die998because somebody somewhere has never gotten to them or somebody999somewhere does not like something that is in the report, we1000need to have the information flow. And if the information is1001not accurate it creates a conversation, we bring in other1002experts.1003    Please commit, both of you, to getting those reports out of1004OMB and delivering them. It is not acceptable in a democracy to1005have these authorized and funded by law, done, completed, the1006hard work that your team has done, General, that your team has1007done, Assistant Secretary, get us the reports, please.1008    Mr. Telle. Senator Merkley, we will be happy to press on1009those reports. It is important that we coordinate across1010interagency. That does not mean it should be indefinitely1011delayed, as you point out.1012    There is value to making sure we have a coordinated1013response, and that is what these administrative reviews are1014often for. I apologize for the delay. We will get you a status1015update on both of those.1016    Senator Merkley. Thank you.1017    Senator Capito. Senator Ricketts?1018    Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Chairman Capito and Ranking1019Member Whitehouse, for hosting todays' hearing. And thank you1020to our witnesses for being here. We very much appreciate it.1021    I certainly, Assistant Secretary Telle, applaud the1022Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork process improvement. You1023know from our conversations I am a big believer in process1024improvement. And it is a great step toward accelerating project1025delivery. This is of course necessary as we look to1026infrastructure projects that will prevent future flood events.1027    One of those flood events we discussed, when we talked in1028September of last year, can have devastating impacts. In 2019,1029we had the most widespread flooding in State history in1030Nebraska. During that flood, four people lost their lives, and1031it cost Nebraska more than $3 billion, our farmers and ranchers1032lost a billion dollars of that.1033    And as we look to improve the Corps and its authorized1034programs, preventing loss of life should be the top priority.1035It is concerning that it is currently not being treated that1036way.1037    In the 1979 Missouri River Master Manual, flood control was1038clearly prioritized over the Corps' other authorized purposes.1039In this document, the purposes were explicitly ranked.1040    Following lawsuits filed by environmental groups relating1041to the Endangered Species Act, the Corps created a 2004 Master1042Manual to comply with a Minnesota court order. This amended the10431979 Master Manual to reverse the Corps' historical flood1044control water management practices, and put all project1045purposes on the same level as flood control to comply with the1046Endangered Species Act.1047    As a result, farmers and landowners saw disastrous flooding1048along the Missouri River and filed the Ideker Farms v. United1049States in 2014. This case claimed that the Corps' 2004 policy1050shift led to recurrent flooding on their land between 2007 and10512014.1052    In 2018, the court found that the Corps was responsible for1053recurrent flooding due to its 2004 decision to deprioritize1054flood control. Despite that ruling, the current Master Manual,1055last updated in 2018, is still governing the Corps' operations1056on the Missouri River, and still leaves the authorized project1057purposes unranked.1058    General Graham, does the Corps currently treat the eight1059identified authorized project purposes as equal priorities?1060    General Graham. Senator Ricketts, no. Life-health safety is1061No. 1.1062    Senator Ricketts. So when I asked you last year, you gave a1063similar response. How do you prioritize flood control and life1064and property when your Master Manual has the authorized project1065purposes are all ranked equally the same?1066    General Graham. Senator, project by project, as those are1067formulated, life-health safety is always our top priority.1068    Senator Ricketts. So even though you do not have it written1069down in the manual, it is kind of an unwritten rule or an1070unwritten thing that your team knows that if it involves lives1071and property, that gets ranked above the Endangered Species1072Act?1073    General Graham. Life-health safety is always our No. 11074priority. I will get back to you on how we have codified that1075in our procedures. Life-health safety is No. 1.1076    Senator Ricketts. All right. So, Assistant Secretary Telle,1077to protect life and property from flooding, would you say that1078Congress needs to act to make flood control supersede species1079protection?1080    Mr. Telle. Senator Ricketts, I am not in a position to make1081that assertion today. It certainly seems that President Trump1082has prioritized protecting human life and human prosperity.1083    I will say, thank you, I would say on the Building1084Infrastructure, Not Paperwork initiative, I would say thank1085you, because you were part of the inspiration for that, given1086your run as Governor of Nebraska and everything that you did1087there. I will also say, related to the topic you are asking1088about, I am in the process of planning a trip along the entire1089Missouri River this spring. This is something I want to take a1090close look at, so that I can understand and help inform General1091Graham's process.1092    I absolutely think that protecting life is, it is always1093our No. 1 priority in everything that we do.1094    Senator Ricketts. Well, I laid out the timeline of what I1095think the legal case is that has happened here. So I would1096certainly appreciate an opportunity, and when you are on the1097Missouri River, let me know. If I can make it, I would love to1098be there with you to talk about this. Because I think it really1099has created a problem based upon the legal history of what has1100happened here. This is obviously where I think that Congress1101does need to step in.1102    According to a congressional briefing with the Corps and1103U.S. Wildlife Service last year, the Pallid Sturgeon has1104demonstrated measurable recovery metrics. However, these1105updated metrics have not been made publicly available, limiting1106transparency and preventing meaningful review.1107    Assistant Secretary Telle, can you work with me and make a1108commitment to work with Fish and Wildlife Service to make these1109metrics public and provide them so we can have more1110transparency?1111    Mr. Telle. Senator Ricketts, absolutely. This is something1112we are already hard at work on. Tim Petty, with the National1113Marine Fisheries Services, as well as our friends at Fish and1114Wildlife Service, we have been raising these types of issues at1115what is called the Water Subcabinet.1116    I think we are in a position in this administration to have1117a very practical view of these types of issues and solve them1118globally, and at the Washington, DC. headquarters level, so we1119can provide certainty across the Country for issues like this1120one, where we are trying to do our best to follow the laws as1121they relate to our environment, while also allowing the type of1122activities that benefit humanity to continue.1123    Senator Ricketts. I see my time is expired, and with the1124Chair's indulgence, I am just going to hit upon a couple of1125points real quickly.1126    One of the things that I started when I was Governor was1127the Perkins County Canal. This is a canal that would bring1128water from Colorado to Nebraska. It is under a compact that we1129have with Colorado that dates back to 1926, and I look forward1130to working with the Corps as we push forward on this project,1131it is a very important project, to make sure that our folks in1132Nebraska, whether it is our water users, regular consumers or1133our farmers and ranchers, have access to water. So I look1134forward to working with you on that.1135    And then finally, also, one of the big issues we have1136occasionally is ice jams. And one of the things I think we need1137to address, and I will followup on this later, is releasing1138water out of Gavins Point Dam to be able to address some of1139these ice floes. Salix, Iowa, for example, had its power1140generation curtailed in 2022 when we had a snowstorm there,1141Winter Storm Elliott. So again, I think the Ranking Member1142probably is feeling a little of that pain right now.1143    I want to highlight that one of the alternatives that1144people always throw out there is, hey, well, we can use1145explosives to try and break up the ice packs. Nobody wants1146using explosives on any of our river systems to break up the1147ice packs. So please, help work with us on other solutions so1148we do not have this ice jam problem.1149    With that, Chairman Capito, thank you.1150    Senator Capito. Senator Padilla?1151    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Madam Chair.1152    Before I get to my first question, I want to make a1153statement that is going to echo the theme and concerns from a1154number of my colleagues on this committee. So let me start by1155being California-specific, and say that the Army Corps process1156for funding and implementing projects in California is1157fundamentally broken. I can not support a WRDA bill without1158seeing some real changes.1159    Let me review what has happened with California's highest1160priority Army Corps projects just within this last year.1161Sacramento has among the highest flood risk of any major city1162in America. The Army Corps gets it. Eighty-six percent of its1163homes are at risk.1164    Nevertheless, over $126 million was stripped out of the1165Corps' Fiscal Year 2025 work plan as part of the political1166transfer of over $250 million from States that have elected1167Democrat leadership to States with Republican leadership. That1168is trying to shift from Blue States to Red States.1169    On October 17th of last year, the Director of the Office of1170Management and Budget announced that over $11 billion in Corps1171funding for projects in Blue States, including California, had1172been paused. We understand the Corps' district commanders were1173told which projects were frozen, but were also directed not to1174inform the local project sponsors or the public.1175    So there is great uncertainty over where California1176projects are being frozen, and for how long.1177    What we do know is that many critical projects in1178California are also facing arbitrary obstacles. For the San1179Francisco Waterfront Project, we are hearing the Corps will no1180longer approve a Chief's Report that had been scheduled for1181this year. Work on the Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration1182Project has stopped, because the Corps is simply no longer1183processing the city's requests for a project cost increase,1184even thought Lieutenant General Graham publicly committed that1185the requested cost increase would be administratively approved1186in time for this year's WRDA, just a few months ago.1187    And a recycled water pipeline in Los Angeles County has1188been stalled for over 3 months now by a new policy requiring1189the Assistant Secretary's office to review project cooperative1190agreements that have already been signed off on by the Corps1191district and the division.1192    So, Madam Chair, how can I possibly support a business as1193usual WRDA, when so many critical California projects are1194either arbitrarily stopped, stalled, or facing fundamental1195uncertainty whether they will still have funding going forward?1196To support a WRDA bill, I believe we need some certainty that1197when Congress has enacted and the President has signed into law1198specific funding announced for specific projects, these1199projects cannot simply be indefinitely frozen or stalled.1200    That being said, let me jump into my first question.1201General Graham, I want to ask you about the San Francisco1202Waterfront Coastal Flood Study, which is a critical project to1203protect downtown San Francisco from potentially severe coastal1204flooding.1205    The study is on the verge of completion after substantial1206local expenditures, per the Corps' longstanding schedule, and1207has been executed in full accordance with existing Corps1208guidance.1209    Yet in the late stages of a mature study, the new 351210percent design requirement, which you and I discussed at a1211recent hearing, last September, it presents major challenges1212for the authorization and advancement of this important1213project.1214    If the Port of San Franciso is willing to work with you to1215forecast and control costs through future cost shared work,1216what can the Corps do to complete the Chief's Report on1217schedule this year?1218    General Graham. Senator Padilla, thank you for that1219question. I have spent time in both the Embarcadero, meeting1220with the Port over the years. And you are correct, that is the1221path that we had gone down. We have gone down this path of1222looking at these very complicated projects in many areas,1223coastal Texas, the harbor in New York City.1224    And what we have come up with are multi-multi-multi-billion1225dollar projects. And the update I got this week on where San1226Francisco Waterfront was is somewhere between $17 billion and1227$32 billion. Our construction budget every year is two to1228three.1229    So under Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork, we are1230trying to take these looks at these very long, complicated1231projects and try to break them down into digestible pieces that1232we can actually get after and make San Franciso, that amazing1233place that it is, safer.1234    Senator, you have our absolute commitment that we are going1235to work diligently to break these projects down. We have to1236make sure that we get the engineering right in the cost1237estimates that we are giving you. We have been too long asking1238authorization from this committee when the engineering behind1239those cost estimates are only at 5 to 10 percent.1240    So I ask in this case, where do we think the design1241maturity is in total for the San Francisco Waterfront? It is1242about 10 percent.1243    So I think the way forward is, it is just such a big,1244complicated problem. We have great sponsors there.1245    So Senator, our commitment to you is to keep working on1246ways to take a look at these broad problems and break them down1247into manageable pieces.1248    Senator Padilla. And that is the beginning of what I want1249to hear. What is the path forward? I know some of these1250projects represent a big budget, big dollar amount. So that is1251why this new 35 percent requirement is, it is not part of a1252one-size-fits-all, because not one size does fit all.1253    So what is the path forward? We have talked offline about1254the Everglades authorization precedent that was set. Nothing1255has to be that exact model, but there are other models that I1256would just love to get a commitment from the Corps on, that1257this is how we are going to tackle those unique challenges of1258these bigger ticket projects that are so critical.1259    I know my colleagues have talked about life-safety. This is1260life-safety for San Francisco.1261    Mr. Telle. Senator Padilla, if I may respond?1262    Senator Padilla. Mr. Telle?1263    Mr. Telle. I would just point you to a new process that we1264have developed as part of Building Infrastructure, Not1265Paperwork, to get at the exact challenge that you are1266identifying. We have incentivized our non-Federal sponsors to1267build these big, complex projects and we wind up studying them1268for decades. It turns out that to get them to the fidelity of1269engineering that is required to provide the Congress with1270accurate information, we may have to study them for another1271decade after everything changes in a community like San1272Francisco, that is a dynamic community.1273    The rapid process allows us to take features within a1274project and lift them out and design them to 35 percent1275maturity, so that we can submit them to you with confidence1276that we know what we are talking about, we know what the cost1277is going to be. And then get that project authorized and1278funded, start delivering for the American public, for your1279constituents. And then move on to the other features within the1280project, rather than seeking to boil the ocean right away.1281    Senator Padilla. My time is up, and there are two things I1282will ask, some additional followup questions for the record1283after today. I do want to reassure my colleagues that there has1284been significant investment from local partners on this and1285other projects in California, for that matter, to date.1286    So as we may pivot to a different model of breaking this1287down and getting to completion in a different way, I want to1288make sure that those initial investments are credited and not1289overlooked. There is value there.1290    So with that, thank you, Madam Chair.1291    Senator Capito. Senator Boozman?1292    Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank both of1293you for being here and the great work that you are doing.1294    I want to start off and really take just a second to thank1295you, Secretary Telle, for the support during the Dardanelles1296Spillway failure that nearly forced Arkansas Nuclear One1297offline. The incident exposed real vulnerabilities, not just1298for navigation, but for our regional grid and the 1,8001299megawatts of nuclear generation that rely on stable pool1300levels.1301    So again, this really was a crisis, and the Corps did an1302excellent job of stepping in and getting that done in a timely1303fashion.1304    Secretary Telle, one of the things that concerns me, and I1305know it concerns both of you, is that Congress and our project1306sponsors continue to encounter inconsistent explanations1307between districts, divisions, and headquarters when it comes to1308project readiness and work plan prioritization. These1309inconsistencies slow projects and create confusion for local1310partners.1311    Can you tell us about reforms that you are in the process1312of implementing to create a more transparent, uniform, and1313predictable process, so that Congress and sponsors can1314understand how decisions are made and what is required to move1315a project forward?1316    Mr. Telle. Absolutely, Senator Boozman. Thank you for1317raising this point.1318    One of the features of Building Infrastructure, Not1319Paperwork, has to do with harmonizing and making consistent the1320work that we do from district to district. We are very blessed1321that the Corps of Engineers is out in the communities of1322America. I believe the stat that I quote is that only 2 percent1323of our work force is here in Washington, DC. The other 981324percent is out in our communities. That is a blessing and a1325wonderful strength that we have.1326    It also means that we have to work doubly hard to make sure1327that we have consistency, that when a State like yours is1328divided among multiple districts and you have communities that1329border those districts, and one part of the community may have1330to deal with one district, and another part may have to deal1331with the other.1332    They ought to get the same customer service and the same1333level of support, the same level of transparency that they get1334from each district, whether they are in the Little Rock1335District or the Memphis District, for instance.1336    So this is something I have been working on since I took1337this job. General Graham has been a great help ensuring that we1338can have consistent and coherent programs across the1339enterprise. We can not, I want to make very clear, this is not1340trying to centralize our work here in Washington. This is about1341empowering our commanders, taking some of the work off their1342plate that we can handle at the Washington, DC. level so that1343they can get after the type of work that we have been1344describing here today.1345    Senator Boozman. Mr. Secretary, many permit applicants,1346including State and local governments, and private developers,1347rely on the Corps' for timely review of permits and1348consultation. Section 214, funding agreements have been1349successful in Arkansas, very successful, increasing capacity1350elsewhere in the Corps and expediting the permitting process1351for critical infrastructure projects.1352    For example, the Arkansas Department of Transportation has1353been able to fund a liaison to the Corps, increasing1354coordination and advancing key infrastructure projects, Fish1355and Wildlife, same story.1356    How do these agreements fit into your transformation of the1357Corps? What can we do in Congress to expand and improve these1358agreements where needed? And also, are we undergoing, is that1359part of the hiring freeze or hiring freeze now that is going1360on? Is that impacted? Because programs like this, to me,1361actually seem, the way they are working in Arkansas actually,1362you are able to expand your work force, without cost to you.1363    Mr. Telle. Senator Boozman, you are absolutely right. This1364is a key part of Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork. This1365committee has provided us with myriad authorities, 214 is just1366one of them, 203, 204, 1043. These are authorities where this1367committee has given us the ability to do what you said. We have1368this huge demand for our work, whether it is in the1369infrastructure part of our work or in the permitting part of1370our work. We have this huge demand.1371    And our districts have been incentivized in the past to1372hold all that work for themselves, to justify, in some cases to1373justify their existence. We have capacity out there with our1374non-Federal sponsors, with our State and local partners, with1375the private sector, where we, as a Nation, if we want to get1376after Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork, we would be1377foolish to not take advantage of expertise and expand our1378capacity beyond just what we are able to deliver.1379    So, Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork is all about1380leveraging our partners, and 214 is an example of that.1381    Senator Boozman. Very good.1382    Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank both of you again for1383working so hard to get us moving in the right direction.1384    Mr. Telle. Madam Chairman, I just want to touch on1385something that Senator Boozman raised early in his statement.1386We had a situation in Dardanelles, Arkansas, last August, where1387one of the gates on the dam there got stuck in the up position.1388I raise this because we, our folks there at the Little Rock1389District for days could not get that gate back down. And water1390was rushing through the dam, and the pool behind the dam was1391going down.1392    This did not get much media attention, but Arkansas Nuclear1393One, which powers much of the State of Arkansas, was within1394hours of having to shut down. Because the water behind that dam1395was getting to a low level.1396    And I just, it occurred to me when this happened and I1397heard about it, that this really is a great illustrator of the1398cyber, the vulnerabilities our critical infrastructure has from1399cyber. Because if a nefarious actor wanted to access our1400critical infrastructure, this is the type of effect it could1401have. I am really proud of our team in Branson, Missouri, which1402is looking after our critical infrastructure.1403    I just wanted to point to the Dardanelles, Arkansas,1404example as something that is a lesson for us all to learn as we1405think about our vulnerabilities.1406    Senator Capito. All right, thank you.1407    Senator Alsobrooks?1408    Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you so much, Chair Capito, for1409holding this important hearing, and thank you especially to our1410Secretary, Secretary Telle. Thank you also, General Graham, for1411being here today.1412    Maryland communities depend on the Army Corps to deliver1413critical flood protection, ecosystem restoration, and1414navigation projects that Congress has authorized and funded.1415So, Secretary Telle, I want to talk to you, because Senator Van1416Hollen and I sent you a letter earlier this month that outlined1417several Maryland priorities, which we hope the administration1418will include in the Corps' work plan for Fiscal Year 2026.1419    This included a Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem1420Restoration Project, dredging to maintain safe navigation1421channels for the Port of Baltimore, and C&O Canal Rewatering in1422Cumberland, which is key to cultural, environmental and flood1423mitigation in our State.1424    Now, the Mid-Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project is critical1425for dredged material management, as Poplar Island reaches1426capacity. I know you understand this, because you visited.1427    Would you explain how the Corps' plan to ensure that1428funding, contracts, and construction schedules are in place, so1429that this transition does not cause delays to the Port of1430Baltimore's dredging operations?1431    Mr. Telle. Senator Alsobrooks, you are absolutely right.1432Ports like the Port of Baltimore, in particular, it is not just1433about dredging the channel to ensure that commerce can1434continue, it is also about having a place to deposit the1435dredged material that comes out of the channel that is so1436important, like the Port of Baltimore.1437    And you raised Poplar Island, that is where we have been1438depositing that material for many years. That is a place where1439we get beneficial use. We get to take that dredged material and1440restore ecosystem there in the Chesapeake Bay. As you said, it1441is running out of capacity. We have to expand that capacity,1442not just for the Chesapeake, but to make sure that the Port of1443Baltimore can continue to be the important terminal that it is1444for the Eastern Seaboard and our Nation.1445    We are ready, I believe that all is in order as it relates1446to that expansion. It is something that is important to me. As1447we develop the Fiscal Year 2026 work plan, we will absolutely--1448you have been a great advocate for this, and we will absolutely1449keep that in mind as we work through that.1450    Senator Alsobrooks. Okay, thank you.1451    General Graham. Senator Alsobrooks, if I could just add, in1452March, we do plan to award with the $168 million we do have on1453hand, to award the Site One Prep contract. Then we will wait1454for additional funding and the work plan to come after that,1455eventually, to keep that project moving forward. Right now, as1456the Secretary spoke to, we are on track.1457    Senator Alsbrooks. Okay, great to hear.1458    Dredging capacity in the mid-Atlantic is limited by aging1459equipment and few available vessels. So what specific1460investments, procurement plans or operational strategies is the1461Corps implementing to ensure that navigation channels serving1462Baltimore remain safe, reliable, and capable of handling1463increased vessel traffic?1464    Mr. Telle. Senator Alsobrooks, thank you so much for1465raising this question. You hit on a very important thing here.1466Our Nation depends on dredging capacity. Unfortunately, the way1467that we are acquiring that dredging capacity and contracting1468with our private sector partners is inefficient.1469    Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork, is going to tackle1470that in a number of ways. One of the ones that I will highlight1471that I think you are hitting on here, the way that we deal with1472the contracting for this is we quite often have regional1473contracts that do not look at the national scope and make smart1474decisions about how we deploy the resources nationally.1475    We also have environmental challenges related to dredging1476that we have not updated in sometimes decades. The way that I1477equate it is, sometimes we have these windows that we have to1478get in environmentally to dredge, and there is a small part of1479the year, I equate it to something, your spouse asking you to1480run errands on a Saturday and you have to go to 10 different1481places.1482    You and I both live in Prince Georges County, Maryland. And1483you have to go all the way across the Washington, DC. metro for1484errand No. 1, you have to go back across the Washington, DC.1485area, metro, for errand No. 2.1486    Any rational person would go to the stop that is closest to1487them first, then the stop that is closest to that next, and the1488stop that is closest to that next, and have an efficient1489Saturday of errand-running. Right now, the way that we acquire1490our dredging, we are sending our dredgers all over, and they1491are spending, quite often, more time in transit between our1492ports than they are in the ports dredging.1493    Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork, is going to get1494after this in a number of ways and give us more efficient1495dredging that is going to benefit the Port of Baltimore, it is1496going to benefit ports all up and down the east coast and the1497Gulf and on the west coast as well.1498    Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you.1499    Now, on October 17, Russell Vought, the Director of the1500Office of Management and Budget, posted on X that the1501``Democrats shut down,'' this is his quote, ``has drained the1502Army Corps of Engineers' ability to manage billions of dollars1503in projects.'' He further stated that over $11 billion in lower1504priority projects, including projects in New York, San1505Francisco, Boston, and Baltimore would be paused or considered1506for cancellation.1507    In response, my colleagues and I, on October 30th, sent a1508letter to you, Secretary Telle, urging you to defend the Corps1509against politically biased decisionmaking, and that letter1510remains unanswered. Our staff continues to not receive1511information on the affected projects or studies. I, along with1512members of the Maryland delegation, sent a letter following up,1513requesting Maryland-specific details, as these threatened1514cancellations impact the safety, flood protection, and economic1515well-being of communities across our State.1516    I see our time is tolling. So I want to ask two quick1517questions, whether the failure to respond, because I know you1518said transparency was important to you, communication was1519important to you, and whether or not you regard that as a break1520in that commitment, and whether or not we can have that1521commitment from you, that we will have the answer. It has been15224 months, we have no answer to it yet. We need that commitment.1523    Mr. Telle. Senator Alsobrooks, we had the longest shutdown1524in our Nation's history last fall. It was very unfortunate. It1525caused all kinds of problems for us in the delivery of what we1526do. It caused General Graham all kinds of problems. It was1527terribly unfortunate.1528    What I will say about projects is that we are assessing and1529reviewing all of our portfolio all the time. We empower our1530project managers, we empower our districts, our divisions,1531General Graham or me, if we see something going wrong with a1532project, to stop and take a look and make sure we get back on1533track.1534    This is normal, an everyday process within what we do to1535deliver good oversight and----1536    Senator Alsbrooks. Secretary, I know that I am going to get1537cutoff in a second here. When can we expect a response?1538    Mr. Telle. Senator Alsbrooks, we are happy to get you a1539response.1540    Senator Alsbrooks. Okay, perfect. Thank you.1541    Senator Capito. All right. Senator Blunt Rochester?1542    Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Chair Capito. And thank1543you so much to the witnesses for being here.1544    Some of my questions will probably just pick right up on my1545colleague's. First, I want to also say thank you for1546highlighting the focus on the vulnerabilities that we have with1547our critical infrastructure. I think that is something that we1548as a Congress need to pay particular attention to. Those1549vulnerabilities can be cyber, those vulnerabilities can be the1550elements. This is really, really important to all of us.1551    I wanted to start off by saying that during WRDA 2022 and1552WRDA 2024, I had the opportunity to work very closely with our1553former Chairman, Tom Carper, Chair Capito actually came to1554Delaware for a field hearing as well. Part of the work with1555Senator Carper was to authorize individual Environmental1556Infrastructure programs for each of Delaware's three counties.1557    As you know, the Environmental Infrastructure programs1558support local water, wastewater, and stormwater projects in1559partnership with non-Federal sponsors.1560    In conversations across my State, it is becoming clear that1561Delaware communities are having difficulty accessing funding1562for these programs. So Secretary Telle, how are you working to1563implement the Environmental Infrastructure authorities1564previously outlined in WRDA 2022 and 2024? What specific steps1565are you taking to make these projects more accessible to1566communities?1567    Mr. Telle. Senator Blunt Rochester, thank you. When it1568comes to the Environmental Infrastructure authorities, and1569funding that Congress has provided, we are going to follow the1570law.1571    I will point out that while there has been a lot of good1572that has come from that program in terms of supplementing local1573communities' water capacity, this type of project is one that1574has not been included in the Presidents' budgets, whether the1575President is a Republican or a Democrat. This is not something1576that has been prioritized in Presidents' budgets.1577    And there is a reason for that. It is because the Corps of1578Engineers is the greatest civil engineering entity that1579humanity has ever devised. There are municipal needs that are1580critical. We all want clean water and wastewater in every1581community in America.1582    I think the question that confronts us, confronts me, is1583that, whether or not we are going to use United States Army1584Corps of Engineers (USACE) engineering excellence on these1585municipal functions. I see Senator Kelly is here, and I think1586about NASA, the greatest space agency humanity has ever1587devised.1588    We would not expect NASA to be in charge of every county1589science fair. I think that is where I think administrations of1590both parties have seen environmental infrastructure.1591    With that said, there are needs out there that the Corps of1592Engineers can address. Congress asks, gives us authority to1593address them and the funding to address them, and we will1594follow the law. Quite often, that means contracting with the1595same providers that a municipality would contract with to1596deliver that service.1597    We do not have that inherent expertise within the Corps of1598Engineers, but we are happy to continue to follow the law and1599execute the funding that is provided by the Congress.1600    Senator Blunt Rochester. So, just to make sure I am clear,1601WRDA 2022 and WRDA 2024, this was the priority that we talked1602about. So are you saying, and when you compare NASA and a1603science fair, are you comparing the Corps with communities? Is1604that the analogy there, that you are saying municipalities,1605communities do not meet the standard of--I am just confused a1606little bit. I thought this was an easy question.1607    Mr. Telle. No, ma'am, I probably made it more complicated1608than I should have. The bottom line here is that for a long1609time, as administrations of both parties have racked and1610stacked the priorities for funding for the Corps, this type of1611activity has not risen to the top. This dates back decades.1612    With that said, this has been a priority for Congress. And1613because it is a priority for Congress, and Congress includes1614the laws that tell us to do that, we will do it.1615    Senator Blunt Rochester. Well, I will tell you, I meet with1616our League of Local Governments, I meet with our communities.1617We just did a beach tour, and we have communities that, in1618Lewes, Delaware, where they need to elevate sanitary pumps. So1619I want to make sure we are following the intention of what we1620as Senators and Congresspeople representing our constituents1621are following up on.1622    Which leads me to two other questions in followup to1623Senator Alsobrooks. In October, the Corps paused the $111624billion in projects, including two from Delaware. We have been1625having challenges getting updates on those programs, one being1626Oak Orchard.1627    I am sure that you probably can not tell me specifically1628right now, but I would love a commitment to get, by next week,1629an update on the Oak Orchard project. And also, I wanted to1630confirm with you, because I know there have been these pauses1631and you mentioned the shutdown, are the other paused projects,1632are they all from both Democratic and Republican States?1633    Mr. Telle. Ma'am, we do not--1634    Senator Blunt Rochester. I would hope you do not.1635    Mr. Telle [continuing]. classify States as Republican or1636Democrat. We look at--1637    Senator Blunt Rochester. Well, you understand what I am1638saying. Right now, unfortunately, I am going to hate to have to1639even ask this question, but unfortunately, we have actually1640seen where whole lists of States have been included on projects1641and they are only from States that represent Democratic1642Senators. So I just want to confirm, because I would assume you1643are non-partisan. And maybe I would ask that you also get back1644to me on that question as well.1645    Mr. Telle. Our concern is with the protection of the1646American public.1647    Senator Blunt Rochester. And so is ours.1648    Mr. Telle. And the American economy.1649    Senator Blunt Rochester. And so is ours. So, last, I will1650also just say again, we support the work of the Army Corps. My1651sister is an industrial engineer, my brother-in-law is a1652nuclear engineer, my husband was a mechanical aerospace1653engineer. So we understand how important engineering is, how1654important it is.1655    We also have a job to do here. We want to continue to work1656in partnership with you to make sure our communities and our1657States are also taken care of, especially in this very1658important time.1659    Thank you, and I yield back.1660    Senator Capito. Thank you.1661    Senator Kelly?1662    Senator Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you both for1663being here.1664    Mr. Telle, the Rio de Flag project at Flagstaff, it is1665designed to protect the city from flooding. We have bad1666wildfires in the region, we discussed this project during your1667nomination hearing.1668    It has hit the 902 limit. So for folks in the room that do1669not understand what that is, that means construction is on hold1670until the L.A. District completes a cost validation study, and1671then that study has to be reauthorized in some sort of water1672bill to restart construction. You know this, Mr. Telle.1673    The non-Federal sponsor has been told by the L.A. District1674that this report will be completed and submitted to Congress by1675May 2026, so in about three or 4 months, and in time to be1676included in this year's Water Bill.1677    So let me start with General Graham. Is that the timeline1678that you are tracking for completion of the validation study?1679    General Graham. Senator Kelly, thank you for that question.1680Yes, it is. The Director's report is scheduled to be on my desk1681May of this year.1682    Senator Kelly. So, Secretary Telle, will you then commit to1683making sure that this study is submitted in time for WRDA 2026?1684    Mr. Telle. Senator Kelly, I believe, and I will check with1685the Chairman, that May 26th will be sufficient time to have1686that included in WRDA 2026. I would also point out, this is a1687project that is affected by real estate issues related to1688railroads, as you well know.1689    Senator Kelly. Yes.1690    Mr. Telle. This is an issue that part of our Building1691Infrastructure, Not Paperwork initiative about how do we solve1692some of these local real estate challenges, railroads are a big1693one. I think we can work with the railroad industry to have a1694better, nationwide, to have a better working relationship that1695will help projects just like this one.1696    Senator Kelly. Well, that is great. That is good news. It1697will be in time for WRDA 2026.1698    Similar issue, the Winslow Levee Project. Right now, the1699entire city of Winslow is in a flood plain. This project, this1700levee system will fix that.1701    So let me quickly go through the timeline here. In 2020,1702Congress authorized the project. In 2022, I secured the full1703Federal match for the project. In 2024, the Arizona1704legislature, they stepped up and provided the full local match1705for the project.1706    Once again, like the other one, this hit the 902 limit,1707which means construction can not start.1708    General Graham, when do you expect that the validation1709study for this one, the Winslow Levee Project, will be1710completed? And will this be in time for WRDA 2026?1711    General Graham. Senator Kelly, direct answer, no. I do not1712believe that we will be able to get the documentation for a PAC1713up here in that time. Let me explain that.1714    It was authorized, and this is behavior that we are working1715under Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork. This is behavior1716we are trying to prevent. It got authorized at roughly 51717percent design. So, shockingly, when we start to actually put1718the real engineering behind what it is going to take better1719protect Winslow, we realize that, well, there is more and that1720more is going to be more expensive, and in a different place.1721    Acknowledge absolutely that the other challenge here is1722that it is a ring levee basically around the town. So we can1723not just come up with, let's just do a little piece, because1724eventually the water will surround it. So we have to do this1725the whole thing.1726    So that behavior of asking for authorization for projects1727when we don' have enough engineering to give you what a good1728cost estimate is, I own that. We are working hand in hand with1729the Secretary's office to fix that.1730    We will see if we can beat, well, we are not going to make1731it, WRDA 2026. We will make a commitment to make WRDA 2028 with1732the information--1733    Senator Kelly. Is there anything that the local sponsor1734should have done differently here? This is frustrating, because1735it feels like they did everything right, and now we are in this1736downward spiral of--1737    General Graham. Senator Kelly, that is on us. We own that.1738We have to work hand-in-hand with the local sponsors. We will1739see if there are some options where they might be able to1740provide funds. To try to get this over here by the end of May,1741I do not believe that we are going to make it. I understand1742that is a challenge for this community, that they are1743vulnerable. We will continue to work with a great sense of1744urgency to do everything we can to offer protection.1745    Senator Kelly. How many projects nationwide are currently1746under 902 reviews?1747    General Graham. Senator, the number I have in my head is174829.1749    Senator Kelly. And what do you think that is as a1750percentage of all projects?1751    General Graham. We have thousands of projects, Senator.1752    Senator Kelly. So it does not feel like a high percentage?1753    General Graham. Every one of those is a commitment we have1754made to this committee and we are not delivering on it. So1755those are unacceptable. As part of Building Infrastructure, Not1756Paperwork, we are going to take a look at every one of those1757902 busts to see why we have had to come back.1758    A lot of this is going to be, we have it authorized with1759immature engineering. Some of it is we just do not have the1760right team on it. So we will take a look at that. And if that1761is the case, we will move it to a different team or different1762district.1763    Senator Kelly. Yes, but it seems like with this one,1764especially, it is going to be a scenario where to get it1765reauthorized, it is going to take more time. And in that period1766of time, cost is going to go up, and then it is going to hit a1767902 limit again, and then it is going to get reauthorized1768again, and new engineer and cost estimates. And you wind up1769spiraling, and you never get the project done.1770    General Graham. That is the spiral of doom that the1771Secretary and I are working with to get the Corps out of.1772    Senator Kelly. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam1773Chair.1774    Senator Lummis. [Presiding.] The Chair thanks the member1775from Arizona.1776    The Acting Chair recognizes herself next. Gentlemen, thank1777you so much for being here.1778    I have a couple of questions. I am going to start with one1779about algae blooms. In my State of Wyoming, we struggle with1780algae blooms in our reservoirs. These are working reservoirs,1781so they support irrigation, drinking water, fisheries, and1782recreation. These harmful algae blooms that we have result in1783costly delays for communities and recreation.1784    So through WRDA 2024 implementation, what have you learned1785about preventing and responding to harmful algae blooms,1786especially in western reservoirs? And the question is posed to1787both or either of you who wishes to respond.1788    General Graham. Senator Lummis, thank you for that1789question. I wish that algal blooms were only confined to the1790western States, but we certainly have this throughout the1791Country. It is a large challenge to all water resources1792agencies, to include the Corps. We are very thankful for this1793committee and for Congress to give us authority to do research1794and development on how to prevent these algal blooms.1795    We break this down into a couple of buckets. One is figure1796out how to detect them at the earliest stage possible, see what1797we can then do to prevent them, and then efforts to manage1798them. We are looking to find solutions that are scalable to the1799large reservoirs out in the western States.1800    We have some ongoing R&D efforts in the western States, and1801we have some potential research opportunities in the future,1802pending available funding.1803    Senator Lummis. Do you ever work with groups like the1804National Science Foundation, or other research-oriented1805government agencies to kind of double your efforts on things1806like algae?1807    General Graham. Senator Lummis, we absolutely do work as a1808Federal family on that. Secretary Telle and I, when we leave1809this hearing, we are going to fly down to Mississippi. We are1810going to go to our large research lab in Vicksburg,1811Mississippi, where they are doing a lot of the cutting edge1812research on this.1813    Those researchers there are incredibly well tied into the1814rest of the Federal family, as well as the State level.1815    Senator Lummis. Thank you. Go with God on this one. It is1816an important issue to address in our Nation. Thanks for your1817attention to that.1818    Now I want to talk a little bit about snowpack, especially1819this year where we are in real trouble in the Colorado River1820Basin and elsewhere, due to a historic lack of snowfall. And of1821course, Wyoming's water supply depends heavily on snowpack and1822runoff forecasting.1823    How does the Corps utilize soil moisture and snowpack1824monitoring authorities to improve long-term water supply1825forecasting and drought preparedness? We are into, I think1826here, like 20 or 21 in terms of non-historically low flows into1827the Colorado River Basin in particular.1828    Mr. Telle. Senator Lummis, this is a critically important1829point. One of the techniques that we use, we have been using1830for quite some time, is called forecast informed reservoir1831operations. This is where we take an existing piece of1832infrastructure, we look at the weather, we look at what is1833headed our way, and we can make risk informed decisions about1834how to operate a reservoir to squeeze the most water out of it1835for water supply purposes, or hold the most water back for1836flood risk mitigation purposes.1837    I was out in California recently and some communities in1838California were talking to me about how actually snowpack1839monitoring can be even more critical to the operation of their1840dam than forecast informed reservoir operations. The technique1841that is done here is to fly LiDAR when there is no snow on the1842mountains, then fly LiDAR with the snow on the mountains. We1843are able better than ever to understand the snow that is there,1844or the lack thereof.1845    So this is critically important, because our infrastructure1846operators need as much information as they can possibly have,1847especially when water supply is low or floods are imminent, to1848make decisions that do not waste water when we need it, or that1849do not release water when there is too much of it.1850    This is a place where we have a lot of work to do in terms1851of the R&D. We are working on it right now at the facility that1852General Graham just referenced. It is a place, we can do a lot1853more of this to make better use of the infrastructure that we1854have.1855    General Graham, do you want to add anything?1856    General Graham. Senator Lummis, just to add, we certainly1857are tracking the no-to low-snowpack out on the Plains and the1858Upper Missouri watershed and the Upper Colorado watershed are1859of great concern to all of us. Our water managers are watching1860that really closely. Thank you for that question.1861    Senator Lummis. Thank you for your responses. I look1862forward to working with you and other Federal agencies who can1863provide guidance, expertise, scientific research and answers1864for those of us who are struggling with these important issues.1865    Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today, and for your1866service.1867    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.1868Schiff.1869    Senator Schiff. Thank you, Madam Chair.1870    I want to reiterate I think what has said by some of my1871colleagues earlier, we want to arrive at another WRDA1872reauthorization bill. They have been typically very bipartisan.1873When projects are canceled on a partisan basis, a political1874basis, it obviously makes it very difficult to get to agreement1875on a new bill, if we can not assume that what we appropriate1876money for is actually going to be spent and utilized.1877    Along those lines, last year the Army Corps of Engineers1878canceled several flood control projects for, in particular, in1879California and others in Washington State. It looked like what1880we have seen in the cancellation of energy projects and other1881projects, like it was targeting Blue States.1882    So let me ask you, General, what was the rationale for1883canceling four California flood projects last year?1884    General Graham. Senator, what I am tracking on this, there1885were four projects on the Sacramento River that had an excess1886carryover of funds. They carried them in from last year into1887this year. And when we receive money, the Corps of Engineers,1888we are supposed to obligate, put that money to use that year.1889And we had not done that.1890    So those four projects were using that carryover money and1891putting that to work now.1892    Senator Schiff. General, is it your testimony that it just1893happened to be in California and Washington State, two Blue1894States, that you found carryover funding that you could cancel?1895That that was not the case in any other State in the Union?1896    General Graham. Senator, I will defer to the Assistant1897Secretary for a broader discussion of that. Those four1898projects, it was carryover funding that we were not using, or1899we had not put that money to use that last year. So asking for1900more money when we had not used last year's, and that amount of1901work we would not get to in this current year.1902    Senator Schiff. Are you going to use that money this year?1903    General Graham. The $332 million, yes.1904    Senator Schiff. So those four flood control projects will1905go forward?1906    General Graham. Yes.1907    Senator Schiff. And I have your word on that?1908    General Graham. Yes.1909    Senator Schiff. Let me ask you about something you gave1910your word on last year, and that is the flood control project1911in the L.A. River Ecosystem Restoration Project. Last1912September, I think you testified in front of the House1913Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that the PAC,1914Post Authorization Change Report for the L.A. River Ecosystem1915Project would be completed in time for WRDA 2026.1916    Although funding for this project is congressionally1917appropriated, and expressly designated for this specific1918purpose, we are now hearing that the court has halted work and1919funding for the project. I understand from your testimony1920earlier that they have given us a justification for reneging on1921the commitment from last September that real estate costs have1922gone up in the region.1923    Why is not that clearly incorporated into the report? Why1924is that a reason for not issuing the report?1925    General Graham. Senator Schiff, thanks. And absolutely, we1926are not able to deliver on the commitment I made to Congress1927just back in September. We are not going to be able to get that1928PAC or justification document in front of this committee for1929WRDA 2026.1930    I walked that project at least twice over the last 5 years.1931This is one of those challenging projects at the USACE level,1932at the non-Federal sponsor level, and we can not just seem to1933get it together. Everybody understands that nobody wants a1934giant concrete trapezoidal ditch in their back yard. And there1935is so much opportunity here in downtown Los Angeles to achieve1936the benefits that this project is intended to pursue.1937    The real estate costs are over $3 billion.1938    Senator Schiff. General, they did not balloon just in1939September. Right? We are just talking about a few months ago.1940So why was it possible in September that led you to believe to1941the point of committing to getting it done in September. And1942now you are telling us you are not going to meet that1943commitment.1944    Are you testifying here that real estate prices changed1945that much since September, that this is the sole reason this is1946happening?1947    General Graham. Senator, real estate, that is not the sole1948reason. It is a huge reason. And part of it is the larger1949acknowledgement on the Corps' part that these large, challenged1950projects, we really have to come up with a viable plan. I am1951struggling to come up with a viable way forward on L.A. River1952Ecosystem.1953    Senator Schiff. I guess what I am asking, General, and I1954will be very blunt about it, is this rationale about real1955estate costs since September in fact the reason why this PAC1956report is not going to be completed? Or has there been a1957political decision made not to go forward with this project?1958    Senator Lummis. The gentleman's time has expired, but you1959may answer.1960    Senator Schiff. I would ask the General to answer.1961    General Graham. Senator, we are not political, as you well1962know. My struggle with this project is just putting the pieces1963together to move it forward.1964    Senator Schiff. So you have not been given a political1965instruction to cancel the project?1966    General Graham. No, sir. No.1967    Senator Schiff. Thank you, Madam Chair.1968    Senator Lummis. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from1969Alaska, Mr. Sullivan.1970    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair.1971    Mr. Secretary, General thanks for being here. Thanks for1972your responsiveness on a whole host of issues.1973    Mr. Secretary, I know you remember this in your1974confirmation hearing, the President's Executive Order on1975Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential, the only1976State in the Country that has its own EO, a lot of it to1977reverse the previous administration's lockdown of Alaska.1978    And when I asked you a question about all the different1979directions you guys are getting, Corps of Engineers, you had1980probably one of the best answers I have ever heard in a1981confirmation hearing in my career. You said, Senator, ``I have1982already tattooed that section of the EO on my heart.'' That is1983pretty good.1984    So, is that still tattooed on your heart?1985    Mr. Telle. Senator, I read it last night, in fact.1986    Senator Sullivan. From your heart?1987    Mr. Telle. Honestly. Yes. No, I don not even have to use1988paper anymore.1989    Senator Sulivan. Okay. Well, look. Let me first compliment1990you guys. You know I am going to go to the Juneau issue,1991because it is a really, really, really big issue. And I will1992admit, it is a challenging issue. It is actually the kind of1993issue that Corps of Engineers is perfectly designed for, when1994you look at the Corps' history. Because it is literally1995thousands of homes being flooded every summer, probably happen1996again this summer. This very kind of unique glacier outburst1997that happens every summer.1998    By the way, it is incredible that no one has been killed.1999Because I have been out there the last two summers right after2000this has happened, talked to the homeowners, talked to some2001just a couple of days ago when I was in Juneau.2002    And it is remarkable, particularly two summers ago. Middle2003of the night, giant flood, freezing water, all over and nobody2004was killed. Thank God. Alot of property is at risk and2005currently at risk.2006    So I want to compliment you initially, because you guys2007have been very responsive. You have been responsive, Mr.2008Secretary, General, you and your team, when I asked you guys to2009work on this last year around this time, you got the Hesco2010barriers up quick, which by the way, saved the whole community.2011It is kind of amazing, you saw how close the flood--those Hesco2012barriers worked, right? We want to keep that without jinxing2013it. Because we are probably going to need them again this2014summer.2015    And then you, when the flood happened, you guys surged your2016brigadier general. I went out there, they were there for a2017week. It was really, really, really good.2018    And then I was in Juneau just last week, met with the2019Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Secretary, I read them the text that2020you sent me. So I appreciated the text, too. And your test2021said, hey, we are working on this, we want to make sure that it2022is a quicker solution than some of the things we are looking2023at.2024    Now, but just lately, I will tell you, this was an article2025from the Juneau Independent yesterday. Madam Chair, I would2026like to submit this for the record. It is a giant issue, as you2027can imagine, in Juneau.2028    Can I submit this for the record?2029    Senator Lummis. Without objection, so ordered.2030    [The referenced information follows:]20312032[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]20332034    Senator Sullivan. So, and it says, U.S. Corps of Engineers2035Rescinds Promise to Pursue Lake Tap as Long-Term Flood2036Solution, ``Disheartening pivot leaves Juneau leaders `a bit2037speechless' as assessment of worst case flood scenario rises2038significantly.''2039    So, look, a lot of times things happen where the2040transparency is not as good as it should be. Now, there is real2041frustration in the community. In December, the lake tap became2042as the preferred option. People thought there was momentum2043building. And the concern is, in Juneau, is the Corps has2044pulled back on quiet without clearly explaining the changes in2045direction to the community.2046    So what I want to do here is I want to be able to put that2047issue to rest. I know people in Juneau are literally watching2048this hearing. It is that big of a deal. There is a real2049frustration in the community.2050    And I think with transparency--and look, I trust you guys,2051right? You have been on it. And a clear path forward with2052tangible progress on a long-term solution.2053    Can you confirm to me the Corps is fully committed to2054delivering a durable, long-term solution to Juneau as quickly2055as possible? And that we are also ready for the short-term,2056right? Because again, we are probably going to have, there are2057estimates of record flooding again this summer.2058    And then finally, we are working on the WRDA bill. And I2059guarantee you, my colleagues here, because I have explained2060this to them, on both sides of the aisle, if you guys have big2061asks in the WRDA bill, hey, Senator, we are going to need this2062special thing for Juneau, I have already talked to the Chairman2063and the committee.2064    I think both my Democrat and Republican colleagues would be2065flexible with me to get you authorities that you need to really2066attack this, including the money, which will be significant. On2067the other hand, like I said, this is what the Corps of2068Engineers is designed for. We have people who are going to be2069flooded every summer, up to thousands of people in the2070Mendenhall Valley.2071    So can both of you talk about that? Look, a lot of times I2072think my colleagues know, and Madam Chair, if you will just2073work with me here, I know I am going over my time limit, but2074this is a really important issue, you know, I will come and I2075will rip the hell out of witnesses, does not matter Democrat or2076Republican, when I think they are not keeping their word.2077    I do not think that's the case with you guys. I have a lot2078of faith in you, Mr. Secretary, General. Both of you. I know2079you have been really committed to this. And I do not fully2080understand why, because I was just in Juneau, there is this2081perception that things are going dark, people are nervous2082again, that the Corps is not engaged.2083    I just want you to A, be able to clear that up, and again,2084once again commit to me, hey, we are going to work this, this2085is a challenging issue but we will it with speed, time,2086urgency, short-term, medium-term, and long-term, kind of like2087what your text said.2088    And I did read the text. And by the way, I appreciated the2089text. You knew I was going to Juneau. I told you and your team,2090hey, I want to be able to clarify this.2091    So maybe it will take maybe another meeting, a Zoom meeting2092or something with leadership in the Juneau community, me, you2093guys. I kind of want to put this to rest. Because I know you2094are committed, but the transparency, and look, people get2095nervous, right? If it were your home getting ready to be2096flooded for the third summer in a row, geez Louise, I would be2097nervous, right?2098    So a lot of people are stressed about this. And I have2099committed to them, my team and I have been working on this very2100diligently. I think you have too. It would be a really good2101opportunity right now for both of you to kind of clear this up.2102And again, we need more, it is kind of perfect timing, we are2103working on WRDA right now, this is the kind of thing we can get2104into that.2105    So, Mr. Secretary, can you address that first? I know you2106knew I was going to ask about it. And this is not like fake2107news, right? This came out in the paper yesterday. People who2108really want to work with you are very concerned that there is,2109it is kind of going dark.2110    Senator Lummis. The gentleman's time is expired. I do ask2111the witnesses to respond.2112    Senator Sullivan. Madam Chair, if I can just--2113    Senator Lummis. Absolutely.2114    Senator Sullivan. Because there is no one else here, and2115this is important to me and my constituents.2116    Mr. Telle. Senator Sullivan and Madam Chairman, you will2117have to indulge me because I have a lot to say.2118    Senator Sullivan. Good.2119    Mr. Telle. Senator Sullivan, when you and I have talked2120about this in the past, in private and in public, every time, I2121have told you that I am committed to delivering the short,2122medium, long-term option.2123    Senator Sulivan. And your text said that as well.2124    Mr. Telle. I have been very consistent. I testified before2125this committee and said that very thing the last time I was2126here, in September.2127    That continues to be true. I will say it again, and I will2128make sure that our entire enterprise can hear me, I will make2129sure that the Pacific Oceans Division can hear me and the2130Alaska District can hear me. We are committed to a short,2131medium, and long-term solution for the challenge that faces2132Juneau. This is a unique challenge that is caused by glacial2133outburst flooding. Something that, as you said, is a technical2134challenge.2135    Senator Sulivan. It is.2136    Mr. Telle. It is very difficult.2137    I mean, in my office in the Pentagon, I have maps of2138Juneau, Alaska spread out on my table. I know how Suicide2139Glacier intersects with Mendenhall Glacier, and I know the2140flood pool at the base of Mendenhall Glacier. I know the outlet2141that runs on the west side of Juneau.2142    General Graham and I talk about this almost every day.2143    Senator Sullivan. Good.2144    Mr. Telle. We have some work to do, because we have to make2145sure that our Pacific Oceans Division and our Alaska District2146understand the President's Executive Order which you2147referenced. I think part of Building Infrastructure, Not2148Paperwork, an initiative that we rolled out this week, is about2149freeing our commanders and our engineers from assumptions.2150Sometimes we ask the question of our engineers, hey, the only2151laws I want you to focus on right now are the laws of physics.2152Then we can talk about how we can work within the authorities2153and the laws that this committee provides to deliver for the2154public.2155    And that is the case here. We have to think about the laws2156of physics first. Because this is going to require a solution2157that is going to be unique. That is why long, medium, and2158short, short, medium, and long is critical in this situation.2159Because long is going to be too long.2160    Senator Sullivan. Yes.2161    By the way, your text, I appreciate your text. Your text2162said, hey, we are looking at this hard, because some of the2163solutions, you said this to me in your text, I think will take2164too long and I do not want it to be that long. So I appreciated2165that sentiment.2166    Mr. Telle. Yes, sir, and I will just say, I mean, just to2167give you an example and to give some relief to the citizens of2168Juneau who are worried about this, I met with the city of2169Fargo, North Dakota yesterday. Wonderful community. Perhaps as2170much as any community in America. They had a flood issue in2171Fargo, and they worked with us to figure out a public-private2172partnership that was unlike any solution that we have ever2173experienced.2174    I asked the Mayor of Fargo, I said, hey, Fargo and Juneau,2175you know, similar latitudes, similar size towns, critically2176important, would you mind mentoring and providing the St. Paul2177District, can we go up to Juneau, can we get on a Zoom?2178    So I just want you to know, I am trying to use some of the2179most creative processes that we have ever employed to help the2180people of Juneau. I think, Senator Sullivan, we plan to be out2181there in the next few weeks to focus on this issue.2182    Senator Sulivan. Good.2183    Mr. Telle. General Kelly and I were just talking about our2184plans to head out there and work with General Goetz and Colonel2185Palazzini out there. We have to get on the same page across the2186four layers of our organization, and make sure that we are2187delivering a reliable answer to you and the citizens of Juneau.2188This is a top priority for us.2189    General Graham, I know you have other--2190    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you,2191Madam Chair, for indulging me on these long questions and2192answers. They are just really important. And it is a really,2193really, really big issue to my constituents. I want to give2194them assurance.2195    And look, I think a lot of this is miscommunication both2196within the Fed department and some of the Alaskans. Also2197probably within the Corps of Engineers, too, and I am glad you2198mentioned not just you guys headquarters here, but the Pacific2199Division and Hawaii and Alaska Division in Alaska.2200    General Graham. Senator Sullivan, if I could just add.2201    Senator Sullivan. Yes, please, General.2202    Senator Lummis. Very briefly.2203    General Graham. Yes, ma'am.2204    Senator Lummis. Thank you.2205    General Graham. I think this is actually, where we are at2206right now is that we were working collaboratively. Everybody2207was seeing our homework, but that homework is not done.2208    Senator Sullivan. Okay.2209    General Graham. So that is my sense in this. The guidance I2210gave the district is, it is too soon to take any options off2211the table, because what we are wrestling with most here is2212time.2213    Senator Sullivan. Yes.2214    General Graham. As you heard the city engineer talk2215yesterday, the floods might get up to 22.5 feet. And that is2216well over what the Hescos can do.2217    Senator Sullivan. I know. We have to figure that one out.2218It is pretty scary.2219    General Graham. So the initial, this is just base, base,2220base, rough, rough order of magnitude engineering, was 6 years2221for a tunnel, Okay? I'm going to put a whole bunch of2222contingency time on digging a tunnel through solid rock. And in2223Arctic conditions.2224    So maybe somewhere between six to 10 years. And when will2225the current barriers be overwhelmed? So then as Mr. Telle spoke2226to, we have to look at an intermediate solution.2227    Senator Sullivan. Yes.2228    General Graham. To see what efficacy that might have.2229Because the time and money we can do everything, this, I am2230really concerned that we juts do not have enough time.2231    So that is the engineering that this report is going to lay2232out, which is, how much time do we have, and then we will take2233a look at all of those options, all five of those options, to2234see what is best going to serve those 2,855 homes that are down2235in that valley.2236    Senator Sullivan. Yes, Okay. Well, look, I appreciate both2237of your commitment, your focus. I will relay this to my2238constituents back home. It will be good to get everybody2239together.2240    And thank you, you have been responsive. And sometimes we2241get communication gaps and people are nervous, and I do not2242blame them for being nervous. This is a good answer, good2243hearing, Madam Chair. I am sorry I went so long. It is a super2244important issue for me.2245    We will continue to work with you guys. The need for sped,2246short, medium, long-term. And again on the WRDA side, let us2247know if you need authorities or money to get this going. We are2248drafting up the bill right now, and I am very confident I can2249get stuff relating to Juneau in the legislation.2250    Thank you again. Thank you, Madam Chair.2251    Senator Lummis. The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member,2252Senator Whitehouse, who I understand is joining us virtually2253today. He is snowed in, in his home State. And if you are2254available to us virtually, Senator Whitehouse, you are now2255recognized.2256    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chair Lummis. I appreciate2257it.2258    I just wanted to close out with my gratitude to the EPW2259team for allowing me to participate remotely. I am looking out2260my window right now, and guess what? We are having more snow.2261It could not get better.2262    So, we will see when I get down there, but I really2263appreciate everyone courtesy.2264    Mr. Telle, I am grateful that you are focusing more on the2265coastal aspect, and I would just make the observation that the2266additional spending and additional work and attention on2267coastal supplemental spending is probably a sign that the2268baseline is not up to snuff at this point, that it takes an2269emergency to get that attention to the coast. I look forward to2270working with you to try to get that solved once and for all.2271    I think you also heard there is an array of communications2272problems, particularly down our side of the aisle. So every2273step that you can take to improve the Army Corps' communication2274with us would be appreciated.2275    Thanks very much, Madam Chair. And thank you both, to Mr.2276Telle and to the General.2277    Senator Lummis. Question for you, Senator Whitehouse. Can2278you tell us a little bit about what you have experienced in2279this blizzard, and how it is affecting your State?2280    Senator Whitehouse. It is the biggest snowfall in Rhode2281Island history. There was the legendary East Coast Blizzard of22821978. We have blown through that.2283    As I mentioned in the beginning, the guy who usually plows2284my driveway got snowed in and could not get his plow out. Last2285night, a fairly good-sized pickup truck with a plow supported2286by a front-end loader were unable to get through the2287accumulated snow. They got about 50 feet, 60 feet into the2288driveway and then that all came to an end.2289    So, it is very unusual conditions. It just requires, in2290order to clear things, much bigger equipment than most people2291have. A lot of people in Rhode Island expect snow, and they2292have a pickup, and they have a snow plow and they go around and2293plow things. This is overwhelming that cohort of response.2294    The big equipment is what is needed, and there is a lot of2295demand for it, obviously, a lot of side streets still not2296plowed. So people are getting through it, because we do. It is2297a very unusual situation for Rhode Island to be in. I think the2298Providence measure was 37 inches of snow, and then of course,2299it blows around. So a lot of places it is more than 37 inches.2300    Senator Lummis. Well, we wish you and your colleagues,2301Senator, a speedy recovery. Mother Nature is an awesome,2302awesome sister.2303    Senator Whitehouse. She sure is.2304    Senator Lummis. We, again, thank you for participating2305virtually.2306    With no further questions, I would like to thank the2307witnesses and all my colleagues for your participation in2308today's hearing. Senators who wish to submit written requests2309for the record have until 5 p.m. on Wednesday, March 11th, to2310do so. The witnesses' responses to those questions are due back2311to the committee no later than 5 p.m. on Wednesday, March 25th,2312and will be submitted for the record.2313    With that, and our thanks again to the witnesses, this2314hearing is adjourned.2315    [Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]23162317[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]23182319                              [all]